Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 2

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Reap[edit]

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

Google search has ascertained the lack of notability of this person. TYelliot (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on the grounds of lack of ghits, but on the grounds of no references other than a statistics list, and being a college coach. To me at least, this isn't a notable position. Figures of 9-13-4? Is that Won-Lost-Drew? Not particularly notable either if that's the case. Then again, I can never understand the American obsession with sports statistics. I would imagine anyone wanting to know about him would know somewhere with more info than this - and everyone else couldn't care less. Peridon (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A head football coach at a major college football team indicates that the subject is notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded it some and added sources (whereas it had none before). He was a head coach in the collegiate ranks for a school that played top competition of the 1910s. At the time, this was the highest level for the sport. Strikehold (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With Strikehold's additions, the article has sufficient references to demonstrate notability in spite of the nominator's Google search. Furthermore, Peridon's comment is basically a Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT argument, implying he doesn't care for sports statistics. The availability of information elsewhere is a reason to keep an article, not delete it. —Ute in DC (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEEP KEEEPP. I'd delete User:Peridon a million times before I deleted Thomas Reap. Anyone who ever coached a a college football team is notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep forgetting that the sports people at American colleges and universities are thinly disguised professionals and not just young people enjoying a change from academic lessons..... Peridon (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT Vodello (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response perhaps yes, perhaps no. In this discussion, that doesn't matter. What matters is an answer to the simple question: "Is the subject notable?" Yes, in the US college sports--especially college football--is a big deal. There is definite widespread coverage. There is definite interest and support. College football attendance can get as high as 100,000 for a single game in some stadiums. These are all indicators of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and with the recent expansion can stand on its own. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons above. When will users realize that English Wikipedia is shared by several countries/regions and that there are a number of "local" notability standards out there? Lord knows there are enough articles about obscure cricketers and third-tier Eastenders actors out there. Please don't add AfD tags to articles without understanding the notability standards for the subject area. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so sure about this one. During the time he coached, the NCAA had not yet gone to divisions, but if you look at the schools Villanova played, only Army and Navy have consistently been top level teams. [Take a look at the actual schedules]. So ~~maybe he's notable, but I wouldn't call it a clear case.~~ And it is simply not true that "[a]nyone who ever coached a college football team is notable." I'll concede that it's true of the current top level (D-I FBS), but not true of all times and all levels. cmadler (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely accurate. In addition to Army and Navy, which were two of the major powerhouses throughout the early 20th century, Lafayette, Lehigh, and Fordham were all top level squads at the time of Reap's tenure (in fact, Lafayette was named national champions the year after in 1921). Moreover, since this was before any formation of divisions within the NCAA/IAAUS, I believe the only way to be consistent is to consider all teams that played at that level equally. All were in contention for national championship and individual recognition. Additionally, because Villanova was until 1980 a Division I-A/University Division team (highest level) and is currently a top-tier Division I FCS (e.g. being last year's champions), it is necessary to consider all of their head coaches notable in order to give a complete history of the program. Strikehold (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Strikehold explains, Villanova football and all of its head coaches are unquestionably notable. That this one article was cherry picked for deletion strikes me as peculiar and seems to be an act that was made without much thought. If Reap is not notable, then wouldn't other Villanova coaches like Martin Caine follow suit? The reality is we that have slews of articles for head coaches at NCAA Division II, III, and NAIA programs. WikiProject College football has deemed that any head coach of an NCAA or NAIA football program is notable, irrespective of division, record, or length of tenure. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Coaches Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical thought: They would, wouldn't they? 11:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What's even more cynical is what I think about the above post or the earlier snide comment about "thinly disguised professionals", which is ironic because at lower division schools, the athletes really are "young people enjoying a change from academic lessons". Jweiss11 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability in the article is supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I struck out part of my previous comment. Looking into it more, Strikehold is correct that Villanova was facing top-level competition during this time. cmadler (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previously discussed at WP:CFBCOACH notability essay. Clear-cut case, well documented, notability is asserted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by reliable sources. We are not going down this slippery slope today, fella. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. These articles are already included at the parent article Liverpool Senior Cup so the merger is effectively already done. JodyB_talk 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Senior Cup 2010-11[edit]

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

Following this discussion and this AfD, I propose that these competitions do not warrant season articles.

The following articles are also listed for deletion:

2007–08 Liverpool Senior Cup
2008–09 Liverpool Senior Cup
2009–10 Liverpool Senior Cup —Half Price 22:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Half Price 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. No need for seperate forks. Giant Snowman 13:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per GiantSnowman. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. County cups are not notable enough for individual season articles. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - there's nothing to merge here except the finalists. Bettia (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Exactly what I thought, and they're already included in Liverpool Senior Cup. —Half Price 16:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Psychology (journal)[edit]

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

It was tagged with WP:N 2 years ago and the issue hasn't been resolved yet. TYelliot (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on reliance of proposed guildeline Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals):
- Satisfies criteria #9, this journal has been in continuous publication since 1998. Further, the number of issue published each year has increased, rather than decreased, which suggests growing circulation, which implies growing notability.
- Under "Other considerations"
  - Meets minimum "Threshold standard" as it has an ISSN (0951-5089), and is published by UC San Diego Dept of Philosophy and is cataloged by the US Library of Congress.
  - Under "academic considerations," while the journal is not published by and in-house academic press, it is published by a third-party press (Routledge, which is a subsidiary of Taylor and Francis group) which publishes academic journals http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/alphalist.asp
  - Further, while this is not a criteria listed in the proposed guideline, the Editorial Board of the journal is rock solid. This is no walled garden of people with advanced degrees purchased from each other's diploma mills vouching for each other's credentials.

Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to ask that anyone interested in the proposal concerning notability for periodicals, please contribute: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(periodicals). Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mtiffany71 above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto. Peridon (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the proposed notability for periodicals looks good, that appears to heading towards a consensus, and this periodical appears to meet the proposed guideline. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Mtiffany71 above. Jaymay (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Magic[edit]

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

No non-trivial coverage found. Best I could find was a fluff piece about a man who proposed through a custom made Super Mario World level. Utterly fails any sort of notability for software. Last AFD closed in 2006 with a consensus to redirect to Super Mario World, which wouldn't make sense as a present-day solution since the current SMW article makes no mention of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The first AfD result was a redirect to Super Mario World. This time I'm advocating:

1. A full delete, not a redirect.

2. A stern warning for the person that recreated the page.

3. A block on recreating the page.

Trouts might need to fly. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 02:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Keristrasza (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while cool, it all comes down to WP:GNG - significant coverage from reliable sources, and there's just not the coverage needed. --Teancum (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Super Mario World. Innumerable hacks have been made using this tool, including an entire meme of perpetual motion videos made of custom SMW levels. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks ccredible sources Infinitely Humble (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SDP Multimedia[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a particularly notable piece of software. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many similar types of this software, and most of them are not notable enough to have an article per WP:N. (Posted by TYelliot...)
Delete Not a lot of notability shown - no references and only a homepage link. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Bob Speaks[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author is very notable, considering the number of references his article has. I am adding a new reference to confirm the notability of this piece of work. TYelliot (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator While Kevin Smith is a notable screenwriter, his books are not automatically notable for that reason. The fifth clause makes room for the works of an author who is "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable," such as "a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." Kevin Smith, while definitely notable enough for an article himself, is not the kind of person whose every work is notable enough to justify its own article simply by virtue of the fact that it was written by him. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore there should not be a Wikipedia article dedicated to it. Neelix (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there do appear to be a number of false positives, the Google News link above seems to demonstrate that the book has received multiple independent RS reviews, thus meeting WP:BK criterion 1 and the GNG to boot. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and as an alternative, it can certainly be Merged into Kevin Smith's own article if consensus decides that the coverage is inadequate for its own article. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Kalwar[edit]

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

Delete The article has been created by the subject himself as seen from the edits of the creator[1].On the grounds of self promotion, non notability and poor references, the article should be deleted.No third party reliable sources.Some media references are there but then wikipedia have to start listing journalists as all of them will have links to their articles.The sources are non reliable.--Poet009 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By referencing to IP address does not necessarily means that it has been edited by subject. Even if it has been edited by subject, it should not be judged in any manner whatsoever. It may be that the subject may not meet "notability" however, the sources are valid and please kindly check each of the links carefully, before claiming that the sources are not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete: Per WP:N. This is a vanity autobiography. --Ragib (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Ignore above vote.My dear subject who has given the vote strong keep is likely to be the subject himself as he has contributed nothing except this vanity autobiography.A self published poet can't be notable one.No awards .No significant contributions.Just a vanity autobiography.Reasons have been provided why this article should be deleted.Non notable.--Poet009 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Again you are assuming something which might not be true. "he has contributed nothing except this vanity autobiography".Before you use a word "vanity" please check the reference in the quoted text above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybheja (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources are very major or seem to indicate any notability. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above three keep !votes are from the same user. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraticelli[edit]

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

This article is just a copy paste from a book. There is no encyclopedic value. It is a serious breach of WP:NPOV. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. No rationale proposed. I'll skip on the first two statements, but could you elaborate on the NPOV issue and how it connects to deletion? East of Borschov 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It's in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which lists a ton of sources, yet it has "no encyclopedic value"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is not neutral. Using words like honored and dishonored whenever describing a person in a article is not neutral. This article is completely unsourced. A catholic encyclopedia is not a reliable source as it is POV pushing --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic may be encyclopedic, however this article does not have any value. All it contains is a opinion of some person who wrote the encyclopedia. The entire article is not neutral. It is full of peacock terms. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. You admit the subject may be encyclopedic, so this AFD is completely unnecessary. Vodello (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you reading? "Honour" is used twice in this one, once for "honourable confinement" and once in a direct quote. I can find little that can be reasonably construed as POV. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is a specific example quoted from the article: "Bonagrazia of Bergamo, a capable lawyer and up to that time a bitter enemy of the Zelanti, presented a daring protest against this Bull to the Consistory". This sentence is not written in a NPOV. The word "daring", "capable", and "bitter". These words are not necessary, they are peacock terms. The entire article is written like this. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close I don't want to be rude, but the claim of "no encyclopedic value" is without value. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If it's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, its notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does appear to have some issues, as the nom points out, it also appears that the gross outline of the article's lead is congruent with what the Google Books tool yields in its first page of hits. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- This is an encyclopaedia article. It may need updating to current views of the subject. It may require attention to reflect non-Catholic POV issues, but those are issues concerning improvement. Deletion should not even be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loglan 88[edit]

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

No evidence that this programming language is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of programming languages. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sole source is the paper describing the programming language. I can't find any textbooks about the language in Google Book Search; furthermore, I cannot find an example program such as "Hello World" or "99 Bottles of Beer." PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PleaseStand; I could not find enough coverage in independent sources to establish notability, either. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSOL.com[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of this website. Last AFD closed as no consensus (five years ago). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Not notable. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very localised website for specialist interests. It must go per WP:N. TYelliot (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is unbelievable that this article is still here. Virtually nothing of substance has been done to it since the afd five years ago. Since "largest" and "oldest" are subjective under the best of situations I conclude there is no notability here. JodyB_talk 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IBM Series/1. I handled the merge to the IBM Series/1 article JodyB_talk 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Event Driven Language[edit]

