Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 November 9 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contagonist[edit]

Contagonist (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)

Neologism; as the article states "The term contagonist was coined by Dramatica.com" and I can't see usage in reliable sources. TheGrappler (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Penn State[edit]

Radio Free Penn State (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)

Radio program on a college radio station. No evidence of notability. Having notable guests doesn't make a radio program notable. GrapedApe (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shows appearing only on student radio are virtually never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree entirely with Lenahan. WKPS is a 100 watt station that, like a lot of university stations, relies on cable to reach the campus. The "hey, look at what we did" achievements can be mentioned in the station article. Mandsford 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exotics Racing School[edit]

Exotics Racing School (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 was a candidate for G11. Is now a substantial recreation of the original article with no sources to help establish notability PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the Las Vegas Sun reference is solid. I found a passing reference in USA Today. The article can be improved to eliminate spamishness and to add more sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep COI issues will still need copyediting and I can understand the concerns over spam claims. To justify this article for retention we seem to have two points left that it must still achieve:
  • Adequate multiple third-party refs? LV Sun is one, can we get another? What's the USA Today ref and can that be added?
  • Does it pass WP:MILL? Although running a racing school is probably more fun than most of us get in our day jobs, it's still just what racing schools do. Is this a notable racing school that has achieved more coverage than is due simply by being a business carrying on its normal tasks.
Incidentally, photographs. If this is a hugely COI promotional article, then the least we can expect is for its authors to upload some good images for it! And that means freely-licensed images to Wikimedia Commons, for the benfit of the whole project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. TwiceThrice-speedied already[1][2]: why is this at AfD? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, why is an article that two editors at AfD are inclined to keep being considered for speedy?
COI, yes. However that's a new editor unfamiliar with the arcane nature of WP and we still have to assume GF, even on newbies with businesses. What this ought to come down to is not how did it get here, but is this article an appropriate encyclopedic article on a notable topic? Anything else is a fix-up by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did I nominate it for SD? How about because it is reposted spam that had already been speedied three times and meets the criteria for speedy deletion? A clueless new user is one thing: an SPA who repeatedly reposts a spam article about his company after being told there's a problem with that is not simply a clueless new user, is not interested in getting the point, is not interested in building an encyclopedia, and is not interested in much, it appears, except using Wikipedia as a platform to advertise his company. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Racing schools has 10 entries. Do we need to purge those too, or is there some distinguishing characteristic that makes some schools notable, others not? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those ten, only one, Buck Baker Racing School had adequate refs. Another has one ref, the rest are all now tagged as unreferenced. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Notability_standards_for_racing_schools.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significantly better sources can be found. The Las Vegas Sun piece is almost certainly a straight copy of a press release from the company: it doesn't appear to have an author, and it reads as promotional puff. WP:NOTABILITY says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability [...] The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself [...] have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." 4u1e (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:4ule and at least one of the references goes towards establish the notability of the owner rather than the business. If a noted celebrity purchases a coffee shop, that does not transfer notability to the coffee shop. Perhaps the alternative action might be to move the article to Romain Thievin and re-write according to the more noteworthy aspect of the article. If the authoring edittor continues to re-spawn deleted articles then a block is additionally worthy of consideration. --Falcadore (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As failing to gain significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A single writeup in the Las Vegas Sun is essentially local coverage about a business that opened in the City. I see no wider coverage of any sort. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Non-Admin Closure, withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete votes ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Rand Limited[edit]

First Rand Limited (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:NOTE, possibly promotional. At first, I feared a copyvio, but it does not appear to be the case. Problem w/the refs. Of the 4 refs provided, 2 are from the company website; refs 3 & 4 are the same Google Finance page result. I am not seeing notability established. The Eskimo (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as Nom: I withdraw my deletion nomination for this article. Ref's have been added as well as inter-Wiki links, and, quite honestly, after reviewing the list of banks in Africa and Europe, I believe my understanding of the notability threshold for banks was incorrect, and is perhaps lower than for corporations. Whatever the case, I would support admin closure as keep, as I am uncertain if it is correct to simply remove the deletion tag myself. The Eskimo (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSTC HMCS Acadia[edit]

CSTC HMCS Acadia (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 cadet training facility lacking in reliable sources and significant independent coverage per WP:MILMOS/N and WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the HMCS Acadia article, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't seem notable, nor covered significantly in reliable sources. I'm not entirely against a merge, but I'm not sure about the viability of the suggested merge target as it seems essentially just a dab page that really only exists because this one exists. I'm open to changing my mind after clarification, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment HMCS Acadia is not a dab page, it's a WP:SETINDEX page (a {{shipindex}}), it's supposed to be a compact list with a short definition accompanying each entry. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure I really understand the difference between a dab and an index page (they seem to serve the same purpose to me), but that's my failing, I guess. Anyway, I'm still not really convinced that it is an appropriate merge target. If there has really only been one ship of the name, why would there be a need for an index page? Surely the merge target would be the actual ship that bore the name in the first place (i.e CSS Acadia)? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per AR. I share his view and his willingness to reconsider the merge. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ships are notable. Shore establishments are notable. The Canadian Navy gets to decide that this is indeed one of its shore establishments. According to Google, people are more likely to be searching for information about this Arcadia than the WWII ship. It would defeat the purpose of the Wikipedia if it were not listed as one of the ships of the name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFAIK this isn't either though. It is a cadet training facility named after the ship. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently not. It appears to carry the name and honours of the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That put the cat amoung the pigeons... IMO this isn't clear from the article, but if it can be established that would be enough to make it notable. Can you please add that to the article with a reference? Ultimately the major issue with this article is that it currently lacks reliable sources and significant independent coverage, so if this could be included then its no longer an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the article says. I was looking for a reliable source at the official page. It says On July 29, 1978, HMCS ACADIA was officially recommissioned at CFB Cornwallis It has the HMCS in front of its name, and the same badge as the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading between the lines that would seem to be the implication, but I'm still unclear on one aspect: are Sea Cadet facilities commissioned shore establishments in the Canadian Navy or do they have some other status? Anotherclown (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Wrong venue; discussion is now taking place here. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergeist IV: In The Shadows[edit]

Poltergeist IV: In The Shadows (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 doesn't exist; article exists only as a redirect to another article with no mention of non-existent subject Minaker (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy redirect, withdrawn by nom, NAC Gigs (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Coy[edit]

Randi Coy (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 outside of this one reality show. This article overlaps almost completely My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance. Redirecting it there was challenged. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keith Pepperell[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. There are some good arguments here on both sides. However, given the number of keep arguments from single purpose accounts, I think this would be a contentious close, even 13-1 in favour of keep. The reason I make this close is that I notice that a concerted effort has begun to rewrite the article at Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. Once a new version of the article has been created, any editor can bring the new version to AfD if they think it prudent/necessary. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SemEval[edit]

SemEval (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 why this series of workshops is notable or significant. "Sources" provided deal more with the methodology of the topic at hand, and do not appear to be supporting arguments for this topic to be notable. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval-1. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Automatic semantic analysis is an area that is becoming more and more important in natural language processing research, and the availability of datasets is central to this effort. SemEval has been important especially in making datasets available for a variety of semantic processing tasks, often being the first to point out an important new task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.244.46 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 24.155.244.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: SemEval is an important series of conferences that have been influential in the development of the field of computational semantic analysis. This page is the only place that summarises all information about the SemEval events that have run to date and provides a comprehensive overview. Pages exist for similar conference series such as TREC and MUC. 14:08, 9 November 2010 (GMT) northernLinguist — northernLinguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • SemEval has five published proceedings, is cited by hundreds of papers and has led to several special journal issues (referenced in the article). I believe that this demonstrates notability. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: SemEval is the primary semantic evaluation forum in the field of Computational Linguistics, with 100 papers at the last iteration alone; it is the primary activity of ACL's Special Interest Group on the Lexicon (SIGLEX), and an ongoing activity which has been growing every year PimmyP (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — PimmyP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per this article and several of the references therein. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics, the sponsor. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Association for Computational Linguistics, If for some bizare reason if its kept on its own it needs to be stubified as its pretty darn spammy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SemEval is an important series of workshops in the field of Computational Linguistics and there is too much information to merge with the ACL page. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too much volume, you mean. —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frankly there alot here but very little of it is within the WP:MOS, what little prose there is can be merged. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you be more specific? I don't see anything in WP:MOS that argues against putting information in tables, if that is what is bothering you. Francis Bond (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe the comment refers to the high number of inline hyperlinks and such. If you look at earlier revisions of the article (like when this AfD was created), the article was truly horrific, MOS-speaking. It's slightly better now. — Timneu22 · talk 01:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It look identical to me, not to mention WP:EL, WP:JARGON, I cant read the damn thing. Not to mention a single source as the nom talks about the topic. It appears to be straight WP:OR and WP:SPAM masqauading as an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't disagree. It's still pretty bad, just not as bad. — Timneu22 · talk 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems to me that all of the external links fall into this permitted category Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. The only original research is a synthesis of existing material, which is part of writing an encyclopaedia article. All the links are part of a summary that tells us more about the workshops, and lead to more information for those who want more. This follows the guidelines in WP:SPAM If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.. Technically the link is followed by the facts, but that is just because it is in a table. So I am afraid I can't agree that it is either original research or spam. I agree that the article is fairly technical, but that in itself is not an argument for deletion, only for more editing. Francis Bond (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So who's looking for an encyclopedic understanding of a series of workshops? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there is third-party coverage in reliable sources to show that the workshops are notable as events, then keep the page. Scholarly work by workshop participants, which is what the current reference section offers, is not, however, evidence of the notability of the workshops themselves. The references cited are excellent sources for understanding word-sense disambiguation, but this page purports to describe SemEval workshops as such, not the scientific/scholarly understandings that grow out of them or otherwise relate to them. I would say that best references for the workshops as workshops would be non-scholarly sources such as newspapers or semi-scholarly work such as Science Daily or Chronicle of Higher Education. Cnilep (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Association for Computational Linguistics- seems notable enough for a mention there, but not for a full article. And I stand by earlier comments I made elsewhere that this read(s) like an advertisement; that can be fixed, but once fixed it seems like the information would best be merged into the aforementioned article, hence my decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC) On further reflection, I think that this article is worth keeping. I took a very careful look through the sources, and they demonstrate more notability than I would have thought. The article still needs some work on writing, but that's something that'll improve overtime, especially once the Wikignomes make their way over here. Special thanks to Francis Bond for getting me to take another look; now I'm convinced. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here's some short summary of the WPs that people are talking about here.Alvations (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible WP violations Reason for WP violations Possible Resolution
WP:notability No indication why this series of workshops is notable or significant.-Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) SemEval has five published proceedings, is cited by hundreds of papers and has led to several special journal issues (referenced in the article). I believe that this demonstrates notability. Francis Bond (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP-GNG Possible non-notability of this article Keep per this article and several of the references therein. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:MOS Frankly there alot here but very little of it is within the WP:MOS, what little prose there is can be merged. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Could you be more specific? I don't see anything in WP:MOS that argues against putting information in tables, if that is what is bothering you. Francis Bond (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL, WP:JARGON, WP:OR, WP:SPAM I cant read the damn thing. Not to mention a single source as the nom talks about the topic. It appears to be straight WP:OR and WP:SPAM masqauading as an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Technically the link is followed by the facts, but that is just because it is in a table. So I am afraid I can't agree that it is either original research or spam. I agree that the article is fairly technical, but that in itself is not an argument for deletion, only for more editing. Francis Bond (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As mentioned above, appears to generate significant work in the field. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys, i did some wikifying of the page, take a look and see whether the users who cannot stand tables finds it alright. thanks Alvations (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable evaluation campaign. - Francis Tyers · 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SemEval is an important part of the computational linguistics milieu, comparable to other shared tasks which also have their own Wikipedia pages, e.g. MUC and TREC. This is valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin.cohen (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is one of the more important and influential series of events in the field. --Zeman (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SemEval (and SenseEval) is undoubtedly one of the most important and well-established forums for the development and evaluation of semantic technologies. While the workshop itself is naturally most well-known amongst academics and researchers, many of the developments that arise from it are of import to the general populace. As significant aspects of our technological landscape are coming to be transformed by the sorts of technologies fostered by SemEval, the subject-matter of this page is of increasing historical and cultural significance. Any recommendations for this page's improvement should therefore be heeded and acted upon in order that this important information remains available. Focus should be on the history of the workshop and its major contributions to the broader field, with more technical concerns remaining the business of the workshop itself. Justin Washtell (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Justin Washtell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject appears to be notable, however the article right now basically a bunch of meaningless marketing doublespeak and spam. The lead is completely incomprehensible. For a bunch of people who are all about words and semantics, you'd think their WP article would be a bit more coherent. Also, way too many inappropriate external links. Major cleanup required. SnottyWong prattle 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentpersonally I am yet to be convinced is indpendently notable form Association for Computational Linguistics. Its run by them and likely got press because its connected to them. Just as a Conference by American Anthropological Association is notable and gets press for being a conference held by them. But We dont have a Article on every conference of theirs. thats what needs to be proven by those to argueing keep to as why it is independently notable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - SemEval is a major feature of the NLP and CL landscape. It is very useful to have this page as a consolidated description of the history and processes to use as a reference for students et al. Merging it into the ACL page is quite inappropriate. (I actually think it's quite comprehensible and spam-free.)JimBreen (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— JimBreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - SemEval is very well known to anybody working on computational linguistics in general and word sense disambiguation in particular. This article might deserve some rewriting, but an article on SemEval in Wikipedia is definitely needed. Benoît Sagot (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Benoît Sagot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Let's look at this in a larger context. Human language technology as a field runs quite a number of annual competitions (some of which are called "shared tasks," or even "conferences" if there is an attached meeting). I personally find it difficult to keep them all straight, especially since each competition has a history: not only are new techniques tried each year within a competition, but the competition's tasks, task definitions, evaluation measures, datasets, etc. evolve from year to year. It would actually be really helpful to have a Wikipedia page for each competition, with a Wikipedia category covering all of them (or perhaps covering AI competitions more generally, with others including the Loebner Prize and Netflix Prize). I'd use these pages for reference and would send my natural language processing students to go browse the whole category. It would be a terrible organization for Wikipedia to try to cover a dozen different detailed competitions on one page (let alone the ACL page). I am not commenting here on the current quality of the page, just saying that I would like to see a page for each competition. Such pages ought to link to explanations of the various topics they mention, which might spark some necessary activity in improving Wikipedia's general coverage of the many topics in computational linguistics / human language technology / natural language processing / speech processing. Eclecticos (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Scholar seems to find it quite notable with over a thousand hits for its current name, and more than two thousand hits of its old name of "Senseval". Google books is the same way. Dream Focus 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how many of those hits did you check? On the search I ran, most of them just mentioned it in passing; those that went into more detail seemed to be more oriented towards the organization that ran it, the Association for Computational Linguistics. Did you find anything that made it stand out enough from the organization? Because I didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its a notable enough aspect of it to be mentioned everywhere. In the article they mention the workshops being taught. For the scientific community, it is clearly something notable. Dream Focus 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • [3] So are American Anthropological Association Meetings but we can't have an Article on their meetings Solely on beucause they are a "big deal" in Anthroplogy. I still see no arguement as to to have it indendent from the orgiaztion that hosts/organizes the meetings The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not really understand why this article should be deleted. It is definitely *not* an ad, and explains clearly the contribution of each task to overcome the state of the art in the field (e.g., why coarse-grained WSD should be performed, why word sense induction is proposed, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robykiwi (talk • contribs) 06:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but wow, does it need cleanup. The article should be describing SemEval, not every single action it has taken. There are references enough to show its notability, but a majority of that article has got to go. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any suggestion of what to include for a wikipage for workshops? any leads to some sort of MoS or templates?? Alvations (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Words and their meaning are important to our lives. Research about word meanings and what makes us human is therefore important. SemEval/Senseval is not just a series of workshops, it is a research initiative to facilitate worldwide communication between research groups in various countries and to establish a set of standard evaluation metrics. It has a deep impact in the field of Computational Lingustics. A Wikipedia page would be a good starting point about this initiative and about the effort and resources available for disambiguating word senses. Even if the page is deleted, it will be re-created again on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Tens of thousands of researchers have an interest in the subject of word meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — LinguisticBlue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I believe notability has been established, and the article should stay, but I do agree that there needs to be considerable revision. We should consider for whom this article would be valuable. The highly detailed descriptions of each task would only be valuable to people familiar with the conference, and probably belong on senseval.org (or whatever is the official site for SemEval). At least the external links to task descriptions should be in the External Links section, and as a more general link (e.g. http://nlp.cs.swarthmore.edu/semeval/tasks/). Most likely only people at least somewhat familiar with computational linguistics will come across the article wanting to know more about SemEval, so some jargon is fine, but these words should be linked to their namesake WP articles for proper description. Goodmami (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)— Goodmami (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • 'Reply Lomon's suggestion, here's the current SemEval page that looks more wikified and more like MUC page...Alvations (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I strongly believe that Semantic processing is at the heart of language understanding and the article should not be deleted. The information available in the article gives a comphensive view of what SemEval is all about. Freewind77 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)— Frewwind77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Consider - I created the page so i have the least credibility to vote, i shall leave some non-publishers' cites and references to credits SemEval notability:
  • Heartbroken. weak keep: a recurring scholarly conference with sufficient (IMO) echo in independent publications. I see no problem in having separate entries on the events and on the organization behind them. But. Even trimmed down from 40+K to current state, it's "too much and nothing certain", so concerns about notability and credibility of its content (not subject) are still valid. Rescue flag is more than appropriate. East of Borschov 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would really love to improve the page, is there some other information that i should put up? SemEval has tasks and proceedings, i tried putting up the tasks for every SemEval workshop but it was well-accepted. i do agree that the current page is "nothing certain" but not really too much.Alvations (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: I've put up a draft of a trimmed article: Talk:SemEval/Proposed_Revision. What do you think? It's an attempt to make this article more similar to Message Understanding Conference and Text Retrieval Conference. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lapps in Finnish folklore[edit]