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

No evidence that this programming language is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of programming languages. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IBM Series/1. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event driven language was an important precurser to modern object oriented architecture. Hit the library at your local University's data center and you can find the appropriate operating manuals. Deleting or merging this article serves no purpose except to make it harder to analyze the history of this important and notable chapter of software development. I added 4 ref's, textbooks etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This AfD is completely unwarranted. The article already has a merge proposal that suggested merging into IBM Series/1. The merge could have been performed without the trouble of an AfD. This toopic, while not suggesting to me that it has any great importance in computing due to the lack of results in Google Books and Scholar (although this may be due to a lack of knowledge in this area of computing), is undoubtly important in the context of the System/1, and the inclusion of its content in that article will aid understanding. Rilak (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ all the above: The merge tag was added after I nominated it for deletion [3], the nearest major university is 250 miles from where I live so I can't just pop over there and look this up, and simply claiming something is automatically or "undoubtedly" notable doesn't actually prove anything. If I look around I could also find an instruction manual for the specific model of chain saw I use, and without even going to a university at that, that doesn't prove anything as far as establishing notability. The new sources look pretty weak, especially the one identified as "unknown article." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it is undoubtly important in the context of the System/1. So it should be merged there. How you managed to twist my words into me claiming that the article needs to be kept because its the most important programmming language ever is beyond me. Perhaps replying to each induvidual editor is a good idea? Rilak (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Care Registry[edit]

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

Small, non-notable local organization. Fails WP:ORG. No reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable, as there are no independent sources cited. Figureofnine (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam without any major coverage in external sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Afrory And Emoban[edit]

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

Web comic that has zero third-party reliable sources to show notability, so it fails WP:GNG. Article's creator removed PROD tag. First Light (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable comic book with 0 third party reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7; no establishment of notability, no reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K.V.Dominic[edit]

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

I have taken this article to afd as there is no reference provided in the article.Only 3 external links that too are questionable.Written like a unencyclopedic article.I strongly recommend deletion of the article.Also the subject is non notable.No significant awards or works. --Poet009 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 Gscholar, books' existence confirmed by Gbooks, but they only seem to be held in a single-digit number of libraries on Worldcat. Fails WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:PROF. --Ragib (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Infinitely Humble (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directory System Agent[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, Wikipedia is not a directory of every piece of software that has ever been made. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect~~ Keep The nom seems to believe that "Directory System Agent" is a particular piece of software. However, this isn't the case. "Directory system agent" is the general term for the service program of a directory server that answers directory queries (from "directory user agents"). ~~I recommend adding the contents of this article to directory server and redirecting.~~ User:Jonathan_de_Boyne_Pollard has added sufficient content for the article to stand alone. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC) — Updated, HowardBGolden (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent additions seem to demonstrate that there are enough independent sources around that it's an appropriate subject for a tertiary source to cover. --ais523 23:46, 3 October 2010 (U T C)

Those sources are fine for verification, but they do little in the area of notability, which is the reason for the deletion nomination. Looks like two textbooks on computing and information from the producers of such software. There's still nothing indicating why this is an important concept in computer networking that merits it's own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added content to the article that points out that the model and function of a directory system agent are specified by an international standard, ITU-T Recommendation X.501. To me, this indicates notability, since it confirms a conscious decision to address an international need in telecommunications. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough independent sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sameep Kulkarni[edit]

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

Delete Poorly references and media clippings mostly mention about events.Buzz in the town cant be used as RS or reliable reference.I recommend deletion of the article.Also techgross e magazine provide just an interview in which it is likely that he speaks about himself.Above all the subject writes the article about himself.Self promotion is not allowed in wikipedia.Other media clippings not necessarily can establish notability. --Poet009 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With regard to significant coverage almost all the web sources have coverage that is either insignificant, written like a news release, or, in the case of techgoss, consists of statements by the subject on a website with unclear notability. The Indian Express source and the MiD DAY coverage should better but reading them one comes away thinking they don't impart not actual information and heavily rely on quoting the subject. Since this is a musician article I checked WP:MUSICBIO and I don't see any criterion here. Hekerui (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, but please edit the article wherever required. There are many links you can google and see which gives good citation. If required, you can compact the article. I feel the info is quite notable. Thats what I feel sincerely !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthememory07 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Ignore the above vote by Inthememory07.It has been casted by the subject himself.He has only joined wikipedia to promote himself as seen from his contribution history.Wikipedia is not here for helping upcoming artists to gain popularity.According to wiki policiesWP:MUSICBIO the article should be deleted.Non notable subject and self promotion.--Poet009 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and work on it. poet009 is bit of biased it seems. Aaprt from this I feel there are plenty of artists need to be on wikipedia, wiki is for the information. Subject is meeting many of the criteria required by wiki e.g. point number 9 Monika 123 1 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC) — Monika 123 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete again- User Monika123 casting the above vote appears to be a new join from the same place of that of the subject.Good way to support.Dear Sameep, I am just applying wiki principles upon your page.WP:MUSICBIO shows there is nothing in this article due to which it should be kept.There are thousands like you in the music world.Nothing but just a self promoter.So Delete.--Poet009 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poet009, cast one !vote only, please. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no "Sameep Kulkarni"&hl=en&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=LrWvTLvUFY_Zngeep-meBg&ved=0CA8QpwU&fp=2c832ee43120520d sources found; those in the article don't all even have to do with the subject. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Mangan[edit]

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

Rather WP:NN author: Fails all 5 criteria of WP:AUTHOR. While there are citations, they merely confirm the existence of the books and the others are written by the subject. Sure she has a profile at The Guardians web page, but that doesn't satisfy WP:Author. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Her newspaper articles have occasionally been mentioned by other journalists and academics, but I can find no significant coverage of her to qualify under WP:BASIC. So i think the question is whether she meets WP:AUTHOR point 3 : "The person has created... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Searching Google News Archive found one review of Hopscotch and Handbags and one review of The Reluctant Bride (none of My Family and Other Disasters). I don't think that's quite enough. Qwfp (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I'm sure there's an argument for them meeting criteria number 3 at WP:AUTHOR but I'm damned if I can find it. No substantial references on her work were available. If someone else finds them, I'll happily change my vote. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a regular guardian reader I like her stuff a lot but filling column inches is not a standard for notability and there seems to be lack of decent sourcing to support what is, at the end of the day, a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfied by user/other. – Rich Farmbrough, 07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chief Red Bird[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chief Red Bird

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

Delete. This person, if he even existed, is not notable. The list of references seems disingenuous. Emmet Starr's History of the Cherokee Indians is listed as a reference but it does not mention this individual at all. Article states this person signed the Treaty of Holston; however, every signer of the treaty is listed here: "Treaty of Holston, 1791,". His name in its various forms is not present. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Delete-A combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with references listed as family geneology sites. Even if reliable secondary sources could be found for this persons existence, it doesn't seem like they would pass WP:Notable. He iro 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The original author has removed much but not all of the OR and self published sources, and is now looking for reliable secondary sources. They have found several mentions of the person, in primary sources in archived letters from the time period, but I fear notability will not be established, especially before this AfD runs its course. He iro 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heiro also, correctly, shows that the subject's notability is questionable at best. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the most basic rule of verifiability. Much of this article must be conjecture or original research. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Stuchlik[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Won three student tennis championships in 2007 and nothing after. "Film" listed "Another Man" is 9 minutes 45 seconds long. Another Sparrow hasn't been released yet.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by a sock-abusing editor. This is one of several articles on non-notable subjects created as spam promoting the film Sparrow.--Michig (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, I have found other articles like this one, with my fav. quotation so far: 'She is perhaps best known for her role as Dawn in the horror film Sparrow.' commenting on the career of so-called Alexis Jayne Dafoe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Jayne_Defoe --panthadu (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there might be a very thin argument made toward thoughts of inclusion under WP:ATH or even per WP:ANYBIO if the tennis awards[4] can be shown as somehow notable, this individual fails film criteria per WP:TOOSOON... missing out as a filmmaker/actress under WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Howerton[edit]

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

Refimprove since 2007, nothing on the web from independent reliable sources, the article as is is uncited BLp. there was this amazon sales link to his book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974694231 which I removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this wasn't a BLP, I'd say keep, but it is a BLP. But no salting. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything I find appears to be about a different Mike Howerton. I can not find anything on this person. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP issue and due to lack of sources establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EUGENIA RICO[edit]

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

Spanish novelist, poet and journalist. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But it does show notability as a writer, and it does list references (tho the references desperately need cleanup). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look in google books. She's written a number of books with major publishing houses and these have been written about by secondary sources and critics, but minimally in English. The article is a disaster...but some brave soul should rescue it, I think! VASterling (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIs does show notability, more than 400.000 entries in google with so many accademical articles. In Spain she is one of the major writers though the article needs help, the author deserves wipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido Bertoncini (talk • contribs) 07:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by HJ Mitchell as part of a mass removal of pages added by PeterRoyce. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Besa[edit]

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

Non notable book. Disputed prod as article creator believes notability of a book is automatically inherited from its author. Only source is authors own website. Nothing on google to help establish notability. noq (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book is inherently notable and relevant to society because of its famous author. Just like baby suri curise who has a page on here and I bet she is not even five years old. INHERENTLY relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolf 3[edit]

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

Sum total of reliably published coverage is a trivial writeup in PC Welt. No usable hits in the custom videogame google search. I do not think this meets the notability threshold for inclusion (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage in PC Welt, other sources unreliable. Couldn't find anything usable in a reliable sources search. --Teancum (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse financial instrument[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, mostly nonsense; it might be a confused rendering of something else, but I can't quite figure out what it should be; there's no obvious target to redirect to. Note that the term "reverse financial instrument" gets perhaps two or three google hits at all, though it does seem vaguely familiar. Shimgray | talk | 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I do not so far propagate hits for reverse financial instrument by linking from other articles makes the article more wrong.. uhh man.. wut's the deal -- Juxo (talk)

Now I put a link into the "See also" section of put option i.e. I'm starting to propagate the term. Reverse financial instrument shows up on googel at number 3 for search on "in reverse trading" (and this is before I started putting link(s) in other article(s) -- Juxo (talk)

.. except of the redir -- Juxo (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ps. The article put option is wrong on many points. Take for example the graphs.. -- Juxo (talk)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shimgray | talk | 16:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading Hedge fund is a pain and yet doesn't even scratch the surface. --Juxo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I added an introductory chapter see reverse financial instrument --Juxo (talk)

Delete No reliable sources discuss this term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask jimbo's opinion -- Juxo (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. The article put option is wrong on many points. Take for example the graphs.. -- Juxo (talk)