Lapps in Finnish folklore (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 have deProded the article, because i think it need full discussion. Prod rational was:


I have proposed that this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • There are no references or links within the article
  • The article has reference numbers "[1]" that are dead, and not relevant with the article, which may be proof that this was copied from another article.
  • The article is *very* poorly written, to the point of being nonsensical.
  • If the article was better written, it could have been merge with another article, such as Finnish folklore, but since its not, its better to start from scratch.
  • Using derogatory phrases as "lapp" in stead of preferred "Sami", which are no longer in use by academics.
  • It makes no reference to who the Sami are within Finnish culture, describing them as "lappalainen" with no decription as to why they are important within Finnish culture.

For these reasons, I propose that this article be deleted. Dinkytown talk 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Betschart[edit]

Wade Betschart (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, lots of regional coverage but there's some coverage in national news as well. Worth a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point me to a national news article that mentions Betschart? I can't seem to find anything non-trivial. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient non-trivial coverage to establish notability. cmadler (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, and I'm with Eagles247; I'm not seeing national news articles describing the subject in significant detail.  Ravenswing  17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT is an inclusionary standard. "Failing" WP:NSPORT is not a ground for deletion. A college football player warrants an article if he/she has received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. This is a close case, but as noted below, I don't think the coverage quite reaches that level in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The lead section of NSPORTS is "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." (emphasis in the original)  Ravenswing  20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The language you've quoted confirms that NSPORTS is an inclusionary guideline, not an exclusionary one. A college football player who "fails" NSPORTS is not excluded from Wikipedia. It is one of the ways to be included. In the discussion leading to the adoption of NSPORTS, the sponsors repeatedly assured me and others that it would not be applied as an exclusionary standard. A college football player who never plays professional football still gets included if he/she has non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than passing references in game coverage) in the mainstream media sufficient to satisfy GNG. In any event, we agree that Mr. Betschart doesn't meet either of our standards. Cbl62 (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I strongly disagree that news coverge has to be in the "national" news media to satisfy general notability standards, I don't see enough significant news coverage focusing on Betschart even at the regional/state levels, as opposed to routine coverage of the Wyoming football team. There are a couple newspaper stories from the Casper Star-Tribune (circulation c. 30,000) that focus at least in part on him,[4] [5] but they fall a little short IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jackson (wide receiver)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brandon Jackson (wide receiver) (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A search of the Newsbank database shows more than ten feature articles about Jackson published in the Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express, and other mainstream publications. Even if he never plays a game in the NFL, such non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media satisfies general notability guidelines. The following are examples of feature stories on Jackson: (1) "Tahoka student takes byte out of competition," Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, May 10, 2004,[6] (2) "Football field no place for ankle monitor, San Antonio Express-News, August 13, 2005, [7] (3) "Should playing be an option? - Robbery arrest may not keep football star off field with Lancaster," Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2005,[8] (4) Upon further review, prep star deserves chance, Dallas Morning News, December 7, 2006,[9] (5) Ex-football star gets minimum sentence - Lancaster: Supporters testify '05 robberies were one-time mistake, Dallas Morning News, 2007,[10]> (6) Run may catch up to athlete - Probation hearing today for ex-North Mesquite standout accused in burglary, Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008,[11] and (7) "Police chase could cost former North Mesquite football player his second chance," Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2008.[12]. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This coverage is by local newspapers that all college football players receive if they start. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles about the criminal incident do not appear to relate to this person, so I have stricken them. It's not 100% clear, but with a living person, better to be safe than to inadvertently connect the wrong person to allegations of criminal wrongdoing. I have also substantially expanded the article using correct sources on his accomplishments. I continue to believe there is sufficient coverage to meet general notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for my same reasons in the last AfD. I would argue also that the Dallas Morning News is not a "local" paper as it has one of the 20 largest paid circulations in the United States.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "local" I don't mean "small," I mean that the only reason he is appearing in a major newspaper like that is because he played on a college football team close by. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's no presumption of notability because he never played in the NFL, and I don't see the multiple non-trivial sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG; most of the sources just mention him briefly, or quote him talking about someone/thing else. There's not enough actually written about him. cmadler (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, no evidence of national news articles describing the subject in significant detail.  Ravenswing  17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE Secret account 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pittman[edit]

Billy Pittman (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep key player on 2005 national championship team. Lots of coverage--no question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as? And being a "key player" is not make somebody notable. Grsz11 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pittman was the leading receiver on the Texas Longhorns 2005 national championship team. He was the subject of a huge amount of press coverage, including feature stories in national media outlets like Sports Illustrated[13], USA Today,[14], Associated Press,[15], and the Chicago Tribune.[16] His story of overcoming Bell's Palsy to become a football star was one of the big story-lines of the 2005 season. Cbl62 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage of him personally (not trivial mentions of him as a member of the team) in outlets like Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune clearly establishes notability. cmadler (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Missant[edit]

Charles Missant (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it seems that his most widespread news coverage comes from being cut by the Jets, he's also showing some good coverage for his professional play in Europe. Granted, playing pro in Europe is not a "free pass" (at least, I think it shouldn't be), there is enough coverage in my opinion to warrant a stub for this player already.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Playing pro football in Europe does not create a presumption of notability the way playing in the NFL does, and I just don't see sufficient non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. If someone finds such coverage and adds it to the article, I will reconsider my decision, or if he attains sufficient notability in the future the article can be re-created then. cmadler (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I strongly disagree that news coverge has to be in the "national" news media to satisfy general notability standards, I don't see enough significant news coverage focusing on Missant even at the regional/state levels. If Paul McDonald or others can point to coverage that I may have overlooked, I will reconsider my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Paris[edit]

James Paris (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 about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has never played in a fully pro leage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Superfund. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section 104(e) letter[edit]

Section 104(e) letter (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)

Declined WP:PROD. This does not seem to be a notable topic. It's a letter the EPA sends to warn someone that they might be in trouble, if I take the meaning right. The source cited in the ref section does not in fact verify the content, mentioning only the "Section 106 order" which is a different document. A link was added to a very long page from Cornell Law School that might mention this somewhere, but I am not seeing evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment please add this to the "law" related deletion discussions. 128.59.187.129 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a user arguing to keep the article, the onus is on you, not others to back up your claims of notability. Simply asking us to consult Google is not sufficient. I could use Google to prove that the house I live in exists, that does not make it automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books reference is to a book about CERCLA. In that context, the author has used the shorthand of "§104(e) letter", but out of the context, the phrase is meaningless. If someone wants to canvass the literature and develop an article discussing when §104(e) letters are sent and what questions they typically ask, a decent article could be constructed. However, absent the CERCLA context, all of this is meaningless. Without much more, this article should be merged. Racepacket (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I would note that anyone can do this, procedures are outlined at WP:DELSORT —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Superfund. Such letters aren't independently notable of (and would not exist without) the Superfund law itself. If for some reason, someone expands the Superfund article to the extent that there need to be content forks to keep the main article manageable, there is a very slim chance that someone could make the case that this article would be a place to make the division, but right now, there's absolutely no reason to split this off into a separate article when the main article (already an esoteric subject) is barely more than a stub with no indication that an expert is going to spend the time to make it into a useful article. THF (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just edited the page, and it now contains three sources: (1) The United States Code [i.e., the page from Cornell Law School]; (2) the "Superfund Glossary" published as a Congressional Research Service Report [i.e., the original source for the article]; (3) the Google Books source that I mentioned above. [Yes, I'm the IP who posted keep above, and also the individual who created the article.] I invite you to look again at the article and see whether notability is apparent. Incidentally, I want to acknowledge to Racepacket and Beeblebrox that my original response gives an impression of rudeness that I didn't intend. I was just in a rush. I shouldn't have asked you to do my work for me. Best, - AGradman / talk / how the subject page looked when I made this edit 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing where the CRS mentions this. There is an entry on the Section 106 letter... In either event I still don't see significant coverage in sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing your second point (which is fair), I just wanted to clarify that the CRS report entry appears as follows:

Notice letter. EPA's formal notice by letter to PRPs, also called a Section 104(e) letter, that CERCLA-related action is to be undertaken at a site with those PRPs being considered responsible.

  • delete I'm not seeing this as an independent article at all. Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Superfund. It's a minor aspect of the implementation of that law.  Sandstein  06:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - per Cbl62. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Strong[edit]

Derrick Strong (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about the mass-nominations, one user created all of these articles two years ago and I was looking through their contributions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFL Europe is not considered a professional league. All of the references you provided above are from local papers and every college football player who started for a team gets that kind of coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arena Football League in which he played is, however, a fully professional league. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#American football/Canadian football. And the references provided are from multiple daily newspapers, including several articles in the Chicago Sun-Times, which is one of the Top 20 daily newspapers in the United States. See List of newspapers in the United States. There is nothing in the general notability guidelines that says that coverage in newspapers such as this "don't count." They do count and should count. Just as the notability of a Chicago alderman or businessman may be established by coverage in the Sun-Times, so too is an athlete's notability established by coverage in major daily newspapers of the region. There may be grounds to discount coverage that is limited to a single, small-town newspaper in the person's home town, but that's not what we have here. Further, it's simply not true to say that "every college football player" who starts for a team gets the kind of coverage received by Strong. It is a very, very small percentage of college players who get this kind of widespread media coverage. 22:13, 8 November 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 Withdrawn - I did not realize that he played in a game in the CFL, thereby meeting WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Ville[edit]

Zach Ville (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even without researching press coverage, it appears that Ville played several years of fully professional football in the Arena Football League with the Grand Rapids Rampage,[20], two years in the NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire,[21] and in the Canadian Football League with the Saskatchewan Roughriders.[22]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - per Cbl62. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harden[edit]

Michael Harden (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from any issue of news coverage of Harden's college career, it appears he played in the NFL for the Seattle Seahawks during the 2005 season. See here and here. Doesn't look like these mass nominations were carefully researched. The first three that I have dug into (Derrick Strong, Zach Ville and Harden) all played professional football. Please consider withdrawing the ones that have not been carefully researched. This could waste my whole day. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edorian McCullough[edit]