I cannot find anyone documenting any such thing, either. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscation by NYSE cabal like you has consistently prevented the evolution of clear and consise terms in the field of finance. Prove me wrong the lot of j00 who voted delete. Keep --Juxo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC). . Go hide in your Library of Congress den and leave us zikizens alone. Your troll is fu. You too Uncle G --Juxo (talk) American college text books on finance are a load of rubbish --Juxo (talk)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB_talk 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of blue-eyed soul artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been looking over this article (and its history) and have come to the conclusion that it is an unmaintainable and only sporadically sourceable list. The term refers to Caucasians that perform soul and actual R&B, not the Mariah Carey/Beyonce stuff. Editors that aren't aware of the ambiguity in the term "R&B" keep adding artists like Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake. I wouldn't be surprised if Vanilla Ice has been put in and take out a few times. The artists that I agree actually belong on the list tend to be WP:OR violations. There aren't sources provided that say the artist is considered blue-eyed soul, and, since the term has fallen out of general use, sources that actually use the term to describe artists are few and far between. —Kww(talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided for now. Clearly Blue-eyed soul is a recognized musical concept [5], but this list has no sources whatsoever. If the list is revised to include a citation to a reliable independent source for every artist listed to associate them with blue-eyed soul, and the artists for whom no such citations can be found are removed from the list, the list will be in decent shape and should probably be kept. But the article should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia in its current uncited format, where it is basically original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. There are some sources out there, which I've just incorporated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure what to put, but if kept, I would suggest renaming to List of performers of blue-eyed soul to avoid ambiguity... I do agree the lack of source violates WP:V.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete It's trivia. What the hell's so notable about having blue eyes? Nothing, that's what. This really is listcruft in the strongest sense of the word and I mean that with as much offense as anyone would like to take. If we don't get rid of this list we might as well start "List of Emmy winners with superfluous third nipples," or "List of dates on which people placed bets that Wikipedia would jump the shark." And, put me down for today for $50. Or as Emily Litella would say, "Never mind." Okay, seriously now, although the list includes recent artists of whom inclusion is somewhat dubious (I shall refrain from naming names ~~Christina Aguilera~~), several artists from previous decades are well-established as exemplars of the genre, eg Billy Joel, Dusty Springfield, and Marianne Faithful (whose absence from this list is a gross oversight!) Mtiffany71 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydeep Sarangi[edit]

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

Notability has been questioned, and also the possibly inadequate 3rd party refs. -- AfD originally placed by User:Poet009; I restored the AfD I messed up during a edit conflict aimed at fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Myself, I do not support deleting it. I think the publications show notability as an author and perhaps as an academic. Better references to the reviews are however needed. boloji.com is basically a blog, but the review there was a signed one by a professional academic. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-It is due to the fact that the article is very poorly referenced and its claims are not supported by references.Also no notable awards or honours by any reputed organizations.Without references from reliable sources articles can't be kept on WP.--Poet009 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:PROF. --Ragib (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF straight up. As far as WP:AUTH is concerned, I'm having trouble finding serious reviews of his work, and worldcat holdings of his works are not impressive (not being in more than a few dozen libraries for his most popular work, and with several of them not being in more than 2 or 3 libraries), so I conclude he fails this criterion as well. Ray^Talk 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sicknature[edit]

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

~~Procedural nom.~~ Declined BLPProd, because it has sources, although they aren't really reliable, they are above the threshhold for blpprod. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNGNativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the nearest I found to significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. -- role^player 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Patty Chen[edit]

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

Dearth of reliable sources, questionable notability, appears promotional. Re-created numerous times by single-purpose account [6]. JNW (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources are links to blogs, which aren't normally considered reliable, and, as you said, this article's notability is questionable. The Utahraptor ^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (Patty Chen, Patty chen, Y. Patty Chen --- I think that's all). Blatant self-promotion of local real estate agent clearly failing WP:BIO. Name is too common to be useful as a search term either in Chinese or English, but Google shows no evidence of any reliable, independent, non-trivial sources about her companies:

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 --- 51 and 6 hits, respectively

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 --- 6 and 7 hits, respectively

Thanks, cab (call) 04:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several reliable sources, which is evidence that this is not self promotional. She seems to be a well known entrepreneur in China. 19:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyshu726 (talk • contribs) — Tonyshu726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep. Most of the sources look like the third parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.29.64 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC) — 173.76.29.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Here is another example of a non trivial secondary source from China's largest law firm DaCheng, describing the investment committee her company led to China. Along with other links mentioned on this wikipedia article, there is no lack of reliable secondary sources, thus she cannot be deemed not notable.--Gouhst (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC) — Gouhst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment A law firm's website is probably not a reliable source, nor would it establish notability. WP:RELIABLE is the guideline. JNW (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore the mention given there is quite trivial. It's a 400-word press release in which Ms. Chen and her company are mentioned once in a long list of companies and people who visited Dacheng's office. A reliable, non-trivial secondary source would be, for example, a newspaper article which actually discussed Ms. Chen or one of her companies. cab (call) 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Powell[edit]

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

~~Notability is not currently established in the article, and as it stands the~~ subject appears to fail Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Motorsports. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable driver per WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. May have wanted to check Google News before nominating. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. I should also add that there was plenty of content previously that claimed and established notability but I had to remove it because it was a copyvio. A glance at the page's history would have shown that. OlYeller^Talktome 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is not on me to prove the subject's notability. Article as it was definitely didn't do so. I still believe the subject fails WP:ATHLETE per rule 1 under motorsports, unless BARC Formula Renault is considered a fully-professional series (given the claim in the first source in the article that the subject is still a student, I doubt this). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, when you nominate it for AfD, you're claiming that the subject isn't notable implying that you've done research to make that claim unless you make claims based on no evidence whatsoever. That's the fundamental difference between CSD and AfD. Don't take my word for it. Read points 2, 9, and 10 of Wikipedia:BEFORE#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion which point out that the history should have been checked and at least a small attempt at finding sources should have been made. We can continue this discussion on my talk page if you really feel like we need to but it's not important to this discussion so I won't be discussing it here any further. OlYeller^Talktome 16:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering I still think the subject fails athlete notability guidelines, it's a moot point. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fair. I think she satisfies point #1 for driving in the British Formula Renault Championship but that's more my opinion on what constitutes "fully professional series" than anything. Regardless, the significant coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources as well as being the youngest female driver in a Formula Renault race are enough for me. OlYeller^Talktome 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you miss the part about it being an amateur race? Toddst1 (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion, "amateur" events of this level qualify as being on the professional level but ignoring the several references that provide significant coverage is of questionable logic. Conceding that the race isn't professional doesn't really change anything. OlYeller^Talktome 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about different events. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has everything to do with notability. There are specific guidelines such as Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Motorsports and she fails all 7 of those criteria for presumed notability. When you look towards the top of that same page, Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Basic criteria, it says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The references currently in the article show that Powell has been the subject of multiple published non-trvial secondary sources. Those sources, BBC and The Times, are reliable. The references are not just regurgitations of the same story, so they are intellectually independent. The Times and BBC are not associated with Powell so they are independent of the subject. So based on this even though she does not meet Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Motorsports she does meet the Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Basic criteria and is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the guidelines. Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Basic criteria provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. The subject of this article meets general notability, but not the specific notability requirements. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). Most wineries meet the general notability requirements, but we don't have articles on most wineries because the more specific criteria apply. Toddst1 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE#Applicable policies and guidelines says "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." So this applies since she does not meet the sport specific guideline but she does meet the general notability guideline as I explained above. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, satisfying one inclusion guideline but not another doesn't mean that the subject is not notable. Is this concept in the notability guidelines and I've somehow missed it? Can you please cite it or copy some text over? I tried to find it but there's so much to go through that I finally gave up. Please don't think this is some passive aggressive attempt to prove you wrong. If I've missed something, I want to learn about and correct my mistake. OlYeller^Talktome 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject fails all 7 criteria for Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Motorsports. The British Formula Renault Championship is an amateur race so she fails #1, doesn't come close to any of the others. Just because there is coverage about her doesn't mean she passes the criteria. Those Keep votes clearly haven't read the relevant policy. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when you say that I clearly haven't read the relevant policy you are referring to the notability guideline WP:ATHLETE since you didn't mention any policies. I have read it and I based my recommendations on the relevant portion of that guideline. Maybe you should assume good faith rather than accusing people of things. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:MOTOR has been notified. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that it was established at WT:MOTOR that the Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Motorsports guidelines are insufficient for many cases, as they mainly apply to American-based series. We discussed setting our own guidelines, but these were never quite established. Many did suggest that each situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I feel that judging whether a driver is notable enough depends on A) their acheivements and B) the coverage they have received. Alice Powell here certainly meets B), as she has had articles in The Times written about her. However, she has only had this article because she is a female racer, and not because of her acheivements. I feel that Formula Renault UK is a notable enough series, but only if you have won it, or maybe been a frontrunner on a regular basis. You can see here that Alice only managed a best result of 10th in her only season in the category to date. The BARC series she is racing in this year is far more obscure that the main series. Considering these points, I would say Delete. - mspete93 09:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I feel like the discussion may have switched from focusing on the subject's notability to whether or not the subject satisfies WP:ATHLETE#Motorsports. Regardless of any of my opinions regarding the subject of the article, I think we may need to focus on the goal. The article has recently seen some changes as well that participants may want to review. OlYeller^Talktome 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject clearly passes the general notability guideline as demonstrated by the sources in the article. There is nothing in policy or guidelines that suggects that there is any need to pass any additional guideline. Yes, a 30-year-old man with the same achievements probably wouldn't have received the same coverage, but it is not part of our remit to look into the reasons why a subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources presented establish general notability guidelines in this instance for the subject, regardless of what a condescending admin says. Vodello (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided here about the subject support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Powell may fail the criteria at WP:ATHLETE, she passes the criteria of WP:GNG. What this says is that, although she may not yet be a notable athlete, she is a notable person based on the amount of significant independent coverage she has received. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree meets WP:GNG Infinitely Humble (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Review of discussion. He doesn't meet WP:NSPORT but he barely meets WP:GNG. Since this coverage is for more then one event, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Overall there is no consensus to delete this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Durley[edit]

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

Subject is not inherently notable, only for one event. Other than BLP1E, subject also fails WP:ATHLETE. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the notability guidelines the nominator says the subject fails: "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: 1. have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." I am of the opinion that the Little League World Series is a major international amateur competition at the highest level for baseball players of Durley's age group. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Baseball: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." If minor league players are not notable, what makes little leaguers more notable?! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you are quoting from is the baseball section for "Professional sports persons". Durley is not a professional and therefore does not fall under that section of the guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - He would fall under the "Amateur sports persons" section of the guideline which doesnt really mention 12 year olds because I think no one considered them notable... the closest would be high school player guideline which calls for "substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I fail to see how this guy received substantial and prolonged coverage... All mentions of him seem to be just about how odd it is that he is that tall. I cant even find a source that says how he actually did in the series. Spanneraol (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little League players fail the notability guidelines. Possibly some of the information can be merges to the 2005 Little League World Series page, but this individual player by himself is not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way specifically do Little League players fail the notability guidelines? Kinston eagle (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not competing at the highest level of the sport. Do we seriously want to now say that appearing in the Little League World Series now makes someone notable? We don't even do that for the College World Series. This would set a bad precedent. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't consider the LLWS the "highest level of competition in the sport", but if this case is considered notable, it's not for his participation in the LLWS so much as it is for his size. This article being kept does not set a precedent that all participants of the LLWS, or CWS, or whatever other event, are inherently notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, per coverage, including that reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- in addition to being mentioned in coverage in 2 little league world series, including articles about him specifically, he has been covered for three years vis a vis his high school basketball career, which include being second team all state this year in his soph year.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the point made by Kinston eagle. Also, the subject seems to meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a case of BLP1E, since he is notable for his amateur sporting career (a period of time) and unusual physical characteristics (a permanent, or at least persistent state) rather than just one event (the 2005 Little League World Series). Notable persons do not lose notability due to having simply receded from active media coverage. --MCB (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I failed to, in addition to the above, address the nom's point, which MCB has now ably done -- and I concur with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He is notable for his amateur sporting career". Is he? I see no claim of that in the article. WP:ATHLETE#Baseball doesn't even treat professional minor leaguers as notable, so how is an amateur youth notable? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Minor league baseball players can be notable if the adhere to the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league players tend to be merged to their own subsection. Technically every minor league player meets GNG as the local news sources cover their high-school, college, and minor league career, with passing mentions, etc. But that doesn't mean they deserve their own article. Secret ^account 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not true. Typically, there is no move discussion on minor league players, so it is one editor's decision to move it. Most of the time, with exceptions, minor leaguers in the modern era that have played roughly three seasons and have competed well satisfy the general notability guidelines, but often that is not reflected in the article. This leaves it up to one user, who may not have researched the player, to decide if it should be merged. In most circumstances, the articles are merged. But, if they tend to be lengthy, well-written articles that utilize the coverage, they are generally left alone. I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, I'm just making an effort to put an end to the "minor league players = non-notable" myth. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tangent. But, given that many of us also touch on those articles, within the rare group of those I would think a helpful one. I agree w/Brian's comment. Also suggest this article be speedied -- the refs at gnews show he has been covered for years, internationally, for more than one event.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage of him seems to be as a curiosity at those two little league world series.. No substantial coverage, no discussion of how he did in the series. Nothing to establish notability.Spanneraol (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw at least half a dozen articles (not even counting the pay view ones) that mention how he did in one or more games of the series, both batting and pitching.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WT:BASEBALL notified of discussion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Though, by my reading, I believe he fails WP:ATHLETE, he passes WP:GNG as having considerable independent news coverage. I agree that this isn't an example of WP:BLP1E. Like Danny Almonte, this is a case of an LLWS participant that merits inclusion. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Keep and maybe switching to the delete side later. I'm wishy washy about this one. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that this is an example of a BLP1E violation. Per Spanneraol, the subject could be mentioned briefly in 2005 Little League World Series and 2006 Little League World Series, but I don't see any evidence of notability sufficient for a separate article. BRMo (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a BLP1E that can be included in the articles for two different events? Maybe he's an example of a BLP2E. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." So Durley is an essentially low-profile individual who was the subject of a bit of human interest news coverage during a couple of Little League World Series and otherwise is of no enduring interest. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but the standard suggested by the subject of this article is pretty indiscriminate. BRMo (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Athletes are explicitly exempt from the GNG, and do not need to prove notability in any way, shape or form. He exists, and he has at one point played baseball, so we should spend a proportion of this site's resources covering him. —W F C— 08:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that at all. Who says athletes are exempt from GNG? GNG supersedes everything. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is making a WP:POINT comment/vote because he is mad that the soccer articles he keeps nominating keep getting kept. Ignore him. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that opinion, he played baseball for a Little League which is amatur baseball, athletes aren't except for GNG Secret ^account 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Highest level" is not qualified, it means the very highest level (world championships, Olympics etc). Baseball at the highest level is not an amateur sport. In soccer, appearance for U16/U18/U20/U23 international teams do not confer notability. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practice it is qualified. The ladies who won olympic medals in women's basketball were not competing at the highest level of amateur basketball. They were competing at the highest level for their sex. The same can be said of women's hockey, track and field events, etc.... Durley was competing at the highest level for people of his age group. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little leaguers don't deserves an article (with a rare exception) like Almonte which has lasting effects on Little League play, and left a huge scandal in the sports world in general. This little leaguer has no lasting effect on baseball. Just because he's tall doesn't mean he deserves an article. WP:BLP1E applies here. Also the guideline must be changed for the exclusion of little league world series participants, as some of the keep voters are keeping the article because there isn't any mention of them on the guideline. Secret ^account 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. WP:NSPORT, specifically High school and pre-high school athletes, says he doesn't automatically get an article as participation in a Little League competition is not inherently notable enough. I don't think there's enough to show he meets WP:GNG either. Afaber012 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This athlete was not participating in interscholastic competition. He was in "a major international amateur ... competition" and should be considered notable for that reason. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So should thousands of kids who played in the world series, and the onslought of WP:BLPs issues that we don't need. Secret ^account 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "major international amateur competition" quote doesn't show the full intent. The full quote is (with my own emphasis added): "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The "High school and pre-high school athletes" section of the guideline says nothing about interscholastic competitions. It says that they "... are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I've not seen evidence that substantial, prolonged, independent and non-routine coverage is available for him.

And since you brought it up, I'm not sure that the Little League World Series counts as a major international competition. The IBAF World Rankings uses a series of different tournaments to ranking countries, and it refers to "major" and "minor" world championships. The minor championships include several that have age restrictions on players. Now I would be willing to hear out an argument that says that what IBAF calls minor championships count as major competitions for us on Wikipedia. (Not sure about it but not something I'd dismiss automatically.) But when the international governing body doesn't consider it, I wouldn't either.

And in trying to anticipate the rebuttal argument to this... I realise that the Little League World Series is probably closer in style of competition to the Champions League Twenty20 or UEFA Champions League, neither of which count towards the respective sports international rankings. Both of those competitions are international, but participation in them is not what qualifies the players under the guideline, because they are qualified by the competitions below being notable. None of the various local Little League competitions are considered notable for their players to have their own articles. Players and teams in Little League aren't automatically notable enough to get their own article. There's got to be unusually high levels of coverage for them to be notable. Afaber012 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sources provided to back notability. The picture clinches it for me. Alansohn (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources that have established general notability guidelines. Vodello (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage clearly meets notability guidleines for inclusion. Nominating justification of BLP1E does not apply due to continuing coverage of a sporting career. There are precedents, such as Freddy Adu, which show that very young sports phenoms, can merit a separate article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in 2005, again in 2006, and all the articles since then completely obliterates WP:EVENT. Grsz¹¹ 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bortolotti[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Simply being a charity fundraiser, or wanting to become a politician, does not gift the subject notability. Article was nominated for A7 speedy shortly after creation, but the tag was removed by article creator. A subsequent PROD failed, thus AFDing. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe someday, but not yet notable Vrivers (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to say he is a notable person yet. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not yet meet notability requirements AlgebraT (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (Essay, notability, OR, and copyright concerns) j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Tokomak collider (DTC),[edit]

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

Original research. Long essay/study that seems more suited for a scholarly journal. Goodvac (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Snowy, snowy delete, with prejudice, please. Mtiffany71 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it does possibly appear to be a real project, I can't find any coverage of it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 13:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay page and original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails GNG, there is no significant coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article seems to be a copy-paste from somewhere - possible copyright problems. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay, may not be encyclopaedic even with substantial re-write. --ZhongHan (Email) 12:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to be an individual's essay, down to a signature at the bottom. No sources are provided and none appear to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW (Essay, notability, OR, and copyright) j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duo Triad Tokomak collider (DTTC) hub[edit]

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

Original research. Long essay/study that seems more suited for a scholarly journal. Goodvac (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... Mtiffany71 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage to support an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 13:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails GNG, there is no significant coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it appears to be pasted from a patent -possible copyright issues. Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay, may not be encyclopaedic even with substantial re-write. --ZhongHan (Email) 12:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow close (also likely G12, a PDF of the paper that this was cut and pasted from is in Google Scholar is a journal submission marked that it shouldn't be distributed.). j⚛e decker ^talk 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic confinement Tokomak collider (MCTC) hub[edit]

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

Original research. Long essay/study that seems more suited for a scholarly journal Goodvac (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Snowball in hell, snowball in hell! Mtiffany71 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage to support an article ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable copyvio and total idleness. The author has taken their paper and made no attempt to wikify it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails GNG, there is no significant coverage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Minds franchise[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Basically I repeat my reason behind my PROD with some additional caveats: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; all this has is a 1-year-old announcement, nothing more to build an article off of. It is becoming apparent to me that the article is becoming a dumping ground for news and gossip stuff about Criminal Minds and nothing else; the additional information added after the PROD contest shows precisely that. –MuZemike 07:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two programs, one tie-in game, and the usual poorly written novel based on the show (that invariably will become a dust collector) do not a franchise make by any means. The article isn't needed for a long time yet, if ever. Nate • (chatter) 10:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no evidence that this is (yet) a true franchise. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Tree Friends comics[edit]

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

Main Happy Tree Friends article makes no mention of comics. Therefore, this list is useless because the comics aren't notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Happy Tree Friends ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge? There's nothing to merge; the comics are so non-notable that I don't even know where they're from and they're not mentioned in the main article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merging per TenPoundHammer's rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No assertion of notability, just a bunch of links to JPEGs. 28bytes (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard Coachlines Ltd[edit]

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

Possibly fails under WP:BUSROUTE Kudpung (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major bus company in New Zealand with at least 100 buses. Don't know what the nom is talking by bringing up the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:BUSROUTES which doesn't apply here as this isn't a bus route. --Oakshade (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to review the edit history and see how much more has been added since this article was nominated for possible deletion. That's one of the features of an AfD! - people will try to save the article, and if they do that's fine, and comments about the nominator are not required.--Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly notable company. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They operate the Orbiter and that in itself makes the company notable. Schwede 66 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A minor local company that is already adequately covered in Public transport in Christchurch.Jimmy Pitt talk 17:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Per Jimmy Pitt, article should be redirect to Public transport in Christchurch, where company is already adequately covered. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Coverage in Public transport in Christchurch is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article may be not far removed from a stub and doesn't have a lot of sources, the source cited is reliable and the company is notable: they are the first bus company in New Zealand to run their entire fleet on a biodiesel blend. Mtiffany71 (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I did find some mentions that might count towards notability, but not a lot apart from the usual directories &c. I added another source that gives more details of the biodiesel campaign, for what its worth. bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jurispedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The reliable third-party sourcing and available references for this particular, barely notable, subject seem rather scarce when put through the Google search engine. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the third nomination; the last was in 2007 and is listed as "second" in the list to the right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while useful to lawyers perhaps, there seems little relevance outside its target audience. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I certainly hope that "relevance beyond its target audience" isn't a valid reason to delete, because you can nix all of Wikipedia on that basis... Plus, "barely notable" is still notable. It seems to me the main problem of this article is that it is a stub and not marked as such (I've added the {{law-stub}}). -- BenTels (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One would like to think that Wikipedia would give stub articles about other Wiki encyclopedias the benefit of the doubt. For those of you feeling the need for this stub to meet more concrete standards for inclusion, here is a LINK for an academic conference paper by Esther Hoorn entitled "Using the wiki-environment of Jurispedia in legal education." —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I detest Eventualist arguments, so I will try to refrain from making one. It seems to me that while the relevance to reference ratio is rather high for this entry, it is precisely because the topic is relevant that we should uhm.... uhmm.... (DAMMIT!) give other editors an opportunity to expand the stub into a full-feldged article with more sources by keeping. But I will qualify the odious argument by saying that if the article is kept, but is in essentially the same condition at some arbitrary point in the medium-term future, then delete with glee and malice. Either people are motivated to fix things, or things don't get fixed. Mtiffany71 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, if someone thinks they can bring this article up to snuff, I'll be happy to userfy or incubate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoShelter[edit]