Edorian McCullough (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)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment/question. There have been 10 college football players nominated for deletion in a 20-minute span today by Eagles247. It will take time to research each of these. Can you confirm that, before nominating, you reviewed the google news hits to determine whether these players had sufficient coverage while playing college ball to meet general notability standards? Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have played professionally in Europe. Google News shows around 300+ articles on the subject matter and a cursory review of the articles seem to show notability of the individual for his college playing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been substantially re-written and has 33 sources, about half of which are feature stories on McCullough. He played for one of the top college football teams in the USA, the Texas Longhorns, and played on the Frankfurt Galaxy team that advanced to the 2007 World Bowl. It appears that WP:NSPORT has taken no position on whether the NFL Europa qualifies a player for presumed notability. In any event, he has been the subject of extensive, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. There have been more than 15 feature stories about him in The Dallas Morning News alone. The Dallas Morning News is not a small-town newspaper giving attention to a local athlete; it's one of the 20 largest circulation newspapers in the USA. See List of newspapers in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite obviously satisfies WP:GNG. cmadler (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Verma[edit]

Ashish Verma (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 young environmentalist does not appear to be notable. Sources seem to be self-published blogs. Salih (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Carroll[edit]

Colm Carroll (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:NSPORT as he has not played in a fully professional league (the League of Ireland isn't fully professional per WP:FPL). Youth international caps don't attest notability, and the coverage available is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crains Run[edit]

Crains Run (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)

Also nominating:

Four totally non-notable neighborhoods of the small city of Miamisburg, Ohio. They appear to be recent housing developments, not even real neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't propose merging: I don't see this content as worthy of being moved into another article. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a merge or redirect. Projects are too small to be considered as neighborhoods or notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brushcreek Motorsports Complex[edit]

Brushcreek Motorsports Complex (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)

Borderline speedyable (makes no real assertions of notability; no references whatsoever). None of the events that it hosts appear to be notable either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Referenced in multiple places in adams county, including its own website, google maps and the Adams county travel association. I've personally travelled there. Maybe not interesting to someone not involved in Ohio motorsports but hardly not notable. http://www.adamscountytravel.org/motorsports.html http://www.brushcreekmotorsports.com/id50.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.179.214 (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources. Being listed in a local travel guide does nothing to meet our notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Brushcreek coverage on Mod Fury dirt modifieds http://modfury.com/2010/07/23/brushcreek-motorsports-readies-for-10th-annual-american-heritage-classic/ and on the Ohio Valley DTR http://ovdtr.com/2010/06/06/kids-night-full-of-action-at-brushcreek-motorsports-complex/ - This track is a pretty big deal in DTR circles. I think it would be best served by improving the main article than by deleting it entirely.
http://www.whowon.com/sresults.asp?SanctionID=265&StoryID=300036 News article coverage as per WP:Reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.10.193.23 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails basic WP:N. I've not been able to find anything notable about this specific venue. ShepTalk 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in Reliable Sources could be found. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SemEval-1 and related[edit]

SemEval-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SemEval-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senseval-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senseval-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Senseval-3 (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)

If this is about a workshop, I must ask: are workshops notable? I don't think so. Even if they are, there's no indication of importance or significance, and no reliable, independent, third-party coverage provided. See also:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SemEval. — Timneu22 · talk 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to just be a list of links to workshop sessions, with explanations. No evidence given of notability of this particular conference.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination, no sources supporting notability of these workshops and the content of each duplicates content already at SemEval. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The concepts considered by these conferences should be summarized in a prose form and added to articles on computational linguistics or natural language processing. This is legitimate academic work, but presenting the conference schedule in a table does not help the average wikipedia user. Racepacket (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Let the conferences' sponsor get its own website. —Tamfang (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor is in the process of breaking up the SemEval article as I suggested it is too long. This discussion should not be separate from the SemEval discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffbond (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are essentially lists of external links to workshop/conference web sites. Such information is no doubt helpful to workshop participants and those in the same field, but it not the sort of information that encyclopedia users are looking for and is specifically ruled out by the aforementioned policy. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to SemEval assuming any information is actually needed in the parent article. Each of these are plausible search terms. Main article needs major cleanup, but that is a seperate issue. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be using Wikipedia for webhosting Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youvan's Apologetics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Youvan's Apologetics (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 original research - an extended quotation from the writings of Douglas Youvan, copied from his website. (It is not a copyvio, because the site's top page releases its content as PD). JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John: I don't see how the primary website for Youvan's biography could be considered unreliable or OR. It’s not-for-profit; the biography (in progress) can be freely downloaded. I know Youvan’s questions are irritating to most people. That is expected in polemics. In any debate over deletion, do you really believe that our editors can free themselves of faith-based POV’s? Youvan's questions could cause hate and anger in some editors. Very few people are open to a change of faith and they will find any reason they can to delete Youvan’s Apologetics. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question: If a journal or newspaper picks up this deletion, or deletion debate, and publishes Youvan's questions in apologetics, does that somehow make this article reliable and not in violation of NOR? Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier discussion as the deletion began (in italics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teapotgeorge, top banner reads: "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." Other editors can determine for themselves if that is an obvious POV to attack someone like Youvan in favor of someone like Dawkings. I thought we wanted wikipedia to be a place for people to find reliable information. TeaPot is on the verge of censorship and defamation. Youvan is a living person. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the speedy for "nonsense"... my mistake, on a quick glance it did appear to be absolute nonsense...I can see now that it is just advertising.TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (end quote) Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 18:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have replied to these points on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you again politely to refrain from personal attacks.TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Nothing on Google apart from this article and the website it is copied from. No reliable secondary sources.TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per norm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have already merged the opening sentence back to Douglas Youvan, with a link to his website page, here. I would not object to making this title a redirect to that section, but I think this debate is still necesary in order to convince the article author that we cannot publish the full text. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment author has requested deletion [23] DC T•C 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think Shoessss' redirect is a good idea, and have suggested that to her. Don't let's delete till she thinks about that. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author, who had requested deletion, agrees to redirect, so per WP:IAR I have implemented that and withdraw my deletion nomination. Unless either of the "delete" !voters, who I will consult, objects, I request, as nominator, that this AfD be closed as "Redirect". JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too withdraw my deletion request, merge and redirect is eminently sensible.TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already redirected I do not think that the list of questions that made up this article constituted an encyclopaedic article. The merge might perhaps have consisted of a paragraph rather than a mere single sentence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel Delete Please cancel my delete vote. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Minimac (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is original research without any reliable sources independent of the author of this research. My recommendation has nothing to do with my own religious POV. I would support the article if reliable independent sources demonstrating notability existed, whether or not it corresponded with or challenged my own religious beliefs. That shouldn't affect AfD debates one whit. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2012 Summer Olympics. Redirecting....why redo all this work in a year and a half? Feel free to delete if you disagree (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Very premature creation of this article. Most flag bearers are not announced until a few days prior to the opening ceremonies (at most), so this list will remain empty or mostly incomplete for many months. Suggest re-creation in early July 2012, when a handful of flag bearers will be known. Major article expansion will take place 24–27 July 2012. But now, in November 2010? Useless. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backhouse Shuffle (Dance)[edit]

Backhouse Shuffle (Dance) (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)

Lots of links provided, none mention the subject of the article. Searching on the exact term returns 10 unique hits. A 'thing I made up one day' that fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Baxter[edit]

Rick Baxter (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)

Hello, I am writing to delet Rick Baxter, this is soley based on the deletion of current Escondio City Council Woman Diaz. Though Rick Baxter WAS an elected official, is catastrophic decline to used car dealer makes him someone who really doesn't make hi news worthy. Moreover, his page, which is fraught with inaccuracy and pontification to out-and-out lies, further deminish not only his credibility, but the reason he should be deleted from the site.

To continue, if the Escondido Council woman who has overcome so much diversity to be elected in a larger city, that is even the more reason for him to be deleted as he represented a very small portion of Michigan, with less people than that of the City of Escondido itself.

I rely on Wikipedia for the starter point for much of my research and this person is not even remotly significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdjoebrown (talk • contribs) 27 October 2010

Comment: This nomination was not properly completed when it was created on 27 October (steps 1 and 3 were not completed). The article was prodded by JzG (talk · contribs) on 5 November with the rationale "Unsourced biogrpahy of a car salesman." [sic]. I have removed the prod to allow this AfD to properly take its course. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since he did indeed serve as a state representative, he qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. City council members don't receive the same treatment as state and provincial legislators. Mandsford 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see two aspects of this: Notability and BLP.

    On the notability front the challenge may fail. Notability isn't temporary. If something was ever notable, then it's notable forever. Wikipedia has, and ought to have, articles on all kinds of topics that are purely of historical interest. But I don't know how important a county leader is, over in the US, and it may be that this person fails WP:POLITICIAN. I don't need to parse that in any detail, because over and above the nominator's challenge, there's also a BLP issue.

    On the BLP front the challenge undoubtedly succeeds. We simply can't have articles on living people with so few sources, and I've not been able to find any others. With apologies to Mandsford, with whom I often agree, I have to disagree in this case and say delete.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Later) Apparently JimMillerJr is better at searching for sources than I am! I'm now much happier with the sources and I've struck my "delete" accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Baxter was a member of both a county legislature and a state legislature, and easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. I have added some sources, but much of what inevitably exists is probably going to be located behind paywalls or dropped off of news sites due to the timing of his officeholding (2002-2008). Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, while searching for sources I cam across this news piece detailing some background on the history of this article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baxter was listed as the 64th district member of the Michigan House of Representatives (2007-09) in this [25]. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't give a free pass to county officials, but it is policy on "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Mandsford 01:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unquestionably notable, Republican State Representative in the Michigan House of Representatives . May need some editing to remove some fluff. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for a merge exists here. Further discussion may take place on the talk page as to whether a merge is appropriate. Jujutacular talk 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llama hiking[edit]

Llama hiking (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)

Unnecessary article duplicating paragraph about llamas being animals of burden in here. Formerly blatant advertisement of an entertainment company in Smoky Mountains, sadly was turned into this, instead of being completely removed. Other pleasure rides using animals are either deeply embedded in the history (horse riding, Sled dog), culture (donkey rides) or sport (Camel racing) - on the other hand there is no article on camel rides offered to tourists in Egypt or other Arabic countries. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed correctly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article says nothign that could not be included in Llama. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; no need whatsoever for a standalone article on the concept of taking llamas with you while hiking.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, being covered by international media, e.g. Llama trekking takes off. If the topic is best covered in the main llama article then this would best be achieved by merger, not by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample results from Google news and Google book searches, this a verifiable thing, and there articles and books written entirely about it. Dream Focus 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong express 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Llama. There is no reason for a content fork to describe a very specific way in which humans occasionally use llamas. This can all be discussed at the main article. SnottyWong express 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Snottywong. Hipocrite (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dreamfocus. Massively notable subject, there are hundreds of news articles specifically about this topic. Just been researching it for a while and theres stacks of hits saying how beneficial they are for children especially disabled children and most especially autistic ones. Didnt see a single sceptical source, so sounds like this is a most worthy topic as well as being highly notable. Opposed to a merge as there isnt enough space in the main article to accomodate the interesting and useful information that can be relayed specifically about Llama trekking, hopefully the recent improvments illustrate this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Snottywong Thruxton (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank kshatriyas[edit]

Tank kshatriyas (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 find no evidence of notability; the prod left by another user was removed by an IP, so bringing to AfD. A google search, for example, shows nothing but passing mentions in chat forums. Fails WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM World Films[edit]

MGM World Films (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 collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRAGUE INTERNATIONAL BASEBALL CUP[edit]

PRAGUE INTERNATIONAL BASEBALL CUP (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 WHY THIS IS A NOTABLE TOURNAMENT, or that the author's caps key is stuck. But really, there are zero sources, no indication of significance. — Timneu22 · talk 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow there's an ALL CAPS deletion discussion project? I am so in. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley A. Wood[edit]

Ashley A. Wood (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)

Comic book writer of questionable notability. Provided reference does not refer to the subject. Google search on the subject comes back with only 37 unique results - no significant coverage found from independent or reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article's not even finished... I placed a note on that this article saying it was unfinished. Wiki changed it to "This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template" instead. It seems that you're so gung-ho to kill my Wiki articles you won't even let me complete it before you nominate it. I was gathering information, but I don't want to put tons of work into an article only so you can go right behind me and nominate it for deletion. I'm starting to take it personally when you try to say things like a person does not have "significant coverage" or the source isn't "independent or reliable source" or "isn't about her" I'm I missing something. The first reference is from a very popular public radio show. Or do you believe this young girl has own "Chicago Tonight". I understand Wikipedia has a high criteria but the very first link was to a news and information show. She's one of the main faces of the East Coast Black Age of Comics. Rmavers (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our content and deletion policies are clear about biographies of living persons, as indeed is our Biographies of living persons policy. They must be verifiable. Tell us precisely what sources you are proposing to use for writing a biography of this living person. So far you've cited two that don't even support the content that you're writing, and other people's attempts to find sources have come up empty-handed. So where is your information coming from? Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not remotely notable; a web search turns up nothing but this article, the usual social networks, and various iterations of that TV interview. I'm quite ready to accept that she's a noted indie comics writer in Chicago, but the bar of WP:CREATIVE is a lot higher. Is she regarded industry-wide as an "important figure" or "widely cited by peers or successors?" Is she "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique?" Has she "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" Nope.  Ravenswing  18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click the references now there! She has an entire segment dedicated to her on a major news program. Some of the things they say about her are: "Sold out issues and trips around the world", "stand out in the world of independent comic books" "bestselling local artists". Yeah, she is quite notable. Dream Focus 23:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"*Comment: Errr, no. She had a segment dedicated to her on a local newscast, and I'd be curious to know the provenance of the assertions that she's had "trips around the world" or that she "stand[s] out in the world of independent comic books" ... beyond, of course, the fanboy murmurings of the local comics' shop owner. You would think, if any of those were true, that she'd have non-local reliable sources attesting to it or have been featured in major industry organs such as Comics Buyer's Guide or the Comics Journal. Neither, so far, has been the case.  Ravenswing  03:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A video blog from a local comedian counts as a reliable source? I truly hope this is just a matter of you not being familiar with the provisions of WP:RS - in which case I recommend reviewing it - because the alternative is that you are familiar and are entertaining hopes we don't check on these sources.  Ravenswing  16:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Fuwa[edit]

Sei Fuwa (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)

Claim is made that he was part of the 1936 Olympics, but not backed up by the FIFA team squad list. Maybe he was in the squad, but didn't play? Can't find any other evidence that he represented Japan. Unreferenced BLP for almost 2 years. The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only: He's not [26], that I see, either, but the "didn't play?" hypothesis is still a possibility, too. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - surely if he was a part of the squad he would be listed by FIFA?! No evidence gthat this person existed/is notable. GiantSnowman 01:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to verify any of the information in the article which supports notability. Jogurney (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Appears to be no reliable evidence he was at the Olympics. Nothing in cybespace except wikiscrapes. If someone can prove otherwise...--ClubOranjeT 09:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Less adamant delete for the same reason I never created Liam Little]... it appears he was part of the participating squad but did not play at the Olympic tournament.--ClubOranjeT 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - Japan's federation page shows him on the team: http://samuraiblue.jp/timeline/19360804/ although, the lack of playing time makes it border-line. 218.225.42.19 (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch. He certainly was an unused reserve goalkeeper on the squad at the 1936 Summer Olympics. I don't know if that's sufficient to establish notability, but at least we can be certain such a person existed, his birth date and his membership in the Japan squad. Jogurney (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect the pic, bottom right corner of [27] this page is the team photo for that olympic team, and has the article subject slightly left of center, back row. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, in view of source provided by 218.225.42.19. Notability is the big question, I think, Olympic association would be a trivial "keep" if he'd played under the usual sport guidelines. While on national football (soccer) teams I think I've seen an article deleted with someone with only a single national-level appearance, seems to me that the inherent notability of an Olympic team is quite a bit higher than that of a random club in a first-tier national league. So, on balance, I lean keep. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree entirely with Joe Decker on this. Even if he didn't play, just being on the team makes him more notable than a player with a single pro appearance, the default inclusion criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Claire Nicolson[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sulaim[edit]

Al-Sulaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I am working on the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006. This article has been tagged as Unreferenced for the past four years. It apparently was deleted once before because it did not "focus on the issues." Talk:Al-Sulaim. Now I propose it be deleted because it does not follow WP policy on Reliable Sources. It seems to be an example of WP:Original Research. It has been tagged for more than four years, but nobody has stepped forth to provide the sources. I can't find any in a cursory search of the Internet, so I am Challenging and propose its removal for violation of policy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on the Talk Page of the author. User_talk:Kfupm2 He or she hasn't been around for a while, but let's allow time to respond. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice clear source in Google Books: [28] There are also multiple items there for the individual people of the name, many of whom seem notable enough to justify separate Wikipedia articles. I haven't attempted to search in Arabic, but a much larger number will probably be found in that language. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A source has been found and added to the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Catalonia[edit]

Anarchist Catalonia (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)

It the four years that it has existed, this article has failed to gather substantial references and serious discussions. After numerous interventions and attempts to improve this article, I have deleted everything that is not permissible. Almost nothing is left. Everything else that remains can go into History of Catalonia, Anarchism in Spain, CNT, or other articles relating to the period. BillMasen (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep: BillMasen makes valid pionts about the article not progressing. I think he is being overpessimistic about the current state of the article as "almost nothing left" though. (Click on the "Random article" link on the left menu to get a depressing sense of the average quality/length of WikiPedia articles.)
I found the topic noteworthy and helpful in gaining some understanding to some literature I'm reading about the Spanish Civil War. On that basis I recommend keeping. But, since I'm coming to this article as a reader rather than an editor I'll just say Mild Keep because I'm not knowledgable enough in this topic area to help improve the article.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. I think Bill is being overly pessimistic about the current state of the article. I found it interesting re the Spanish Civil War. This is not in my field of expertise but I do wish somebody would expand upon it. It is still a stub but that is not a valid reason for deletion - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable stub/start-class article. It may have failed to gather substantial references in four years, but keep in mind that it's a WP:STUB and there's no WP:DEADLINE. jonkerz♠ 01:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close. Redirects need to be discussed at WP:Redirects for deletion, so I've moved it there. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Colonialism and the BBC[edit]

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

This redirect has nothing to do with either British colonialism or the BBC. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Rainbow[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Colours of the Rainbow (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)

"Promo single" that DID NOT chart. The article is not likely to expand at all. A search revealed no independent coverage of note. Fixer23 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second nomination, the first was deleted for the same reasons. Fixer23 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don: The Chase Begins Again (2011)[edit]

Don:_The_Chase_Begins_Again_(2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Prod contested. Not as per WP:NF- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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


  • Delete: Non notable, unreleased film. --Ragib (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Griffin[edit]

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

Delete. The subject of the article does not seem to have much Notability, except for having been named one of House Beautiful's top 100 designers. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. One out of a hundred is not Notable enough to warrant an article in WP. Very sorry about this because the author put a lot of effort into the page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. this missed being closed, but consensus is clear that there are no reliable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Futurecon[edit]

Futurecon (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)
  • Strong delete. First annual New Year's Eve party. Not notable. No references/reliable sources. Promotional in nature. Deepsix66 (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66[reply]
  • Strong delete. I'm not seeing any coverage in reliable sources—which is not surprising for an inaugural event. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is culturally important to the growth of Toronto sci-fi convention scene, much like other new this year events like SFContario. Also note that given his update history, Deepsix66 seems to be using Wikipedia for WP:BATTLEGROUND. Edfan77 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Related to a charity for epilepsy and promoted by notable Toronto media personalities. -- Hidoshi (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems as though the article is simply in-progress and this is a case of "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built" rather then a delete. Event features multiple celebrities, including Hugo and Nebula Award Winning author Robert Sawyer who are notable by Wikipedia's standards. Is also a benefit for Epilepsy Toronto and the Sunburst Awards. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
    • — Drivenhome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I agree that it's in progress. However, there's only so far it can go if there aren't secondary sources covering the subject. I searched before I made my recommendation above; had I found sources, I'd have recommended to keep the article and improve it. However, since I didn't find sources, that's why I recommended deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rules clearly state that in practice not everything need actually be attributed to a third party source. Exactly what part of the article are you challenging? Deepsix66 appears to be challenging the nature of the event which is a baseless accusation that doesn't hold up to scruitny and does not require second or third party sources to debunk. This is not a biography and the article is extremely straight forward and simple and makes no exaggerated claims that require third party sources to confirm. As for the notability of the event, I would argue that when notable figures are attending a public event and working with notable charities at the event for a notable cause it makes the event notable. Popularity is irrelevant. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
        • My concern is the notability of the event. Specifically, it does not meet the general notability guideline, which is the underpinning of all the specific notability guidelines (e.g., WP:ORG). With no sources cited, there is no evidence in the article that it is the subject of multiple reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement as well as the verifiability requirement. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The rules are not a hammer and every article is not a nail. Simply quoting rules does not mean they apply to the article. This is not a biography, it is not making statements of ANY KIND that require a third party source to justify. Its notability is self-evident as the figures at the event and organizing the event are notable within Wikipedia and by its rules. How are you challenging its notability? You're challenging its popularity, but that isn't what's being determined here and that counts as an overzealous delete under "obscurity". Just because you don't like something/don't know about something or don't appreciate something doesn't mean it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivenhome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't wish to get more involved in the continued Emily Schooley fiasco, but the editors voting keep must seek to show that this event meets the requirements of WP:GNG (please click and read that link thoroughly): has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? All other details are effectively irrelevant and will not carry much weight with the closing admin. Bigger digger (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the rules exhaustively and I fully agree with the rules. However Deepsix66 has not challeneged any of the information that requires third party sources to verify. Simply stating that that the event is 'just a New Years Eve party' when notable figures and notable charities have already acknowledged their involvement on their official blogs and webpages is not a challenge to the validity of the event. It's ignorance. I have gone through the article, there are no exaggerated claims, there are no false claims, there are no hyperbolic statements in the article and there are no challenges to any of the claims in the article by anyone seeking a delete. As for the 'notability' of the event, having to confirm the notability of an event where notable figures are showing up to promote a notable charity for a notable cause via a third party source is not necessary. The notability of the event (whether it is POPULAR or not) is self-evident. comment added by Drivenhome (talk •
      • Notability is not inherited (ie: if a notable person attends an event, that does not mean the event is now notable). Until there are reliable, third-party sources that confirm the event's notability, it does not belong here. If this year's event generates some substantial media coverage (from reliable sources), there may be a good case for notability in a few months, but as it stands the requirements are simply unfulfilled. Also for the record, the affiliation with Epilepsy Toronto is un-referenced and I was unable to find any mention on their website. What is the nature of the affiliation? Is Epilepsy Toronto an official sponsor of the event? If this is the case (and you're affiliated with FutureCon), you may want to ask them to release a press release announcing their sponsorship of the event, as it could potentially lead to some media coverage by reliable sources. Deepsix66 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66[reply]
        • Actually notability can be inherited. In fact the majority of notable events do inherit their notability from notable figures. Again, you misinterpret the word "NOTABLE" for "POPULAR". The fact that an event is featuring notable figures and is being organized by notable personalities for a notable cause is enough to justify its notability and does not require third party sources to justify. WP:GNG does not apply to every single article. Again, this is not a biography. comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
          • Why not work to improve the article rather than attack it right off the start? As this is an article I wrote, I will refrain from arguing or voting for it though I am sure my desired outcome is obvious (to have it kept and improved as more sources become available). However, I find it concerning that you are trolling my work - does this mean I will have to switch user names again to avoid having all my submissions put up for deletion? Bytemeh (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drivenhome, the view that notability is not inherited is broadly accepted - see, for example, this section of the notability guideline for organizations. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, I see. OK, very well, I change my vote to *Delete comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I do not see coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources, which frankly isn't surprising considering this hasn't even happened yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with storm and fire: This should be a slam dunk. A one-night SF relaxicon that hasn't happened yet, sourced solely through its own web page and Twitter feeds? This isn't a "convention." It's a (projected) New Year's Eve party. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG and probably most any other policy you can imagine.  Ravenswing  18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once it has happened it may achieve notability. If it becomes an annual event, it may achieve notability. It isn't there yet. Shsilver (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ravenswing. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a future event and has had very little coverage, even in local media. PKT(alk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Dull[edit]

Gladys Dull (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)

Completing process for another user Edgepedia (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given by Nom Reason: First of all, while I am an inclusionist rather than deletionist (although as an exopedian, I do not really bother too much about these labels) it might seem strange that I should nominate something for deletion. However, as I note on the talk page at Gladys Dull, I worry about the accuracy of this article. Please let me know whether I have got something wrong here - this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from talk page I think it important to let people know that this article is rather dubious, and while I am inclined to inclusionism rather than deletionism, I might even call for its deletion. In the year 2000 - when, incidentally, I was first diagnosed with Type One diabetes - I wrote a letter to "Balance" (the bimonthly magazine of Diabetes UK) asking whether any diabetics had lived to beo one hundred. At least two people responded and said that they had known people who had lived to be 100 or even 102. This would make these diabetics longer-lived than the person; there may be a difference of their age at diagnosis, though. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion completing an uncomplete nomination. Edgepedia (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and weak on verification. The article is not supported by multiple independent Reliable Sources as required for notability. The references provided at the article are not Reliable Sources. I could find only one published source, which is part of the "Marlowe Diabetes Library"; I don't think that's enough to qualify as multiple independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of physics[edit]

Golden Age of physics (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 is no clearly defined "Golden Age of physics", hence this article is POV commentary and is WP:SYN at best. Also, this might have the effect of being a neologism WP:NEO ------ Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add "without prejudice;" also is it Golden age of physics per WP:CAPS? --Kkmurray (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no clearly defined GAoP, but there certainly is a loosely defined one spanning roughly from Plank to the Atom bomb and I have seen the phrase used several times (see for example The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics, google will show you several other use of this phrase, always spanning from roughly plank to roughly the atom bomb). No solid opinion on whether to keep and expand or redirect to modern physics [rather than history of physics]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Headbomb. --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Headbomb makes a good point that there is a loose association of this term for the aforementioned time period. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing from "comment" to "delete", because there is no real "golden age of physics" just yet, although it may be loosely defined. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Keep. It appears there is coverage of this topic when using sources that name different time periods. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Headbomb's comment. If there is a loosely defined golden age, it can be briefly mentioned in some other history oriented article. DVdm (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, as Headbomb says, is somewhat loosely defined, but I think it is important, notable term, to warrant a distinct article. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't resist. Sorry. I hope that my point is made, though. Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Nergaal/Headbomb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I think I can do a workable re-write of this article to match some sources. It appears "Golden age of physics" can fit different time periods, and stating that in the form of an article may be the best approach. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework as Steve Quinn suggests--there seems to be potential. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian supercentenarians[edit]

List of Russian supercentenarians (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 nominating this article for deletion because Russia is known for high exaggerated age claims. The only centenarians whose age has been considered "reasonable" were those that are better known, such as Sergey Nikolsky, or Boris Yefimov. We won't be able to truly identify the oldest person in Russia per person, again because of high exaggerated ages. There have only been very few reasonable ages. There has only been 1 verified supercentenarian from Russia, but he died over 40 years ago, the other 3 validated Russian natives died in a high income economy country. We need to hold off until more Russian supercentenarians become validated. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is in error. Regardless of whether most Russian claims are verified or not, the article doesn't list them, so that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that "list of supercentenarians" articles are common (there's one for the UK, France, USA, Germany, etc.). This article contributes to answering people's questions, such as "are there Russian supercentenarians"?Ryoung122 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why Russia? The Russian supercentenarians are already listed on List of oldest people by nation. There are already sections on the 115+ year old "exaggerated" pages that say why many people like to exaggerate their age. I am supporting a strong deletion on this article.

Then again, we could make a list of "Alleged Russian supercentenarian claimants", as in accordance with Brazilian supercentenarians, or I am thinking we could merge the two into one and title it "Alleged supercentenarian claimants by country". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • They both need deletion as redundant, and when Ryoung argues WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "common"ly, that doesn't mean other stuff isn't on the redundancy-deletion to-do list. He also argues "people might ask", which is equally invalid, especially when answered by List of oldest people by nation as you note. JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What's invalid is JJ's faulty attempt at logic above. The list of oldest people by nation, in effect, lists JUST the oldest persons, whereas a list of supercentenarians lists all persons 110+. Also, let us review similar articles, such as List of French supercentenarians. Not only are they supported and well-kept (in-form) but the idea of such articles came from people at Wikipedia in 2007 who wanted to combine a lot of small articles on individual supercentenarians into larger articles. So, the "form" is not the issue, the issue is "content." Some here feel there isn't enough "content" to support such an article, but I disagree. There's already cases here not listed on the "list of supercentenarians by nation" article, and there will likely be more over time, as more are added.