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

Minimal mention of notability, fails CSD A7 --ZhongHan (Email) 03:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when I first saved this record, it was deficient under the guidelines I read up on since then (CSD A7). However, I believe I did address the problem by adding the relevant information. Essentially Photoshelter along with its two major competitors (SmugMug and Zenfolio) is providing an alternate marketplace for professional photographers who would otherwise be overlooked by the traditional stock photography business model but do own content that is of broader interest than what local photographers service. SmugMug already does have a record describing the company on Wikipedia and I'm planning on doing a similar write-up on Zenfolio since I do believe this is a market segment that many professional and semi-professional photographers are definitely keenly interested in.
I'm also thinking that this evolving market category eventually will need its own name and entry in Wikipedia. At the moment, there is no established naming yet (although "portfolio services" appears to be a leading candidate). I plan on writing up a category entry as well. Klausson (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 is immaterial--we're at AfD. Good-faith article on not yet notable company. There appears to be some news coverage, but it's a press release. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is news coverage aside from press releases, mostly in trade publications: Popular Photo Magazine has run a number of articles, some are referenced here: http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/photoshelter/. Business Week has them in their company listing: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=24339754. Giga analysts have covered some aspects of Photoshelter in the context of Getty and Corbis: http://gigaom.com/2007/11/27/photoshelter-wants-to-take-on-getty-images/ (the latter being an inappropriate comparison, IMHO) Klausson (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also one more thing I noticed as I was looking around for similar companies and how they are listed in Wikipedia: From what I can see the list of who is referenced and who is not does not seem to be dictated by notability at the moment. Examples are: SmugMug (listed), Photoshelter and Zenfolio (not listed) are the three largest companies offering professional portfolio services. In the more popular space of photo sharing sites, aside from the market leaders (Flickr, Picasa, Shutterfly, Snapfish - all listed), there are a ton of listings for companies that are virtually unknown and have barely any references (GazoPa, Ipernity, Radar.net, Atpic and others). I understand and agree that standards should be improved even if they were not enforced in the past. But in this case, we are looking at one of the top three players in an admittedly small and specialized space. However, the nice market does have a need for documentation, IMHO. For the record, I'm not affiliated with Photoshelter. I do have an account there as I do on Zenfolio, which also does not yet have a Wikipedia entry and in my opinion should also have one. Klausson (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Klausson, thank you for those links. The Popular Photo article certainly helps, but GigaOM does not strike me as a very notable publication. Let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, not much indication of notability, and looked vaguely promotional. (I've removed the company's address - Wikipedia is not a directory.) In connection with not being a directory, just because one company (or individual or whatever) has an article, doesn't mean than another should. Perhaps the first one shouldn't either, when it's looked at more closely... If some non-blog coverage was referenced, I'd consider changing my mind - as I always am. Peridon (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found an article on CNET about the company [7]. Is that adequate for notability? Sailsbystars (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, no. It just says they've added a tool for something. Rather more like a press release than a review or coverage. I could announce an addition to a program of mine - but as I haven't programmed for years no-one would take any notice. Peridon (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure spam. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police body microphone[edit]

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

Finishing unfinished AFD for another user due to Twinkle glitch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this really an attempt at an article? Maybe add a note to the mic article about it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention in Wireless microphone (maybe). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If solid information is provided that shows this is a special type of microphone (it may well be) then write the article. Sorry about the Twinkies, they can be dangerous. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe mention in wireless microphone if something can be sourced and written in proper encyclopedic form. I don't think there is much, if any, actually encyclopedia information in this article. --Slon02 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This microphone is pretty much the same unit that's used for a car radio, and the example picture is a clear copyvio of a publicity snap of Missy Peregrym from the ABC series Rookie Blue. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into lavalier microphone which is much the same thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Luke, Jr.[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Several very minor film roles. One significant role in a self-produced, non-notable film. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article from a non-notable person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of references in the news link above indicate notability. Most are local (Philadelphia papers) but also New York[8] and LA[9]. Pburka (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am from the Philadelphia area and I see him mentioned on the news pretty often, such as in the linked articles. 72.58.66.148 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)— 72.58.66.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Presumably, you mean the two articles linked above (there are no independent sources in the article itself). The "NY" source (newsday.com is behind a paywall, so I can't be sure what's there at the moment. However, if the title is representative, the article isn't about Tony Luke, Jr. but the restaurant, Tony Luke's. Yes, he's interviewed for it, but it's not like we're short on Joey Vento quotes (Geno's is notable, Vento is not). The "LA" source is scant material on Luke: Philadelphia native, in two movies, owns the resaurant. There is a good bit of bluster ("Luke, Jr. is beyond incredible", "made a hardened critic fall in love with it, as only Luke could do", "Tony Luke, Jr., restaurateur, actor and impresario, who is as much a part of his city’s landscape as Constitution Hall and the Phillie Phanatic", "legendary eateries", etc.), which brings us to the source: "Canyon News". It seems the publicity machine is dialed in on this one, "It is simply not possible for editors to examine each article to see if it is true or false. All contributors have promised to follow a strict higher level of care to assure that their articles are truthful, supported by facts and evidence, and that their work is solely their creation."[10] We're back to the lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Perhaps a rename to Tony Luke's (i.e. the restaurant, not the person) and added content would be better than a delete? I am also from Philadelphia and I wouldn't really say Tony Luke's is particularly less notable than Pat's or Geno's, particularly since Tony Luke Jr. has been on TV a fair bit as of late. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm from the Philadelphia area too and I don't recall him ever being mentioned in the news. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Rename This article is suppose to be about the restuarant which is ranked in 08 09 as the best cheesesteak in Philly, above Pat's and Geno's. The restuarant located in the Borgata and Philly is more than notable, this article also needs a revamping, but definately a keep. Valoem ^talk 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure you're looking at the same article I am. The one I am reading is clearly about the guy: a photo of him, his birthdate, his minor film roles, etc. I'm not sure whose ratings you are citing for 2008 and 2009, though it likely doesn't matter. Numerous sources cite numerous best cheesesteaks on an annual basis -- none of them are particularly meaningful. Philadelphia Magazine, IIRC, has given the award to about 30 places in the past 15 to 20 years (sometimes using sub-categories for suburbs, best innovation, etc.). As for a Borgata location, their website seems to be unaware that there is a Tony Luke's there. For it's part, Tony Luke's site says, "All Tony Luke's Restaurants are located on East Oregon Avenue in South Philly." (That covers the cheesesteak stand and the "Beef and Beer" a block away.) Confusingly, the site also provides a link, labeled "Tony Luke's NYC", that points to a squatter. It seems a lot of the better known cheesesteak places occasionally try to expand: Pat's has a small sign at the window assuring that this is their only location, while a weathered sign on a nearby wall announces their location at the shore. As for press coverage, it's hard to miss all of the coverage of the so-called rivalry between Pat's and Geno's. That coverage plus the coverage of their claims to have created the sandwich (and occasional stunts by Vento) seem to guaruntee that they pass notability. Outside of that, you'll see occasional coverge of whomever happens to have space in (Bank du jour) Park -- based entirely on them being there. And there was a brief flurry over an otherwise non-notable guy losing his spot in RTM. I simply don't see the coverage for Luke. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The "otherwise non-notable guy" is Pat Oliveri's grandson who's mentioned in the Pat's article. Tony Luke has been appearing on the food network quite a bit over the past year or two, promoting his "cheesesteak in a box" invention among other things. He was on that "Man vs Food" show where a guy tried to eat some big sandwich from Tony Luke's. I guess "notability" is content-neutral but it seems unfair that Joey Vento's xenophobic garbage ensures his notabilty while Tony Luke showing up on the food network to actually talk about food isn't considered "notable." Searching Google for a term as common as "Tony Luke" is tough but it looks like he and the restaurant are averaging about 8-10 hits per month on Google news (there's 8 for the last 30 days) which seems notable enough for a weak keep. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - (Oliveri's "prince" of a grandson is not notable, except for the RTM blow-up coverage.) The Tony Luke, Jr. article still needs sources. (My point was not that Vento is notable. He isn't (so far). The coverage given Pat's and Geno's because of their mutually beneficial non-battle "battle" is enough to ensure their notability. Vento's buffoonery just adds some more sources.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is "Local Notability" really notability? IMHO, No. Article reads like self-promotion: he's an "actor, screenwriter, songwriter, restaurateur, and entrepreneur" Is this guy a Ronco product? "It slices! It dices! But wait! There's more." No thanks. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note although I already voted, I want to second Mtiffany71's assertation that this guy isn't notable even in Philly. I lived there for years and still have strong ties there, and he's not notable there (or anywhere else). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He may not have been notable then but he certainly gets lots of news coverage now. I just saw him on TV last night in fact, he hosts an Eagles preview show called "Tony Luke's Eaglemania." If a restauranteur is popular enough to host a show on a completely different topic, that would indicate notability IMO. 108.96.159.241 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)— 108.96.159.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment - "Then"? "Now"? Wha...? I've managed to find that Luke is indeed going to be "taping" a pre-game show. I have not managed to find that anyone will be "airing" this show. My niece's latest performance was taped. She's not (yet) notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm inclined to think some of the above comments are deliberately obtuse and possibly from Tony Luke rivals. I think his sandwiches are good and I like the pork italian but for cheesesteaks I prefer Rick's and Sonny's. But stuff like the above, "I have not managed to find that anyone will be "airing" this show." are blatantly false. Look up any TV listing guide from last Saturday night and it will show "Tony Luke's Eaglemania" as being aired last Saturday night, I believe at 1230am. (Saturday night into Sunday.) If you can't manage to find evidence that the show will be "aired" and use scare quotes around "aired" when you couldn't even be bothered to look at TV listings, you are pretty clearly being deliberately obtuse at best. I wasn't even going to vote on this one since I thought it was close either way but if there are delete votes that are fabricating information, that is not good for the status of the Wiki. 68.244.152.19 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)— 68.244.152.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - That I am, as of yet, unable to find any indication that the "taped" show was aired, that you like some of Luke's sandwiches, that you assume bad faith on the part of iseveral editors, etc. are not evidence that Tony Luke is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, some of you assumed bad faith when he said he watched the show and you didn't believe him. Not sure why you are all having trouble finding evidence that the show is on TV, just look up any TV listing guide and put in 1230am late Saturday night into early Sunday morning. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The article now mentions where and when the pre-game show airs. The local ABC affiliate, WPVI, airs the the show early this Sunday morning at roughly 12:10 AM. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - can you provide a reference for that? An ABC schedule showing the program would be good. Pburka (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oh noes! We made someone vote on something that isn't a vote! I would feel bad but for that fact I don't care, except that what we're doing "is not good for the status of the Wiki," which does make me care, except I know better than to feed the concern trolls, but I just can't help myself cause they're just so ugly and fluffy they're CUTE! Mtiffany71 (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is rumored to be the owner of "The Fart Bar," the humourously named bar 173.124.88.201 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
MTiffany and SummerPh.D's comments are crazily on the point - and brilliantly humorous too! If it were not for the fact that we don't arbitrarily check ip votes, I might not have relisted this AfD. But given what it is, relisting is inevitable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a recommendation to rename to restaurant business. His website shows plenty of national press coverage that could be verified and converted into references from reliable sources. Wide coverage on national food tv shows. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At the moment, the article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If his/the restaurant's website points to such coverage, please add sources to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment on the merits of this article, but if anyone is looking for the listing of the show on the TV schedule, see [11] and look in the late Saturday night/Sunday morning listings. The show appears to be running at 12:05 AM on the ABC station in Philadelphia: "Tony Luke's Eaglemania -- Host Tony Luke presents a weekly, Philadelphia Eagles fan-friendly variety show, including pre-game antics consisting of pranks, stunts and scripted skits." That may not make the subject notable, but it proves his local television show exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a great need. 108.127.85.127 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nukespeak[edit]