04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Very, very strong keep Why Russia? The Russian supercentenarians are already listed on List of oldest people by nation., says Nick. NO. There are already multiple Russian supercentenarians, including all those emigrants. It's VERY UNFAIR to dump aside cases like Lina von Veh. Just because an article is short compared to others of the same type doesn't mean it should be deleted. Khasako Dzugayev is the only 'verified' Russian without a complete deathdate. Otherwise, we have three validated supercentenarians of Russian descent. I really think the List of alleged Brazilian supercentenarians should be deleted, not this. In case you haven't noticed yet, the page is completely free of trashy claims and still able to get on with a humble four cases. Brendan (talk, contribs) 02:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then can we make List of Irish supercentenarians, List of Ecuadorian supercentenarians, and List of Barbadian supercentenarians? We aren't going to find the oldest person by year, which is essential to the pages such as this one (as of now, the Irish supercentenarians article can find oldest per year, but this is just an example). I support very, very, very, strong delete.

Do you want to help me in deleting the Brazilian supercentenarians article? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either one should be deleted. They serve different purposes.76.17.118.157 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help you delete WHAT? Okay, I'm sorry I ever said that. I was only making an comparision. Forget it. Nick, I don't think you're getting it. Ecuador, Ireland, and Barbados all have had only one supercentenarian on their rap sheet, and for those it simply isn't worth making their article. For this, there are at least several Russian-descent supercentenarians (even though some are still emigrants). The list is still free of trashy claims that have never managed to bleed their way into that page. The page should stay. Additionally, List of oldest living people by nation simply does not offer enough coverage for the Russians. I vote very, very, very, very strong keep. Brendan (talk, contribs) 09:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally strong delete: Per Brendanology, articles with one verified supercentenarian aren't worth maintaining; the fact that there are emigres also listed here (along with their countries of death as well) is simply the overhypersuperredundancy typical of this topic set. The fact (see longevity traditions) that significant numbers of Russian claims recur back to the 18th century and that they have been categorically debunked by Zhores Medvedev et al. also precludes this article as supplying a misleading context in the longevity template, where it would most likely be seen. I have not yet nominated the Brazilian article yet but I applaud Nick for getting the superfluities dealt with. JJB 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Brendan, there just aren't enough people to make an article on them, in my personal opinion it is a stub. I am not changing my view, Brendan. Very, very, very, very, very strong delete. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are you going to ivote, Nick? You already "voted". Let's hear from some other commenters.Ryoung122 05:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "list" with one person is not a list, no matter how much other tangentially relevant information the article includes. Anything that's salvageable can (and should) be merged elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2010; 14:38 (UTC)
  • Comment JJB, stop sucking up to Nick. Brendan (talk, contribs) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I personally don't get the purpose for this list, I trust that the grg has good reasons for including it, and they have more experience than i do, so im not gonna get in the way of their progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per the grg Longevitydude (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So WP:IKNOWIT? You deleted from your talk page a question about how and what you know when you imply that the GRG itself is influencing WP. I must now repeat more specifically: what is your connection to the GRG e-group, do you communicate with it, what is your connection with Yahoo WOP, what do you know of connections between Yahoo WOP and GRG, have you read WP:COI, do you believe you have a conflict of interest, why or why not? JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
More attempts at intimidation by JJBulten. Nick Ornstein is a member of the WOP group too, but you don't have a problem when he "votes" your way, do you?

How about some FACTS: A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE ARE INTERESTED in this subject, not to tear it down, which seems to be your primary motivation here. A lot of people here were on Wikipedia FIRST, and later found the WOP (mostly through search indexes and the 110 Club, not Wikipedia).

Also, just because someone is a member of the WOP (a group for people interested in, wow, the World's Oldest People) doesn't make it a "conflict of interest" any more than your editing religious articles is a conflict of interest because of your religious belief or membership in a church.Ryoung122 05:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I guess I showed you, I made sure the information would always be somewhere, there no deleting this diff, and yes, im a member of the WOP group, and they know more about longevity and supercentenarians than the rest of us ever will. Longevitydude (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you're saying is that you copied the Jan Goossenaerts article to your page as a form of WP:USERFICATION. That's acceptable, but wasn't what I was asking about. I was asking about your deleting (at the same time), without answer, an investigation into your potential conflict of interest. Your failure to answer in full here is not helpful either, nor is your laudation of GRG. Since you argue "per the grg": What is your connection to the GRG e-group, do you communicate with it ..., what do you know of connections between Yahoo WOP and GRG, have you read WP:COI, do you believe you have a conflict of interest, why or why not? JJB 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, so it is ok to copy articles, good to know, I communicate with their members quite a bit, maybe one day i will join the grg, but for now im just a member of their other groupstheir connections are that they have the same members, the grg validates and the WOP group informs us of the information, both are very informative sites, would you like to join? Longevitydude (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • when I have more time ill try to address the conflict of interest, though i thought that would already be obvious as you can read previous comments ive made in the past. Longevitydude (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, please do try to address that. JJB 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, but I think Robert young answered the COI question, Id comment further on it, but I think Robert and some other editors nailed it. Longevitydude (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't, thanks. I see R saying that joining a group, which exists to inform the public (i.e., to advocate certain beliefs) and to "disallow" "false" cases, is not a conflict with working on an encyclopedia that has no advocacy function and avoids making truth judgments about disputed matters. R also implied he knows something about my religious belief and church membership, but he has always failed to source such WP:OR about me. It is also a faulty comparison to connect generic church membership, which is on the order of about a billion people, to Yahoo WOP membership, about a thousand, both in the degree of the org's expressed advocacy and in the degree to which it has been carried out on WP. What I suggest you address yourself is your responsibility to identify any particular changes in your editing style that should be made due to WP:COI. Anyway, the rest is irrelevant to this page and (if necessary) will be brought to other pages. JJB 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, like the other articles about supercentenarians from different countries this one answers the questions "How many Russian supercentenarians ever verified? What was their age and country of death?" I will remove some entries in this article that are not Russia-related (people who were born in Moldova, Lithuania, Ukrain etc but not within present Russian borders.--VAR-loader (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for helping with the article, but there are still no reliable sources, no significant coverage, no independent or seconday coverage, no conflict-of-interest safeguards, no scope definition (what makes a person Russian, what makes a claim trashy), no topic notability, i.e., no sources whatsoever about "list of [verified] Russian supercentenarians", although there's quite a lot already in longevity traditions about unverifieds, but we all agree that is a separate scope. I also suspect WP:OR, recalling the topic of Ryoung122's thesis, but don't need to get into that right now. All the country articles are redundant, so maybe merge all into list of oldest people by nation! JJB 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
JJ, We've heard enough from you. Your original research, trashing of real research, and overall bad behavior (including bringing up tangential false charges against me, the GRG, the WOP, and even LongevityDude, a teenager) is just unconscionable. FACT: this article was created, almost generically, in the same form that we see other supercentenarian/nationality articles, such as List of French supercentenarians. The real conflict of interest is YOU. You've already admitted that you are opposed to modern science in the field of longevity because you believe Biblical myths. Your attempt to tear down any article on longevity that is in the scientific mold is obvious.Ryoung122 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ryoung122. You have created an image of Wikipedia for yourself and expect others to conform to that image, and run down others who oppose it in the least bit. You are only too block-happy, rapping other editors (such as me) for NON-EXISTENT violations of WP policy. Your presentation of WP:OR, WP:MOS, WP:CIVILITY to threaten others is also accompanied with your violations of ... WP:OR, WP:MOS, and WP:CIVILITY, among a large number of others. Please stop. Brendan (talk, contribs) 08:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except he's not the only one saying this; I can rattle a few others off the top of my head. You should read User:Bwilkins/Essays/All socks; you may find it enlightening. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Section[edit]

Alright folks. Let's try this. Would anyone who HASN'T lodged their opinion on the AfD post down here. I'd suggest all the usual parties above stop throwing stones at each other while this is being reviewed. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete relevant info is already at supercentenarian or can be merged. There are apparently only 26 verified supercentenarians in world history, so separate lists per country is silly. The ANI threads etc. suggest an ongoing campaign by some users to create undue prominence for this obscure subject by spewing multiple articles about it. Such articles should be merged to the extent consistent with WP practices on article length and so forth. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per: There are apparently only 26 verified supercentenarians in world history, so separate lists per country is silly. — Timneu22 · talk 14:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what Timneu22 said; I was trying to think of how to put it, and that sums it up better than I possibly could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 do not know how this escaped being closed--it's 11 days now, and the consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray's Hell Burger[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ray's Hell Burger (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:ONEEVENT. The Eskimo (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a restaurant; how can it be a "person notable for only one event"? – iridescent 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, the concept still applies, but as it may be confusing to an editor who clicks on the WP:ONEEVENT link I provided, I will expand on my nomination. The restaurant is not notable. It got a lot of press mainly for one event happening there (two world leaders eating lunch), and some positive regional buzz because it appears to be a very popular restaurant. Every town has a popular restaurant that gets a lot of write-ups, usually because the food is good or is a unique dining experience, but we do not have Wikipedia articles for them. However, not every restaurant has had two world leaders eat lunch there, which is the one event that sets this restaurant apart, and which lends to notability. The event itself (the meeting of the two world leaders) may be notable, and if that particular event has it's own article, then Ray's Hell Burger could be merged into that article. BUT, as it stands now, the article is promotional in nature, listing trivial facts such as menu toppings, and relying on a picture of the President eating there as a claim to notability. Hope that clears up what I meant by wp:ONEEVENT. Sorry if there was any confusion :) The Eskimo (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way to completely miss the point. The reason "we do not have Wikipedia articles for them" isn't that restaurants are non-notable; it's purely that nobody has got round to writing those articles yet. I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but the precedent for "restaurants are notable if they're received coverage in reliable sources" was set following an insanely long discussion. If you want to change our notability guidelines, the place to do that is Wikipedia talk:Notability or set up an RFC, not to unilaterally tag something for deletion with a spurious reason. – iridescent 18:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point...I just don't agree with you. You asked a question, and I answered it for the sake of clarification. I'm sorry that you think my reasoning is spurious, or that I have gone about this AFD in the wrong way. Why don't we just wait and see what happens? :) The Eskimo (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Iridescent's point, if not his tone. This restaurant is extremely well known in the area (I live not far from it) and it has received significant press in the local media for its food, and in the national media for the events The Eskimo related. In my opinion, it definitely meets notability guidelines. Foregone conclusion t|c 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whatever grounds one wishes to use, either the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT or a simple WP:NOTNEWS, this is not an article-worthy topic. A one-trick-pony of a restaurant that only received a scattering of national press because Obama brought a foreign dignitary there. Beyond that, there's just routine city paper sources. And I scoff at the notion that the "Mzoli's meats" (a link to the actual discussion) AfD sets some sort of precedent for this, as that discussion was tainted by a nauseating amount of Jimbo-is-always-right-isms. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note - Unless a clear consensus develops either way, this should get an auto-relist when the time comes. It was nominated on the 3rd but never added to any AfD-for-today log until the 8th. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. While I would have deleted this in the discussion last July, this nomination covers the same grounds and nothing has changed. Unless either the article, policy, or precedent establishing consensus has significantly changed since then, I tend to think that one nomination is enough. Moreover, it seems unlikely that this local establishment would not have been chosen by the President for lunch with a foreign dignitary unless it had some kind of fame or reputation prior to that event, and the article seems to bear that out. Culturally significant local landmarks can get articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations are like french fries-- one is never enough. Since the last one closed as "no consensus", it wasn't exactly a mandate. I tend to agree with the nominator that this restaurant's only claim to fame is that Barack Obama ate there a couple of times. One might as well write an article about the McDonald's on Georgia Avenue based on this, which was front page news nationwide, but not historically notable. Mandsford 18:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to large amount of press attention before after and during its one big claim to fame. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since I did a lot of work improving the article in the last AfD, I can easily say (once again) that it is notable. Never heard of it before the AfD, but found tons of sourcing. To be clear, this restaurant was arguably notable even before Obama went there (twice) due to the tons of local mainstream news coverage, beyond 99% of restaurants. It has not only received coverage for one event.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. The reference to WP:ONEEVENT is irrelevant because this is not a BLP. And even if it were, there would be no occasion to delete as there is no separate article for the main event in question. See Plymouth Rock and Cemetery Ridge for examples of other one event places. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SYSLoader[edit]

SYSLoader (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 removed {{db-spam}} from the article because it does not read like unambiguous promotion. Furthermore, {{db-a7}} would have been inapplicable because A7 does not apply to software.

A Google News Archive search returns only passing mentions about Sysloader. Unless significant coverage in reliable sources can be found, this article should be deleted for violating Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tapology[edit]

Tapology (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 notability or coverage; nowhere near as notable as the usuals of mmajunkie, sherdog, mania, etc. Plenty of linkspam based on this address Paralympiakos (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibyan ul Quran[edit]

Tibyan ul Quran (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)

Unsourced article about non-notable book by non-notable author. Orange Mike | Talk 09:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hasbro Interactive. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tonka Search & Rescue[edit]

Tonka Search & Rescue (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)

Game does not assert any notablility. This article is nothing but an unsourced stub with only one external link (that goes to the Mobygames website). Also fails WP:GNG (no reception for this game, no significant coverage. etc.). Possible redirect to Tonka (which is way more notable than this). trainfan01 talk 16:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as stated by Marasmusine --Teancum (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Afd doesn't seem to have been listed properly but there's enough consensus to keep per the guidelines at WP:BCAST and the clean-up that took place since the nomination. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRCH[edit]

WRCH (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 Poorly Written article, one referance. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All radio stations are notable. If it's "poorly written", re-write it. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep. I believe the station meets WP:BCAST, which governs the broadcast media - but the article is a bit spammy and needs cleanup. In particular, I want to know how old the station's license is, as that is one of the specific criteria for notable radio stations. Might take a crack at it later. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I reduced the article to a stub by deleting all of the non-encyclopedic and spammy-sounding content. There does, however, appear to be plenty of coverage of this radio station to support the proper writing of this article. SnottyWong spill the beans 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All radio stations, television stations, and publications are notable if they have significant number of viewers. Dream Focus 08:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OnTrack TimeTracker[edit]

OnTrack TimeTracker (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)

Borderline WP:SPAM, no indication of notability per WP:GNG, no WP:Secondary sources cited, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyington Freighters[edit]

Flyington Freighters (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)

Failed airline project. I don't know exactly, but guess that as such it fails WP:N in general. Most sources found covering this company are either copying the airline's initial intentions, or the order of the Airbus A330 cargo aircraft. It might be noteworthy that Flyington Freighters would have been the launch customer, but this would be better suited in the aircraft airticle, wouldn't it? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of unexplained booms[edit]

List of unexplained booms (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 topic of this list is very unclear. How does the author defines what a "boom" is? If a supersonic aircraft flies in the sky and nobody notices it, is that an "unexplained boom"? Also maybe some of them are unexplained according to some but explained according to others (for instance, most people will just assume it's an aircraft even if they didn't see it). How do we choose which "booms" we include in this list? For all these reasons, I think this list is not encyclopedic because it doesn't have any clear criteria. Laurent (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think anyone would be unclear about what a 'boom' is. An 'unexplained boom' is very simply a loud sound that has not been explained, according to the references given. If an 'unexplained boom' needs to be more clearly defined then that's something that can be fixed by editing the lead (although I do see the futility of trying to define something that is unexplained in the first place). And the criteria for inclusion would be its mention as such in a reliable source, usually the media. If another source manages to explain the boom then obviously that boom should no longer be listed here. But as of now all these entries are clearly sourced, and I think it's certainly taking a step in the right direction away from the less specific "List of unexplained sounds". -- œ™ 10:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess by "boom", the author means sonic boom but is it really encyclopedic to list all the so-called unexplained sonic booms? I mean each time someone doesn't turn the head fast enough to view the aircraft, we're going to have an "unexplained sonic boom", right? It really doesn't feel that we need an actual list for such a strange topic. Or perhaps, whoever created this list should explain why this topic is notable or what's interesting about it. Laurent (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but not everyone's hearing of a mysterious boom is going to be reported about in the media. That's whats making the items on this list notable, the fact that they've received media attention. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list of every single unexplained boom.. although, I can see your point about having a list for a strange topic such as "Unexplained booms" which probably isn't a notable, encyclopedic phenomenon in and of itself. What's interesting about it is the fact that it's unexplained, I guess. It seems the author is indiscriminately choosing a topic that's reported on in the media and then listing the individual reports, and what ties it all together as a notable topic is the fact that they're all unexplained. I dunno, I still say keep for now but I'd like to hear the list creator's argument too. -- Ϫ 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-sourced article whose only problem seems to be the title, although it's consistent with the way the news media chooses to describe these events when it reports them. How does the author define what a boom is? I guess from all those headlines from reliable and verifiable publications whose editors like to say BOOM!!!!! Mandsford 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this article has a confusing title it does not seem to fail any of the following Criteria[29]] as a matter of fact I am impressed with how well sourced it is. Remember we can always move an article if we are concerned about its title. Sincerely Venustas 12 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename to List of unexplained booms in the USA, and then keep per Mandsford.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information should be added to this describing each one. Dew Kane (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is not a worldwide list, if kept it needs to be renamed, since currently it is highly biased as it explicitly states it is about the US, but sits at a non-US title. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure this list is very informative at the moment, as it simply links to the locations, not articles about the events. Wouldn't a better article be simply 'Unexplained boom' which could then include a list? If this phenomenon is as widespread and widely reported as the sources indicate, then surely its deserving of an article of its own?--KorruskiTalk 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs renaming or increased scope - the intro clearly says "in the USA" so this should be in the title. I've come across various articles dealing with unexplained sonic booms in the past so it's certainly notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news covers these. Dream Focus 21:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reggiimental[edit]

Reggiimental (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)

Autobiography that shows no real notability for the subject. Article suffers from Citation overkill and when you remove the shops, blogs, youtube, unreliable sources, articles about someone else (notability is not inherited), interviews talking about themselves, links that don't work, we are not left with anything near the significant coverage required for notability. A search for sources find nothing more. Previously deleted at ReggiiMental (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ReggiiMental). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Peace[edit]

Artificial Peace (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 third-party sources cited, no indication of meeting WP:BAND, apparent WP:COI in creation.  Sandstein  06:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from the page creator:

Hello Sandstein and Top Jim,

You put this page up for consideration of deletion with the following notation:

No third-party sources cited, no indication of meeting WP:BAND, apparent WP:COI in creation. Sandstein 06:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that it is not a conflict of interest as I started this page after discovering that a previously existing Artificial Peace page had been entirely deleted by a vandal a few years ago. I clicked on the link to restart it with the intention of adding links to secondary sources. Since then I've cited several reliable sources and met the notability guidelines for music.

Artificial Peace:

  1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
  2. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).
  3. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.
  4. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Please let me know if you have any specific questions for me. I hope you will remove the consideration of deletion for this page.

Thank you for your help.


Hello,

I noticed last night that a previously existing Artificial Peace page had been deleted by a vandal a few years ago, and so I clicked on the link to restart it with the intention of adding links to secondary sources.

If you have any doubt as to the legitimacy of the band, please note that Artificial Peace is a Dischord Records recording artist and played with such well known bands as the Bad Brains, Minor Threat, Black Flag, D.O.A. and many others. Please remove the consideration for deletion tag on this page. Feel free to ask me any specific questions you have? Thank you for your help.

Hello again,

I've now cited various reliable sources and will continue to cite additional supporting information. Please let me know if you have specific questions.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.84 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And hello again,
Just noticed some editing on the Artificial Peace page by Katharineamy. She linked the name of Artificial Peace's guitar player to the Wikipedia page of a different guitar player with the same name. Same name, different guy. I have not changed Katharineamy's edits. I'll leave that up to you. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. And please remove the consideration for deletion on this page as it now has more source citations than many other Wikipedia pages. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.84 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted by a vandal. I'd like to ask you to remove that false claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has now been edited and sources have been added. But the inline sources are not reliable, except for the mention in American hardcore: a tribal history, which is one paragraph and therefore probably not extensive enough to confer notability. The extent of the coverage of the band in the bulleted list of sources is not clear. Also, the text still doesn't quite make clear how the band is notable. The nomination is therefore maintained.  Sandstein  14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator replies Friday Nov. 12, 2010 approx 11:15 am pacific time with an addition on Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010 at approx 2:10pm:

As far as satisfying requirements for notability criteria for musicians and ensembles,

Only one of the many above facts is needed to satisfy the requirements for notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Please remove the consideration for deletion flag from this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.13.84 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiddler's Gun[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Fiddler's Gun (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 self published text by non-notable author Sadads (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 World Cup of Hockey match stats[edit]

2004 World Cup of Hockey match stats (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)

Per WP:NOTSTATS. Indiscriminate and mostly trivial information. Completely lacking in context for anyone not already familiar with the tournament, and an unnecessary fork of 2004 World Cup of Hockey. PROD removed without comment. Resolute 05:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an unnecessary fork. Relevent stats could be better included in the 2004 World Cup of Hockey article using Template:IceHockeybox instead of the current format for each game. Salavat (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also ive started a reformat of the 2004 World Cup of Hockey article here if anyone is interested. Salavat (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up comment, so i implemented a full format change (so if you were interested your to late :)). The final standings i think i got right but not 100% sure so if someone could take a look. Also when i did the player stats tables it looked like they may not have been fully updated. Salavat (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Awesome! I was going to do the same when I had a chance, but glad to see you got there first! At some point I'd like to see all of the CCs/WCs look like 1976 Canada Cup. Resolute 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary content fork and full of trivial information. Anything important can be included on the 2004 World Cup of Hockey page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, and therefore nominator. oknazevad (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content Fork, the only things present not in the main article are the PP chances and the 3 stars which are, of course, unreferenced--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2004 World Cup of Hockey handles this in a more efficient way, which is to link the game info for persons who like a lot of statistics with their breakfast. Mandsford 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments, 2004 World Cup of Hockey already has the info in this article. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is about quality not quantity. Having two articles about the same subject (also known as forking) will just cause confusion. If any relevant content exists it can be merged into 2004 World Cup of Hockey . Perhaps someone could help the creator understand the policy of searching for an title before creating a article (in other words making sure no similar articles exist). Sincerely Venustas 12 (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Searching the history of both articles shows that they were both created in 2004 by the same group of people while the tournament was going on, and after six years, I'm sure that the article creator doesn't require a lecture from any of us. Mandsford 01:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allthing[edit]

Allthing (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)

While it could be merged or redirected, I see nothing in this article that belongs in an encyclopedia. See a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allies of Camlach D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allies of Camlach[edit]

Allies of Camlach (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)

While it could be merged or redirected, I see nothing in this article that belongs in an encyclopedia D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Astrologers Association[edit]

Romanian Astrologers Association (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 independent sources are presented that would demonstrate evidence of notability. Searching for "Romanian Astrologers Association" and for "Asociaţia Astrologilor din România" yields but a few hundred results apiece, seemingly all of them mirrors of their website or of this page. Since no independent coverage is available, we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see a deletion in the near future, perhaps by a tall, dark stranger. No evident notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Association seems to be of value, and of some notability (search "Astrology in Romania"), as the leading educational promoter of astrology in Romania. Also considering the fact that they have a reasonable website, with an English translation, and a periodical. The article does need some rewriting, however. Davemnt (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:GNG; this encyclopedia relies on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Show that those sources exist, and notability is demonstrated. Make airy pronouncements about the quality of their website, and it is not. - Biruitorul Talk 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes this AfD rather than just requesting more references then? You think it doesn't exist? Davemnt (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Existence isn't the issue. Billions of people exist, but very few of them merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • They think that no independent reliable sources exist, because no such sources were cited in the article, and when xe went looking Biruitorul couldn't find any. Your only counterargument is citing some. As noted, your personal opinions of what is "leading" and "of value" are irrelevant. We don't determine notability based upon subjective judgements of random Wikipedia editors. We show that a subject has been documented in depth by multiple independent and reliable published works. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see, thanks for your clarification, I hope you understand that I am still getting to grips with the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. I'm sure this isn't really a valid argument, however, but I still believe that there are many less noteable organisations than this which are on Wikipedia, though. Davemnt (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Davemnt's arguments are essentially that it can be verified and other stuff exists. Astrology is a fringe science, which many people enjoy as entertainment, but that's all it is. A national astrologer's association would have to be more notable than the average such group. That is a tall task, for which it fails. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amish furniture[edit]

Amish furniture (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)

Completely unsourced article likely created as promotional. Fails WP:GNG. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is obviously notable as a cursory browse of the scholarly sources immediately throws up good ones like Clusters and supply chain management: the Amish experience, Wood use by Ohio's Amish furniture cluster, Physical activity in an Old Order Amish community, Valued Amish Possessions: Expanding Material Culture and Consumption which all have something to say about this topic. The notability guideline states "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." and this does not seem to have been done. The article should therefore be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are about furniture making by the Amish, not the Amish furniture style. There is scope here for an article on the business carried out by the Amish (yes, the Amish make and sell furniture), but the current article claims that there is a "distinct style" for Amish furniture, as there is for the Shakers, yet there's no evidence to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong communicate 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is completely unsourced and is very promotional. I've deleted the worst of it, but it may need a complete rewrite if none of the statements can be sourced. Unless much work is done to the article in the next few days, I'd lean to delete. SnottyWong communicate 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup. If the subject is notable, the article is saved. You don't delete something because you don't like how its written. Dream Focus 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If an article about a notable subject is in a state where it would require a complete rewrite from scratch, then it can be deleted until such time that an editor would like to rewrite it in an encyclopedic fashion. Just because a subject is notable doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't delete a terrible article about it. Whether or not this article requires a complete rewrite from scratch is debatable, and depends on if any of the existing statements can be sourced. SnottyWong babble 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the Amish don't have computers, or even electricity, I find it unlikely any of them are trying to write a promotional article for Wikipedia. Click Google books or Google news search, and read through the summaries. This is a real thing, and it is given ample coverage. Have you honestly never heard of Amish furniture before? Dream Focus 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find myself agreeing with Dream Focus on both points. In fairness, the nominator didn't say that he/she had never heard of Amish furniture before, just that it wasn't notable enough for an article. Its notability is unquestionable [30]. Like Snotty, I have no use for an unsourced article, although I think that someone will come to its rescue before week's end. There are too many sources out there for this to remain a mediocre article. Mandsford 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Dream - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On sources In browsing for sources, I notice that Pennsylvania Dutch seems to be a better search term for this topic. For example, see The Pennsylvania Dutch and their furniture. The style of furniture may be more associated with the ethnicity than the religion and addressing the topic at this level would include better the work of other Mennonites and German settlers. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Pennsylania Dutch" (or even Pennsylvania Deutsch) is the wrong search term here, especially when applied to furniture. John G Shea is a well-known author on furniture, I have two of his books on Pennsylvania Dutch (inc. the one you cite). Both of them describe one of the strands of "immigrant furniture" so well-known in the USA: pieces (usually chests, 'kast' in Dutch or 'schrank' in German) that were made "back in the Old Country" and used as travelling furniture, until they've now become family heirlooms. This "Pennsylania Dutch" is a well-known style of furniture, but it's not derived from the Amish as a new creation by them, nor is it what the Amish are producing today (according to the cited refs of Shaker and Mission pastiche). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many blogs copy things from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article had it more than two years before the blog had the same text. Dream Focus 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a craft furniture maker. I've never heard of Amish furniture. The article iself is unreferenced and itself describes the two illustrated pieces as "Shaker" and "Mission". Now both of these two are well-known styles with a traceable history. In particular the Shakers (for whom we need articles on their furniture) were a distinct group, much as the Amish, who exercised their skills in making furniture for their own use and for sale, much as I'm sure the Amish do. Yet the Shakers developed distinct styles, techniques and attitudes that are widely recognised and recorded today, in a way that that simply hasn't happened for the Amish. I have a workshop bookshelf with several feet on the Shakers, not a mention for the Amish. I hate to say it, but I suspect nothing more than a simple marketing ploy to create a brand here, following on the bonnet-strings of the Shakers' success. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the indexes. As I remembered, I've got one article (Fine Woodworking) on an Amish furnituremaker and their use of diesel-hydraulic power to avoid prohibitions on electrically-powered machinery. Yet even in that article, and a discussion of what the chap makes, there's still no mention of "Amish furniture" as a style. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cited some sources in my comment above. Amish furniture is a huge marketing thing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead opens, "Amish furniture is a distinctive style of furniture…" It isn't.
If you want an article that reads, "Amish furniture is a recent fabrication, pulled together from indistinct rootsy sources to flog itself to ignorant suburbanites who think they're buying into a tradition rather than just a brand" and you might have a referenceable article. However the article as it is sets out to describe a genre of "Amish furniture" as if that were a similar thing to Shaker furniture, when it clearly isn't, and there's no reference out there to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No question the article needs a revamp. I wouldn't say its a recent fabrication either, its at least 25 years old based on the national 1987 AP story as a guide.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For claiming "a distinctive style", 25 years is like yesterday. That's even newer than Memphis Group, Mutoid Waste Company or Steampunk. Can WP:NEO (let alone {{unref}}) apply to a theme or style? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its more Eames Era than Eames era that's for sure.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell College Student Union[edit]

Grenfell College Student Union (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 Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I believe that the Union, as a member of the Canadian Federation of Students and an essential part of the Memorial University Community, it merits a Wikipedia page. I think it would be unwise to delete this page. There is much worse on Wikipedia and work can be done to ensure that the page comes better into various standards outlined by this site.