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

Non-notable book. I would have considered re-directing it to the article of the mentioned co-author, expect this book isn't even mentioned in the co-author's article. No reliable sources, no claims of notability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the final stage of the Cold War (early 1980s) the word was used as a common noun. It is actually credited to Paul Chilton [12] not O'Connor. Notability of O'Connor's book might be questioned, but there was a larger phenomena which, IMO, deserves an article. I recommend changing the subject of the article from the book to the concept, the link above is a good starting point. East of Borschov 07:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or otherwise move into a concept oriented approach per East of Borschov, Sadads (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book seems to have received little to no coverage, but the actual term and concept has been discussed in many books. Suggest deletion and recreation of new article on nukespeak itself. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator's right, there's nothing to merge and a redirect to Cardiovascular surgery at this point would be pointless. I am forced to give the most weight to the 2 "keep" !voters who argue that this is a notable topic and can be expanded. Whether that happens in this article or as a section of Cardiovascular surgery is up to editor's discretion. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can assist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric Cardiovascular Surgery[edit]

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

The tag suggests merging, but there's really nothing to merge here. If someone wants to write about this topic, they can put it in Cardiovascular surgery for now, and recreate this as a separate article someday when there's enough content. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exceptionally notable topic deserving of a full blown article. The solution is to expand and improve the article, not delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Look at all the medical texts on the subject found by GBooks and all of the scholarly articles found by GScholar. This is a stub article and it should be referred to WP:MED for improvement. — HowardBGolden (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stub of an orhpan without any content or references has been untouched for almost 3 years now. As notable and deserving as the topic may be, if no one is going to write anything on it, then get rid of it. Not trying to pick a fight or take a swipe at anyone, but more often than not when the "expand and improve" argument is used and an article is kept the expected "expand and improve" doesn't happen. Mtiffany71 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cardiac surgery - plausible search term, but has and no and never had any content whatsoever. Wait until the cardiac surgery article has a large enough section on pediatric cardiovascular surgeries to warrant a split.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cardiac surgery. If an article doesn't have any content besides a definition, then it probably shouldn't exist (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Since it's been two years without any new content being added, I doubt that any will be added soon. It should be redirected to cardiac surgery and, if someone decides to write an article about it at a later time, can be made at that time. --Slon02 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Slon hit the nail in the head. I think this article has had very little development because no one knows it's there. Instead, we could create a section in cardiovascular surgery, then tag it for expansion. Since cardiovascular is a pretty well trafficked page, people will notice that they need to add to the topic, and eventually will expand it to the point that this article can be recreated. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Brush and Stone[edit]

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

Non-notable new release by two notable artists; no sourcing and serious NPOV problems of the "Gee, these guys did such good work, isn't it nice they've got a record out, even if nobody noticed" sort. Orange Mike | Talk 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS. But rip out the POV Production section... the first Production section that is. Not the second. Dismas|^(talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Dismas above. The nominator's deletion rationale is more an indictment of the article's quality, rather than the album's notability. I am going to clean things up a bit. We could definitely use more sources, however, if anyone wants to help out. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, today's "anonymous" edits to the article were done by me but I didn't realize that I was not signed in. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though the nominator makes a plausible case for deletion and the keep !votes weren't the strongest I've seen, there's enough here to demonstrate that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. (and yes, this is the same subject so this is a "renomination") Also, I was unconvinced by the WP:NOEFFORT argument. The issue of redirecting or merging is an editorial decision and can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest, Houston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion. I know it was nominated in February 2009 and the result was “keep”, but there are reasons I believe a new AfD is in order, which I will discuss now: The article in February 2009 focused only on a subsection of Nottingham Forest (Section VIII), and the “keep” !vote was really a decision to expand the article to include all of Nottingham Forest. This is significant because:

1. On deciding to expand the article, the discussion pretty much wound down, so there was not adequate discussion on whether or not the as-yet unwritten expanded article itself would qualify as notable; and

2. Any discussion of the notability of the unwritten article would be difficult as it would be muddled by the discussion of the then-current article, as well as the difficulty of really analyzing the notability of an article with had not yet been written; and

3. I would posit that since the Feb 2009 AfD nominated an article on Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, but the article I am nominating for deletion in September 2010 is on the whole of Nottingham Forest, it is a different article, so technically this is a new AfD, not a renomination.

K Now, before going on to make the case for deleting the current article, I would like to try to anticipate possible discussion of the previous “keep” !vote. This was not an unqualified decision to keep after determining that the article was in fact notable. Several of the comments in favor of keeping the article recognized that the section VIII itself was not notable, and their comments were actually “Keep/Rewrite” with the belief that rewriting the article to expand it would establish its notability. There was not adequate discussion on the notability of (and how could there be for an as-yet unwritten article) on Nottingham Forest as a whole.

Now, I will move onto my reasons for why the current article on the Nottingham Forest Subdivision is not notable. The General Notability Guidelines are:

1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

3. "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

The sources for the article, followed by my reasons they fail WP:GNG are:

1. ^ Nottingham Forest at Houston Association of Relators website: Merely provides price data for people interested in buying houses in the neighborhood, provided by relators interested in selling houses in that neighborhood. This makes it commercial and does not establish notability

2. ^ a b "Houston Freeways" (PDF, 2003) — Interstate 10 West. : Does not mention Nottingham Forest at all.

3. ^ Houston Chronicle HomeFront: this is a broken link, it gets a 404 error on Houston Chronicle’s website.

4. ^ The Houston Chronicle: Another unretrievable article from Houston Chronicle.

5. ^ Houston Police Department - Westside Patrol Division page Nottingham Forest is just one of many subdivisions listed as being patroled by the Westside Patrol. Having a particular police precinct be responsible for partrolling your neighborhood does not establish encyclopedic notabilit.

6. ^ RAP news stories at Westchester.org: Is a website for a civic association that serves and is made up of residents of Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, so it is neither a Secondary Source, nor Independent of the Subject.

7. ^ a b Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project (TSARP) floodplain and elevation map: Being on a floodplain map does not establish encyclopedic notability

8. ^ Official map of Spring Branch Independent School District: Being served by a school district does not establish notability.