External References to the Union

I have provided some links beyond those currently referenced on the GCSU page.

Media I have outlined some external references that can be eventually worked into the page:

The Western Star

CBC

The Muse

Government Reference

University References 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryrandell (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Terryrandell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true, I have made only a few edits around the Wikipedia world, but the topics I have written on and contributed to, I am very knowledgeable on, and I have been a long standing member of the Wikipedia community. If the decision is made to delete this student union page, why bother having a page on any student union website? There is an inherent value in having pages on University student unions. Once again, I must reiterate that there is value in having information on various student unions in Canada, no matter the size, including the Grenfell College Student Union.

--Terryrandell (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional sports teams[edit]

List of fictional sports teams (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)

Per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable independent sources that discuss a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This article has no sources whatsoever, and is also an indiscriminate collection of information in the form of a contextless directory of entries. All the entries are bare text (not even redlinks), which makes it not much use as a navigational aid. Also, we do not cover sports teams in fiction as a topic, which we would need to do to justify a list of them as an encyclopedic topic. Reyk YO! 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom I agree, it is too indescriminate to be adequetely maintained, Sadads (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, WP:ILIKEIT, and I'll probably save it to the computer on my desk, but I can't think of a policy-based reason to keep it. I think that some policy should probably be made concerning the "community effort" pages that Jimbo Wales et al. envisioned as part of the original concept of Wikipedia, but it's difficult to reconcile this now with the bar against original research. Mandsford 19:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Sadads. I think a well-sourced text article on the handling of sports in fiction would be a fantastic and encyclopedic topic (we don't even have an article on Sports movies, that's just a redirect to a list!) but a wildly indiscriminate list of every time a fake sports team is mentioned in any work of fiction whatsoever? No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see some blue links in the mix. The Bad News Bears, The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings, The Mighty Ducks. Not certain how many of these teams are notable in the fictional work they are a part of, and what coverage they might have, but some of them are and do. Enough to make a list, surely. No sense not listing other fictional sports teams as well, as long as they are from a notable series. Dream Focus 21:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Vox[edit]

Victoria Vox (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 no clear indication that this is a notable musician. Not signed in a notable label. Spatulli (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Can't find any notability about Victoria. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Smith (writer)[edit]

Danny Smith (writer) (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)

Minimal notability. No sources found. Simply writing a few notable episodes of Family Guy doesn't translate to notability. Tagged for sources for over a year with none forthcoming. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Family Guy is awesome and may become iconic, and writing one episode is notable enough.--BenOneHundred (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep etc etc etc. While the nominator was busy checking out the edit history of opposing voters, he somehow missed the fact that the subject has six Emmy nominations; while some of these are team nominations, at least one is for particular/individual achievement -- not to mention the fact that creating notable work is generally recognized as establishing notability for creative professionals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until editors care to provide sourcing. Doniago (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- notability is not measured by having a cool job and being good at it, but by significant coverage in reliable independent sources and I'm just not seeing it here. Reyk YO! 03:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The emmy nominations do it for me, though we do need additional sourcing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While nothing in the article is sourced, there seem to be enough claims of notability in terms of his role in the show to meet WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." However, WP:RS need to be supplied or this article may well end up on deletion row again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 6 Emmy nominations. Good enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Uncle G (talk · contribs), "Foundational copyright violation. Copied directly, in toto and word for word, from the first cited source." NAC for cleanup.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vacant lots[edit]

The vacant lots (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)

Band with no real references except a pitchfork note but that isn't a real reference because it's a mixtape that includes one song from the band. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork is certainly real; however this reference is just an inclusion on their mixtape and contains zero information about the band, certainly not enough to base an article off of. The bulk of this article appears to be sourced from a single source (fault magazine). riffic (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I meant to indicate that Pitchfork is a good source, but however the link provided doesn't say anything about the band... I clarified the wording a little bit to make that clearer. Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Ambar[edit]

Air Ambar (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)

Extremely short-lived airline without any impact which would make it relevant for an encyclopedia. In fact, I couldn't find any sources that scheduled flights were operated at all, so it more seems to be a proposed and ultimately failed airline project, thus surely not notable per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No encyclopedic worth. -- œ™ 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Hang Tai General Aviation Airlines[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zhong Hang Tai General Aviation Airlines (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)

IMO this general aviation airlines fails WP:CORP, as there is no information given why this airline itself should be notable. As a non-scheduled airline, its impact and encyclopedic importance should be very low. The only reason that the article survived the (controversial) first deletion discussion was that an order of 40 aircraft was considered a reasonable claim for an own article. But a closer look at the aircraft in question, the Adam A700, reveals that only two prototypes were ever built, and the project is dead since 2009. Therefore, there is no more order from China either, and that aviation company has lost the only reason why it might be significant. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly don't recall creating this (it's a conspiracy! the edit history lies!) but the old discussion does ring a bell. It appears we have inadvertently created an argument at that time which was a load of balls. Delete Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Touch if You Ain't Prayed[edit]

Don't Touch if You Ain't Prayed (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 film, despite the involvement of some notable people, fails all criteria of WP:NF. No reviews or coverage can be found to indicate that this film had any impact. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Knowledge Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Britannica Knowledge Systems (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)

Reason

Exactly the sort of embarrassing article that Britannica would laugh at us over. Unreferenced short stub, not sure it qualifies for its own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A little over 36 hours between creation and AFD nomination on a first creation by a user seems bitey to me. I would note that no welcome mat and information to the creator of the article had been made. I have welcomed the user and informed them of this AFD. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed that it was a recent article, I assumed it was a stale old one, should have checked. Sitll I don't think it is notable and should be deleted. An Israeli company, not even Britannica related though as I'd thought...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did what I could for the article, but I had a significant challenge to find any reputable non-PR sources for why the company is important. Hasteur (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice against recreation as a proper disambiguation page or redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Performance[edit]

Digital Performance (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 article that contains, essentially, a dictionary definition with very little actual content. To elaborate, the definition itself is very vague and is essentially quoted/picked-and-chosen from the single source used in the article; the article contains multiple vague and weasel word assertions in itself (the definition appears to be a WP:SYN paraphrase, phrases such as "an area of constant change", "digital... performance has provided a bridge", a completely tangential section in the "digital revolution" section, etc.) and reads like an original research essay. There is a reference; however, as indicated, it is the only reference, and attempts to find legitimate sourcing to support the content of the article, or that use of the phrase "digital performance" to mean what is given here outside of the authors of this book, has failed. Essentially, it looks to be a summary of the source. The use of technology in theatre may be a legitimate topic for an article (or for inclusion at an already-existing article about technical theatre, such as stagecraft), but neither this content nor this title appear to be it. Kinu t/c 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: another editor appears to be adding tangential spam about one or two artists in particular. I am uncertain if they are related to the creator of this article, but it might be indicative of coatrack-style spam. --Kinu t/c 18:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poor references, needs much change. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Uncle G (talk · contribs), "Foundational copyright violation. Copy of copyrighted ("© 2006-2010 The Smalls") non-free content." NAC for cleanup.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan M. Ferguson[edit]

Bryan M. Ferguson (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)

Young independent short-film maker who doesn't yet appear to be notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Up and coming maybe. If some of the references were more specific and/or from more reliable sources, notability might be established. IMDb is user-supplied info, and the eyeforaneye ref is very brief. Mind you, so is the film reviewed at four minutes. Still, I wouldn't expect 'The Ten Commandments' from a new name. Not yet. Keep going, get the references and you'll find someone has made the article for you... Good luck - you're already going the right way to make a bigger name. I think. Unfortunately, we can't help you up the ladder. Peridon (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep per WP:BARE - his films have been reviewed by major periodicals, and there are reliable sources available about the subject, but that being said, see also WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wagner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATHLETE, never played a game in the NFL, Delete Secret account 22:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -- œ™ 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_"Spider"_Gianco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael_"Spider"_Gianco (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)

Joseph Allegro (AfD discussion) made me wonder how many other badly sourced biographies of purported criminals there are. This is only the second article that I've even looked at. The article started like this. There's no page number given in the one source cited. I've checked the book as best I can, and there's no Gianco or Gianfranco that I can find in it at all. I cannot find any other sources documenting this person's life and works. Ironically, in later revisions, the article was changed and, as you can see now, entirely repudiates the one source that was supposed to be supporting its content. And the repudiation is entirely without supporting sources. The article itself makes a case for its own unverifiability. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information into Henry Hill, Goodfellas, Wiseguy (book) etc. Doesn't seem notable on his own, even if sources were found proving his existence.The DominatorTalkEdits 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Ridgway (scholar)[edit]

David Ridgway (scholar) (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)

Declined speedy, subject in my opinion fails WP:PROF with a festschrift being the only reference. Some hits in google scholar, does not appear to have had much impact, but I'm no expert in his area of study. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep author of several books, and had a festchrift dedicated to him. That is normally taken here as sufficient importance to pass speedy. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Hello, last three hours I studied on David Ridgway. He is a notable scholar. I just added big part of this wording with a reference in his article:
  • From 1968 he taught first as Lecturer and subsequently Reader in Archaeology and finally as Reader in Classics at the Edinburgh University, where his wife Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway was an honorary fellow for years. (In the archaeology department.) Ridgway and his wife, in 2003, retired and moved to London where they both were awarded with an associate level of Fellowship at the Institute of Classical Studies associated with the University of London.

This is the reference: Ridgway Teaches at The Edinburg University Where his Wife is an Honorary Fellow - Obituary notes about Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway by Fellow Tom Rasmussen More to come. Fusion is the future (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Book published in Italian and in English by Cambridge University Press, Festschrift, citations in Google Scholar ([34]) - surely enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Question, I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but which of these match criteria at WP:PROF? The bar for notability of academics is pretty high, simply being published isn't enough, neither is work as a professor. The festscritft is a possibility I suppose, although my experience with them is that they are generally a kind of vanity publication, an honorific from close associates and friends. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe that that helps much at all in terms of meeting WP:PROF. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changing to Keep, see below) When I saw the mention of a Festschrift I thought "Oh well, he must obviously be notable" - because a Festschrift is a rare tribute given to a top person in a field by the other top people in the field. But from the information about the book at WorldCat, it doesn't look anything like a traditional Festschrift. Instead of an editor and dozens of contributors, it says there are a total of three authors - and two of them are the subject himself and his wife! So this does not appear to be the usual career-capping tribute and does not add to his notability, which seems otherwise undistinguished. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like the main argument for keeping is the existence of a Festchrift for him, but per MelanieN's comment, I'd like to see consensus that this is indeed a notability-establishing honor in this case. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The presence of a self-published Festschrift to me is an indication of non-notability. Google Scholar citations are meager. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. --Pgallert (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    change to Keep per discussion below. --Pgallert (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GS cites give an h index of 10 in the little cited field of Etruscan studies. May be sufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, the value of festschrifts to establish notability varies widely, since they are essentially a vanity publication. My concern with this one would be the number of copies in existence. And unlike the criteria for athletes, the bar for academics is quite high, being a professional isn't sufficient. We might ought to change that, but for the time being it is what it is. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify: The festschrift is not selfpublished, it is published by Accordia Research Institute (University of London) and contains articles by 47 (!) authors including really big names in classical archaeology (like John Boardman and Nicolas Coldstream) and is certainly not edited or authored by Ridgway. Few academics are the subject of a festschrift and extremely few get one of this caliber. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pax, can you give a citation for that information? Because the link at WorldCat that I cited above lists only the two subjects and the editor under "list all authors and editors". I thought that seemed odd! If it does have 41 expert contributors I will accept it as a notability-confirming Festschrift and change my opinion. A Festchrift is not normally a "vanity publication" as Nuujinn states; it requires the input of a lot of notable people in the field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Festschrifts are, IME anyway, usually published as an honorific put together by close associates and are often published by a local press. They aren't the same as peer reviewed publications such as journal, and to my mind the degree to which they would establish notability would depend upon how widely circulated the document is and the notability of the contributors. They do not necessarily have the input of many notable people, but if the person being honored is very notable, sometime do. I would concur with MelanieN that if there were 47 contributors, that would be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some festschrift can be tricky notability-wise. Here is the correct bibliographic information with the 6 editors and the full list of article writers. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is clearly a book intended as a tribute to him (and to his wife - where is her Wikipedia article??) and I am changing my opinion below. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He also has an entry in the Encyclopedia of the history of classical archaeology (page 1324). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to Keep - his notability is established by the creation of a Festschrift in his honor by his contemporaries in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following this useful discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, given this, I'm convinced. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-2011 Canceled TV Series[edit]

2010-2011 Canceled TV Series (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)

Arbitrary list; violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not for "lists of stuff" mhking (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Contribution appreciated, but this is covered more comprehensively in 2010 in American television, which includes the date of the last airing of each show. Mandsford 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 Article was created by user many multiple times already as User:Purdya and deleted each and every time as completely duplicative of 2010 in American television and 2011 in American television, where each is already sourced (or in the case of 2011, to be sourced upon eventual creation). So tagged and asking now for a block of both Purdya and AlijahPurdy for socking and wool-pulling. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Administritive note - this isn't a G4 case, as 2010 in American television has never been deleted, and 2011 in American television was deleted through the Proposed Deletion process. If you can find a relevant Articles for Deletion discussion, please tell us; otherwise, let this AfD take its course. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was not suggesting anything involving those two articles; the article in question is 2010-2011 Canceled TV Series. Please read again; the above user has recreated it multiple times and it has been speedily deleted or redirected each time (not through the AfD process, but PRODding and redirects) as it's a duplicate and with the community being more frustrated each time with Purdya. Now he comes back under the guise of the new name AlijahPurdy and re-adds this again, expecting to sneak by with a clean talk page, but he has clearly been caught. That's why I'm asking for G4 deletion despite there not being a past AfD on this article. Nate • (chatter) 09:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • G4 is only applicable to content deleted via AFD, but A10 seems applicable. Yoenit (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • So tagged, did not see that A10 would be more appropriate. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" Article seems to have been created repeatedly under different names [35], [36] [37], which have all been redirected to 2010 in American television. Yoenit (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is longer and more detailed. And the article has never been to AFD before. Dream Focus 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure this gets coverage somewhere. Plus its notable. Some of these are long running shows. And the information would not fit in any other article, it easier to look through things here. Additional information showing the channel, reason why it ended (ratings or the actors moving on or sometimes the writer/creator decides to end it), and how many seasons it lasted and the number of episodes made, would be a good addition to this list article. Dream Focus 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, 2010 in American television (along with other "Year in (Nation's) television" articles) covers show cancellations both in more detail (with dates and sourcing on each entry). It already fits and has been redirected multiple times to this same article. Also the article in this state is incredibly American-centric, when there are shows in other nations that have been canceled. Putting every show canceled in a year throughout the world would result in messes of articles. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a section for canceled shows. Some of these notable shows which are being canceled, are listed in various events, but there is no easy list to sort through which shows just them. So this list has a purpose. And this is only about American shows so it won't be a problem fitting, not that the size of list is ever a reason to get rid of it. I'll change the title. Dream Focus 10:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • 2010 in American television#Ending this year There it is, in date of last date of airing, with each sourced. Again, there is no use for this article and there has been cause to redirect or delete this article every time because it duplicates this section entirely. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian drug cartels[edit]

Norwegian drug cartels (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 references whatsoever. This article is all OR. Sulmuesi (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's no reason why it can't be sourced, if even to a Norwegian language site. However, I'm not of the "it'll improve on its own" persuasion; WP:V is the highest consideration, and in more than three years, there's never been the first attempt to back up the rumors and speculation in this article. There's no excuse for that. I imagine that Norway does have problems with narcotics, and that the government responds to it with both law enforcement and public awareness campaigns. Mandsford 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of anything like a cartel in Norway. Swiss Navy is real (sort of), Norwegian cartels are not. Just because the evening tabloid calls a bunch of dealers a cartel, or a mafia, does not mean that they really are. East of Borschov 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find evidence that drug cartels exist in Norway. Location (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Edwin Baxter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Edwin Baxter (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)

Nothing notable about the person. The author was Baxter himself (User:Billbaxterdtm) and IMO was using Wikipedia as an outlet to peddle his non-notable published works. Also, please take the time to read Baxter's response in Talk:William Edwin Baxter...he is clearly so into himself that he can't see the light of day that he is, in fact, not a noteworthy human being. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notable in his own opinion, but not under the limitations in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." or "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.") According to the article, he has sung the National Anthem at several MLB baseball games, which can be said of thousands of people; and he's created crossword and find-a-word puzzles, which has been done by many a person, though few seek recognition for it. Take this somewhere else, please. Mandsford 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus from community discussion is roughly in favor of deletion, but also moves more towards delete, due to coypright concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players[edit]

The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players (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's contents are the property of the The Sporting News, a copying of the list constitutes a copyvio.

See here, here, and soon enough here for precedent. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The ranking was certainly notable [38] and [39] (It was actually TSN's "Greatest Players of the 20th century"). Unlike the examples shown of the television shows, I see no evidence that The Sporting News copyrighted the rankings. Generally, publications create such lists to boost sales and to be seen as an authority on a subject, so long as they receive credit. If one can show proof that it's a copyvio, fine, but I seriously doubt it. Mandsford 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link to the article is broken but this similar Sporting News list is published with essentially the same copyrights as the NFL Network's list (Per the bottom of the link: "Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.© 2010 SportingNews.com and its licensors. All rights reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of SportingNews.com."). I've only run across one of these lists that wasn't so far. Can't remember what it was right now but I don't think it was Sporting News. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a direct link to the other similar football article that has a copyright at the bottom:[40] Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually that's just one of the numbers but its copyrighted. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't seen evidence of copyright of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to US law the mere fact of writing something creates a copyright. There is no need to put a note of that on the work. That's just a reminder for people who are not clear on the law. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with you, however, that the Sporting News will probably not object to WP's reprinting their list. In fact, as was said, it gives them some free publicity. (But still legally a copyright violation unless they give us permission to repost it.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • In my opinion they would definitely object; if you can read the results here that removes part of the incentive to go to their website or buy the book titled The Sporting News Selects Baseball's Greatest Players: A Celebration of the 20th Century's Best[41]? Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COPYVIO means speedy delete. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, per Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • External Linkize, or something like that. This is a great source of information. Somehow it should be linked to Wikipedia, maybe by external links in articles on baseball. What we have here is not really an article, but a reposting of the list. Even if there was secondary commentary on the list what would still be most interesting is the data itself, not the history and process of the list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable based on lack of third-party coverage. Probably not a copyvio, as lists are usually uncopyrightable, at least in the U.S.A. Matchups 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see sufficient third party coverage, rather than a lack of it, in various google searches.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no idea where anyone has gotten the idea that lists aren't copyvios. Maybe someone could enlighten me with a link. I've provided several links to afds where its been established that they are considered such. Besides this is the subject of a book, publishing this removes incentive to buy the book, so I would think Sporting News would clearly object (which is clearly part of the gimmick used to market the book, but this and see where we have your favorite players ranked). Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is why I feel that Wikipedia is flawed, as people not licensed to practice law in the U.S., let alone with expertise in intellectual property law, opine freely as to the application of principles that they are not sufficiently familiar with.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry but these lists are usually copyrighted, we had to delete a bunch of these lists before. Secret account 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix: Whether to keep this article or not depends on the notability of the list (or of the book in which the list is contained), not on whether it's a copyvio in its current state. If the list is notable, then the article should be rewritten to describe the origins of the list, summarize some of the highlights, mention some of the sources that show its notability, and provide a link to a permitted copy of the list if available. I think the list is notable per the sources cited by Mandsford.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if the complete rankings section is a copyvio, why don't we just delete that now? AaronY (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under applicable law in the U.S., it would not appear to be. The answer would lie under the holdings in Publications vs. Rural Telephone Service (499 US 340; 1991) and its progeny. BTW -- are you the same editor as the nom, but just using a different name?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How about just giving a link to the list as an external link in baseball and citing it as a reference in each listed player's article? I don't think we need an article on the list itself. The fact that the Sporting News created such a list will have been already made clear to interested readers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. That's a default position I expect if it does not survive this AfD. However, if there is not a consensus that it is non-notable, it will survive this AfD and deserve an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News - Football's 100 Greatest Players[edit]

The Sporting News - Football's 100 Greatest Players (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's contents are the property of the The Sporting News, a copying of the list constitutes a copyvio.

See here, here, and soon enough here for precedent. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there's no evidence that TSN intended to copyright its rankings -- magazines and newspapers thrive on the publicity that these things get because it bolsters their quest for recognition as an "authority" on the subject-- this is a pretty silly article. When did the list come out? Did it make news when it did? Is there some link to it somewhere that we can look at to verify it? Cut-and-paste at its finest. Mandsford 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a direct link to the archived article for this topic that has a copyright at the bottom:[42] Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually that's a just a link to one of the numbers (Lawrence Taylor no. 4) but its copyrighted. Quadzilla99 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I left the source at the bottom of the page. There used to be a link at TSN's website but I couldn´t find it Argsoccer (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in addition to the copyright issues above (which may or may not resolve favorably to keep) My reason to delete is because it's simply re-hashing 100% of the information in another article on another source. This isn't an encyclopedic entry for us, but something that we would use to reference and source another encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia is not a mirror server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the subject of the book titled: The Sporting News Selects Football's 100 Greatest Players: A Celebration of the 20th Century's Best and a free reprinting of the list would basically remove a lot of the incentive to buy the book. Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that, but the policy consideration isn't whether the article would help or hurt book sales (I'd say the former if it's a new book, but this looks like a pre-Peyton 1990s list). However, the article doesn't give any information that suggests that this was notable when it came out. In 1999, everyone was publishing those "best ___ of the century". Mandsford 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree with all of the afds I linked above? I'm not sure where you found the idea that lists aren't copyvios tbh. Could you clue me in? Quadzilla99 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was disagreeing with the idea that a Wikipedia article would remove a lot of the incentive to buy a book. Perhaps you're responding to one of the other comments above. Mandsford 13:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether to keep this article or not depends on the notability of the list (or of the book in which the list is contained), not on whether it's a copyvio in its current state. If the list is notable, then the article could be rewritten to describe the origins of the list, summarize some of the highlights, mention some of the sources that show its notability, and provide a link to a permitted copy of the list if available. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Black Kite as an obvious hoax. Non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon X[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pokémon X (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)

Likely WP:HOAX since I can't find any sources for this and the 14th season is still airing in Japan. At any rate, the lack of sources pose a WP:CRYSTAL problem. Redfarmer (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Was just speedied 2 days ago. It lacks sources and doesn't give any real information. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted by Diannaa. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the crystals[edit]

Knights of the crystals (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)

Consists of content copied verbatim from a blog Seduisant (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bentota Airport[edit]

Bentota Airport (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)

Just a single line info about the airport and nothing else. Hence it doesn't deserve to remain here. Abhishek191288 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Because (as I understand it) airports with an airport code are notable per se. This is the same reason why this article survived the PROD. As you can see from the revision history, there once were commercial flights. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The source in the article does not seem reliable, as a look at the satellite view of the location that it claims for this airport clearly shows that there is no airport there.[43] The coordinates in the article lead to a point in the sea.[44] Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why an airport would not be able to meet GNG. Just because it is a stub now does not mean it cannot have a titled page. Sebwite (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But does the airport actually exist? The evidence that I presented above suggests otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The airport does exist. That anyone can see through a google search. And the nom's concern was not it being a hoax, just the lack of information. Being a stub on Wikipedia is not grounds for deletion. The major problem is the no one has bothered yet to expand the article, and that is not grounds for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the Google search results is a reliable source? As far as I can tell they are all sites that simply scrape information from elsewhere. All of these sites that give a location provide the same coordinates that I've shown above not to point to an airport. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, the nom's concern is not it being a hoax, but just very short. Therefore, I am assuming good faith. The creator has more than 10,000 edits and has written extensively about many real airports around the world, leading me to believe s/he is a good-faith contributor who would not pass off a hoax. Notability may be a separate concern, but I do believe airports are probably inherently notable. It is also possible that s/he got some inaccurate information about the coordinates, and this needs to be corrected. Sebwite (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the article creator is trying to pass off a hoax, but that the source provided in good faith turns out to be unreliable. I agree that the nominator didn't provide a valid reason for deletion, but in the course of this discussion I have found a different reason that is valid: that this article fails our verifiability policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability no matter where I look. Even a search for the airport on Google Maps gives no results, and, as Phil Bridger pointed out, the coordinates given in the article point to the sea. From what I'm finding, the closest major airport to Bentota is in Colombo, about 90km away. It may exist, but, per WP:ITEXISTS, this does not necessarily make it suitable for inclusion, especially if we can't even verify its existence.Redfarmer (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep after the press release found below. Other editors should note however, that arguing WP:ITEXISTS is a strawman since no one only one editor has denied the possibility of its existence, and that editor has now voted keep. All other concerns have regarded its notability. Redfarmer (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. Bentota Airport is a river airport. It's a place where flying boats land. A clear stretch of water and a jetty to get on and off. Nothing to expand here; just a point on the map and in most detailed travel guides. It it worth an article? Hardly. But it exists. Question to those who were looking at a river airport on google maps: there's a pretty wide lagoon - how could you miss it? East of Borschov 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I get it now. I was parsing the name as "(Bentota River) Airport" rather than "Bentota (River Airport)". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please list some of the travel guides where this is mentioned? I have been unable to find any. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rescue As noted above, this is a river airport. Sources have not been found because no one has been looking for them as this. Dew Kane (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I have spent quite some time looking for reliable sources and have been unable to find any. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep SriLankan Airlines just announced resumption of service to Bentota [45]. The press release specficially mentions the airport code as BJT which, I believe, confirms that this airport does in fact exist, and is notable as it served (well actually will be in a months time) by a major international airline. Additionally, the Twin Otters that SirLankan has ordered, which in the quoted press release above are the planes that will operating the route, are to float planes, and thus, is why no visible runway exists, as the runway is the water, and the map definition is just too poor to see a dock or other facility to handle the passengers/planes. The press release confirming SriLankan's Twin Otter are to be float planes is here [46] Ravendrop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep now that this has been verified as an airport with planned scheduled services. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ American Hardcore: a Tribal History]
  2. ^ American Hardcore: a Tribal History
  3. ^ Liner notes: Artificial Peace "Complete Session November 81," Dischord Records number 167, Released 2010.
  4. ^ Wikipedia on Pushead
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_8&oldid=1142640031"