Therefore, the article fails to establish the notability of Nottingham Forest; it has not received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a directory, so housing subdivisions that have not achieved notability through specific circumstances are not generally notable, and are not encyclopedic.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The neighborhood was the childhood home of comedian Bill Hicks. There are many sources that mention the neighborhood in reference to the comedian. I've added a few. I think this establishes notability for the neighborhood. Many of the Chronicle references you claim are no longer valid could probably be found in the archives. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do my best to search the Chronicle archives for them, and I welcome you to try. Though I'm a big fan of Bill Hicks, I agree with Xanderliptak and Location that it doesn't make the neighborhood notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, please see WP:NRVE. Please go to Google and search: Bill Hicks Nottingham Forest. I don't think anyone can deny this coverage. Postoak (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused; as the person nominating the article for deletion, I am under no burden to start digging around the Internet for significant, reliable coverage to support the notability of the neighborhood when the editors of the article failed to provide it as they have. That burden is on those who wrote the article, and those who want to keep the article. And again, though I am a fan of Hicks, it's not like the guy is Eddie Murphy or another household name, he's not THAT well known a comic, and even if he were, that wouldn't automatically confer notability on the little subdivision he grew up in.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not confused at all, please WP:AFG. The neighborhood has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Nobody asked for you to dig for anything, I simply demonstrated how easy it was to find the sources that establish notability (i.e. New Yorker Magazine [13], plus others provided in the article) Postoak (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of good faith have nothing whatsoever to do with this. You said to me "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" so you are contradicting youself. NOW you try to change your story by saying that you were demonstrating how easy it was to find something, yet you didn't demonstrate at that time, you didn't provide anything, you only directed me to do a Google search. As for the New Yorker article, I don't know how to stress this enough - a PASSING REFERENCE to the neighborhood he grew up in does not in any way whatsover consitute SIGNIGICANT coverage. WP:GNG defines significant coverage as "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The New Yorker article you provided is over 5,000 words long, and all it says about Nottingham Forest is “When I was about eleven, it dawned on me that I didn’t like where I was,” he said, speaking of the subdivision where he lived, which was called Nottingham Forest." 30 words out of 5,000, are you trying to tell me this "source address[es] the subject directly in detail"? Come on. Furthermore, all of your new sources seem to be Bill Hicks biographies with passing mention of where he lived. Your support for notability hinges solely on it having once been the neighborhood of a comic of relatively minor reknown who has been dead for 16 years.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, comment on the article not the editor. "You are confused" was targeted at me, not the article. This is not assuming good faith on your part. And now I'm CONTRADICTING myself (I threw in all caps just to demonstrate your style) and I'm "changing my story"? Huh? Again for you, please see WP:AGF. Actually, anyone can search Google to see the results returned. This isn't demanding anyone to dig anything up, just demonstrating how I found the references. And how does being dead 16 years lessen anything? Again, I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This is my opinion. I don't plan to respond further. I will respect the admins decision. Postoak (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on your arguments for keeping the article, not on you. Again, you misuse WP:AGF. The directive to assume good faith means to not assume that someone is editing out of malice, or with a biased agenda. I have made no such accusations against you. You can be confused and still making confused statements in good faith. And yes, you have contradicted yourself, it's up here for anyone to see. You directed me to "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" I assume you don't realize you have contradicted yourself, so I'm still assuming good faith on your part. I also assume there is no malice in your lack of understanding that it is the burden of people like you who want to keep the article to "please go to Google and search," not the burden of people like me who think the article is not notable. You seem to be making an issue out of my use of all caps in places, I simply find it faster on talk pages to use all caps instead of bold letters for emphasis.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to merge the neighborhood in another article? Simply because it was the childhood home of a comedian does not give it notability on its own, but perhaps should be mentioned either in that comedians article and, if possible, somewhere else under the Houston articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Memorial Area, Houston" article that I think it would fit into nicely, and that did come up in discussion around the time of the first afd, but with the idea of expanding the article, that was not fully explored.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Houston neighborhoods. Information that is verifiable and notable can be mentioned there. Similar to WP:NOTINHERITED, I do not believe that Hicks being from a neighborhood makes the neighborhood notable. Location (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I love Bill Hicks, but just because someone of some notoriety is from somewhere doesn't make that place notable as well. If it were, everyone from Philadelphia would be notable because the US Constitution is notable and it was drafted there. But that's not how WP works, so, can we please start making everyone who signs up to edit WP get that tattoed on the inside of their eyelids maybe? Or maybe something more catchy "Notability, it's not inherited." Second, if the consensus from the first nomination boils down to "Keep because it can be re-written to meet WP standards," and after a sold effing year it hasn't been re-written to meet WP standards, well, then delete the damned thing. Sh*t or get off the pot, as is said. Mtiffany71 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced article about a neigborhood of a major city. It would be great if every major city had a few dozen such articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I note that a commenter in the previous AfD pointed out that Nottingham Forest has a GNIS entry as a populated place. Given that, and the Notability (geography) essay which doesn't give a clear keep or delete recommendation for such places, I'm leaning keep (weakly) for now. I'm a little concerned by the lack of non-Bill Hicks secondary sources, though. The Chronicle link in the article is broken, and doing a search on the Chron website only gives real estate results, which isn't encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well established that places are notable. The rest just seems to be WP:NOEFFORT contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Houston neighborhoods not independently notable, I have two cousins that live in that neighborhood and they always refer to it as "west memorial." I am forced to conclude if they refer to it as such then its not notable if people who live there dont refer to it as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majaajan[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a remake of an unremarkable Bollywood movie. Could be merged into Choorian (1963 film), which is apparently the original, but can't stand alone. Nolelover 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Note: After reading Seren's note, This should be speedied per A10 and redirected. Nolelover 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) NVM :) Nolelover 22:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable remake movie, also no sources found. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title to already existing article Majajan It already exists. Silver seren^C 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majaajan is about a 2008 Indian film, but Majajan is about a 2006 Pakistani film. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not receive in-depth coverage and it does not satisfy WP:FILM. The only source in the article also only provides a passing mention of the film. --Slon02 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Quarry[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. The two sources for the article have problems: one is an alumni newsletter and one has nothing to do with the subject (he is mentioned in passing). Fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Those are prominent journals he's published in and it looks as though he has won a number of awards VASterling (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more biographical details and description of literary style and award winning works. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use work, but the subject is notable per comments above Vrivers (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help if those opining "keep" could tell us what independent reliable sources we can use to improve this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has short profiles on the Sewanee and Kerouac Foundation websites. I do see the problem: these don't meet WP:RS; on the other hand, he is a Kerouac Fellow and a Sewannee Scholar, and journals like New England Review and The Southern Review are the best around. Humanities Index confirms the publications, but I don't know if that's enough to meet our reliable source requirements--although I hope it is, because if not, we're setting a very high bar for short story authors Vrivers (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gosman Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Google searching doesn't support anything that would support WP:BAND requirements. The self-promotional text suggests a vanity article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND and I couldn't find any sources to establish notability. --Slon02 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, insufficient notability. AlgebraT (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payday (card game)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is for things made up one day. Invented game does not exist. Assertion that "it is commonly played in casinos throughout the world" is pure nonsense. Apparently there is a Payday version of solitaire, but that is completely unrelated. 2005 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources I could find are for a board game called Payday, and this game seems much different from it. I've never heard of it and could find no sources to verify that such a game even exists. --Slon02 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I couldn't find any sources either, but i heard many of my friends talking about playing it tonight. they invited me to play too. It does exist, and people play it. maybe the fact that it said that it was played across casinos everywhere was what someone just edited. it's clearly not true. But i'm staying at Columbia University, and some of my roomates, were playing it. it's there and it exists. keep it. 9:59, 1 October, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee69 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Sorry Emcee69... In my opinion this article should be added to the list WP:RRRSAITYRRRSNC at the risk of having a WP:TROUT thrown at me... Article is complete WP:OR and is WP:MADEUP. If you REALLY want to Emcee69, you could WP:PROVEIT? - Pmedema (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and assertion it is played in casinos worldwide would certainly be backed up by a Google search. No such information is available. Likely a hoax. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that no references were made but, i will try to find some. I understand it's hard, but it is a fairly new game, and i feel that it should stay. As for the part where it said that it was played across casinos everywhere, i will delete it, because i didn't write that, someone else wrote that. But my friends have played it a number of times, i didn't make it, and i will try to prove it. And i question why it should be added to the RRRSAITYRRRSNC, because it is in no way for any humour. Don't worry, no ones throwing a trout at you this time. but i think it's gonna stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee69 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did write that about casinos. You wrote everything in the article. Wikipedia is not a place for things some folks make up and think are interesting. And you already stated your keep preference above. 2005 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes claims of notability, but this is not backed by any sources nor does a search uncover any sources that might support notability. Without that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you think that it makes absolutely no sense, then ok. But don't think i made this up. I've played with friends all the time at my dorm. you may not have heard of it, but it's there. I admit no sources are there, and i couldn't find it on google. But my roommate told me about this game, and i've been playing it ever since. it's just probably not common. It's not for humor, either, because nothings really that funny about the article 7:57, October 4, 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee69 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion of renaming/moving can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asel Asleh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Asel Asleh

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Person's only claim to notability is that he died - which is not enough per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Previously proposed for deletion, but the proposal removed by the article's creator. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is only notable for one event- his death- and I do not think that was significantly covered enough to meet WP:BIO. --Slon02 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with provisions) I don't see this being against WP:ONEVENT. That notability guideline "discourage Wikipedia from having separate articles on people playing minor roles in major events or major roles in minor events." His death was a major enough event if it is true that "The day after his death, 30,000 people followed Asel's body to the cemetery where it was buried"[14] (I'm skeptical of anythign from Salon personally). His death had spikes in coverage at the time, a couple years later after the inquiry, and passing mentions since then in the search for sources link in Google News shown above. That shows ongoing coverage from reliable sources of a national and international scope. That means that NOTNEWS is certainly questionable as reason for deletion. It appears that his death meets the General Notability Guidelines. Al that being said, the article should be retitled ("Death of Asel Asleh") since he was not notable but his death was. The scope of this article also needs to be his death and the background information should not over weight that (although sources do include his background to a decent extent it looks like) The article also needs sources to verify what ti is saying and a quick check for POV just to be on the safe side. If these things are not done then there may be enough concern to delete it per WP:NOTESSAY (part of WP:NOT which is mentioned as reasoning at WP:DEL).Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ article about a subject who did not meet the general notability guideline before his death. Along with the reaoning above, the cherry picking of what to say and not to say made this too much of a POV issue. Not a memorial, soapbox, or place for primary research. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking? It is called using the information in the multiple, independent and international sources. As you noted before at least his death passed GNG. A strange change of heart given that there are only MORE sources directly covering his life and death.--TM 15:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the request for clarification below:

He was not notable before his death. His death was the driving factor in the significant coverage. So without a rename, this article fails ONEEVENT. The information could be in an article based on his death. I did not feel comfortable with my "keep" !vote without this. An Alternative to a bio on him would be merging it into October 2000 events.
POV. As explained, POV can be reason for deletion if it hits the points listed at WP:NOT which is a point at WP:DEL. Editors often fail to disregard this. In this article, the information provided is less neutral then some of the write ups available in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That gives it a memorial feel. For example, one RS detailed the circumstances of the police training. It also does not detail the question of if he was protesting or just observing (something that has troubled his friends since the protesting involved violence from those protesting).

The recent push to add sources since I made my !vote (it was pretty poor) has improved the article. It is much less of an essay now. However, the lack of editors willing to change the name (which would barely change the scope) is too much of a problem. The POV is fixable but with those two issues being current issues I do not feel confident that this article is in accordance with Wikipedia standards while it meets the criteria for deletion. I would be happy to assist if an editor wants to throw this in the incubator, reintroduce it with an overhaul and name change, or merge it into another article. And you said that you would like to know what to argue against. Don't bother arguing. If you wouldn't have dug your heals in and been willing to make changes I would not have changed my !vote. It shouldn't be about arguing but about collaboration. I provided the things that needed to be done for me to !vote "keep" and you refused so unless you are willing to make changes we are at an impasse.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to flip-flop (again) With TM agreeing that a name change is possibility. The other problems mentioned are still there but it should be workable if editors put in the effort.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator). Significant, international sources have covered Asel the person and his death in detail. For example, "Asel is gone" in Salon, "Tribute to Asel Asleh" by Seeds of Peace, "The tragedy of Asel Asleh" in the Palestine-Israel Journal[15], from Adalah, Police Killings of Israeli Arabs Being Questioned by Inquiry from the New York Times which covers Asel in detail. I can go on but these more than satisy WP:BIO--TM 01:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Maine 'Seeds of Peace' Youth Shot To Death By Israeli Soldiers, Portland Press Herald via Common Dreams, Seeds of Peace Alumni Face Challenges To Beliefs in Coexistence from America.gov, another, separate source from Salon, Seeds of Peace: Otisfield, Maine, Aaron David Miller, Asel Asleh, Shurrab Family, John Wallach, the Olive Branch, Nicolla Hewitt, SUSPECT from Haaretz, 2006. Oppose renaming. Asel Asleh was notable in and of himself as a peace activist.--TM 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that amazon page RS? Also, you don't need the likes of www.commondreams.org when you have reputable press covering the subject. You should start taking sources to the talk page so that they can be included before this is deleted.
I will be opening up a move discussion if this article survives deletion. If it continues to assert more notability of the person instead of notability of the event I will be the one nominating this for deletion the second time. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very confusing. Can you explain that? There are more than a dozen articles above which indicate in-depth, reliable secondary sources most which cover his personality etc., not just his death. The amazon page is just an example, I wouldn't include it on the page itself. This is an open and shut case of clear cut notability.--TM 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted? AfD's are not deleted. Memorial? The article is in no way a memorial.--TM 05:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I was not clear:

The coverage of the guy is a result of his death and not him. The america.gov link says it perfectly. He was promising and had potential but it is all hindsight. Going to a summer camp does not make someone a political figure.
If you would not have included the amazon page on the article itself you should not have included it here. Find sources before his death showing notability if you want to argue that he (not his death) is notable.
Of course AfDs are not deleted. If the article is kept (which is what I have !voted for) then it needs to be fixed. If not, it should be deleted. Is that clear enough? There is the opportunity to have a decent article.
Not memorial. It isn't about him and it isn't about how good of a kid he might have been. It should be about his death since that is what meets the GNG and maybe even the EVENT guidelines.

Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is more significant than his death. It covers his life in great detail, especially for someone killed at 17 and someone who didn't live in a Anglophone country. Clearly, if you read WP:MEMORIAL closely, you can see that no one, including myself, is memorializing him. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." There are multiple, detailed accounts of his life, actions, philosophy, death and the subsequent reactions to his death. I don't know how anyone can argue that it doesn't pass GNG. Also, on the topic of Common Dreams, it is 1) a reliable source but more importantly 2) it simply republished a story in the Portland Press Herald. Clearly, his life and death had widespread implications and was covered over a long period in multiple, international news sources, so WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant.--TM 07:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are leaving the scope of this AfD. So if you can find sources from BEFORE his death, please make sure to bring them up on the talk page since they will be pertinent to any future move or deletion based discussions.Cptnono (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is only notable for his death, and thus fails WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 06:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage about Asleh from before his death Inheriting the Holy Land: An American's Search for Hope in the Middle East comments extensively on his personality and actions. I've also added his self-definition and views from a 1999 New York Times article. He is also mentioned in Bill Clinton's Giving: how each of us can change the world and Leap of Faith by Queen Noor, though neither of these mentions is in-depth. Asleh's thoughts and beliefs are also cited in "Embattled Identities: Palestinian Soldiers in the Israeli Military" by Rhoda Kanaaneh in her 2003 journal article [16].--TM 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Cptnono.AMuseo (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this delete vote with your keep votes here or here or at any number of other articles is quite entertaining for those of us who enjoy the comedy of the absurd. nableezy - 01:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who enjoys the comedy of the absurd I can't wait to see your !vote here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is indeed sweet. It seems like the creator of this article spends a disproportionate amount of his recent wiki time trying to delete articles that put Arabs in a bad light. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel and its history.[17] Its really unfortunate that pov pushing has come to this blatant extent.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing? Asleh's life and death has been commented on by dozens of scholars, politicians, journalists and activists in mainstream international press. I wonder if Bill Clinton or Queen Noor are reliable sources or if any article about Jews killing Arabs would be acceptable to some editors these days.--TM 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been at least three comments discussing editors in a way that is inflammatory and strays too far from the article. Stop it. These comments can lead to discretionary sanctions based on the topic area being so turbulent. Everyone should know this by now.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cptnono.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, can you restate your reasons for deletion? They were very unclear and with other bandwagoning on them, I'd like to at least know what to argue against.--TM 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TM, notability is quite established Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TM and Mwinog2777. Notability has been thoroughly established via the sources presented here which show Asel Asleh was notable before his death. Delete votes made claiming WP:ONEVENT or WP:NOTMEMORIAL fail to take into account the sources available/presented and should be discounted. Tiamut^talk 18:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note after reading the comments of other editors, I went back to the sources. Certainly there was not notability before this young man's unfortunate death. The circumstances of his death are murky. One wishes that the family, for example, had permitted the disinterment of the bullet. However, I can see that an argument can be made that his death has been widely discusssed in the years following his death. and am, therefore altering my vote .AMuseo (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most applicable policy is WP:VICTIM, though it's not known whether his killing was a crime. Subject fails criterion #1 of this policy because he is clearly not notable for anything other than his death (TM's notion that he was independently notable as a peace activist is ludicrous). Also fails criterion #2 because the October 2000 events, while clearly notable, do not constitute a "historic event". Finally, fails WP:BASIC becuase the only reliable sources covering him as anything more than a detail in the events are precisely those sources that are not intellectually independent. Any useful material can and should be added to October 2000 events#2 October, but the article in its current version is too fundamentally afoul of WP:NPOV for a merge. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe how the New York Times, Salon.com, Haaretz, Slate, the Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, a speech by a British MP, and the dozen or so other sources listed above are not intellectually independent? I would accept a move to Death of Asel Asleh as you are correct, he wasn't notable enough prior to his death; however, it is important to include the substantial information available on him personally in that article. Lastly, the October 2000 events are still being protested and commemorated ten years after they happened. How are they not historic events? In my mind, Asleh is akin to Rachel Corrie, Mohammed Al-Durrah, Hector Pieterson or any number of similar people who were not notable before they were killed, but their killing served as a symbol which others rallied around.--TM 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News articles in mainstream media outlets like the New York Times are intellectually independent, but in these sources, he is not treated as anything more than a detail in the 2000 October events. Being commemorated by some partisan groups does not make an event a "historic event". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides appropriate sources to support the claim of notability. Coverage has been continuing regarding the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThat the deletion of this article is being discussed at the current time (October 2010) is clearly due to the proximity of the 10th anniversary of the subject's death. That in itself is evidence that the subject of the article (if not the young man himself, then his death) is notable. If not kept in it's current form, the article should at least be kept as an article about the death of Asel Asleh. There are certainly enough sources to satisfy the requirement of notability of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggedben (talk • contribs) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack W. Carter[edit]

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

Actor with few roles to his credit. Coverage appears to be limited to a few brief articles in local newspapers, not specifically about the subject of this article. Not yet notable. Michig (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and expand on his stage and radio work, for which he has his notability. Theater work gets coverage where the theater work takes place, and if his work on stage receives critical commentarry, that notability is his. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any coverage for this Jack Carter there. There's an American Jack Carter who appears to be notable, but what significant coverage have you found for this one? His radio work appears to be limited to a role on something broadcast on a local radio station and he doesn't appear to have had any significant stage roles.--Michig (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of his interview with a national newspaper, wide coverage in some localised media also, and plenty of mention on blogs about his horror film "Sparrow". Has major roles in multiple films also - a la "Rough and Ready" Was in an acclaimed play too. 85.210.124.221 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 85.210.124.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Michig (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently sourced. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this topic is notable enough and has sufficient coverage. --Slon02 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? I don't see anything beyond a few mentions in local newspapers.--Michig (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After going through this article and searching for sources more thoroughly, I have come to the conclusion that he has not received very significant coverage (you're right, they were only local newspapers). Additionally, he hasn't had any significant roles in any notable productions- the center of the article seems to be Sparrow, but it hasn't even been released yet and it doesn't seem as though his part is incredibly significant in it. Therefore, I am changing my recommendation to Delete. --Slon02 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Bajraktaraj[edit]

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

Person fails WP:ENT by not having significant roles. Derild 49 21 ☼ 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. I've wikified the filmography and while the roles may not be significant he participated in a number of notable films and series. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he needs to play significant roles. it would follow he would get significant coverage which he does not. [18]. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He needs significant roles or significant coverage, neither of which is shown in the article. --Slon02 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bitker[edit]

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

Article's subject appears to be a non-notable local sports anchor and writer. Article does not establish subject's notability. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried looking for sources and added 3. The sources in my opinion do not rise to the level of establishing notability. There is a statement in the first source that says he has won numerous AP sports casting awards. I have not been able to verify that information. If someone can find a reliable source that verifies what awards he has won, that might establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a link on a regional AP website for a 2006 award. I've seen weaker cases on AfD kept. --CompRhetoric (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CompRhetoric. --Slon02 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to coverage of his activities as sportscaster and as a (backup) announcer for a major league team, the Google News results show that his book received substantial coverage around the Bay Area, at least. So I think he gets over the bar on notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Bash[edit]

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

Annual concert sponsored by a radio station. There must be thousands of concerts like this around the country, difficult to see what's particularly notable about this one. —Chowbok ☠ 08:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT. This event does not seem to have any historical significance, widespread impact or in-depth coverage. It has received quite a bit of passing coverage, but I have not found any evidence to satisfy WP:INDEPTH. --Slon02 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really? When did KBBL hire Weenie and the Butt away from WQHG in Quahog? Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing these radio station concerts seem to be famous for is a one-time event. JIP | Talk 13:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momiji Dolls[edit]

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

Non-notable product. I can find no substantial coverage in WP:RS, just product listings, shopping sites, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The Momiji brand is dedicated to making life lovelier — a worthy goal, it's ugly as sin around here. But the reachable links Google news finds about this are mostly student newspapers mentioning the dolls in lists of inexpensive last minute gifts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These dolls are a big pop culture influence in Japan, and have some traction in the art/fashion world as well. I could probably find some better sources, but will these suffice to establish notability?:

http://elledeco.blogspot.com/2008/01/trendtjie-kokeshi-dolls.html

http://thelinc.co.uk/2009/09/a-momiji-doll-for-your-linking/

http://www.londonkicks.com/go/art/A_Sweettooth_for_Momiji_dolls

http://www.tingshop.com/Momijipresentation.pdf (see page 10 for pics of articles from name-brand glossy magazines)

I think they are worthy of an article, but admit that the current article is terrible. I am for whittling it down to a stub and starting over. Tarastar42 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42[reply]

Link #1 [19] is a blog, not a WP:RS.
Link #2 [20] is a student newspaper, not a WP:RS
Link #3 [21] appears to be a student orientated webzine.
Link #4 [22] is a shopping site
None of these are WP:RS, what we are looking for is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link #1 is the official blog of Elle Decor South Africa. It is written by professional journalists and under the editorial control of the parent publication. WP:RS says "Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

As for Link #2... where does WP:RS say that student newspapers can't be used? Is that somewhere else? I am somewhat new... but I couldn't find that guideline. Please let me know if I am missing something.

I won't argue with #3... probably doesn't meet RS standard.

The point of #4 is that Page 10 shows pictures of several articles from RS glossies that have covered Momiji Dolls, including Elle Decor, Elle Russia, Times Magazine, Real Living Australia, and Famous People Australia. If I had enough time I suppose I could track each publication down, but I thought it would be enough for now just to show that the coverage is out there. Those kind of magazines don't usually publish their articles on line, so short of driving down to the library I don't know how I can get that info.

I will look for more RS links when I get a chance... but I really hope you choose to stub this rather than delete it. I am sure that if I could read Japanese I could come up with plenty of RS links. I truly think the dolls are notable enough for inclusion... but they deserve a much better article than this. Thank you! Tarastar42 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42[reply]

http://www.klue.com.my/articles/2245-Momiji-super-kawaii-Japanese-dolls Tarastar42 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42[reply]

http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?sec=education&file=/2009/11/1/education/4870180 - from the online version of The Star, Malaysia's leading English language newspaper. —Preceding Tarastar42 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 September 2010

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/25203?tid=14 - Sin Chew is a Chinese language newspaper in Malaysia Tarastar42 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/arts/momiji-design-exhibition ] Tarastar42 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sin Chew Jit Poh and The Star are reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Momiji dolls page is my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia, I'm sorry it's not great, I really think that Momiji dolls deserve an inclusion, so feel free to cut it down if you like. I've added a few more external links to the bottom, is there anything else I can do to make it better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatPage (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I am already on record as a Keep, I just want to point out that I have whittled the article down to a stub, added a picture, added some categories, and found a new RS from an actual book. I also have tagged the article for rescue. I want to thank KatPage for her contribution... I didn't mean to call it 'terrible'! That wasn't very nice of me... it is just that the article was mostly lists of collections and products - fine for a shopping catalog, but not as appropriate for an encyclopedia. I hope you will keep editing and adding knowledge to this site. Thank you! Tarastar42 (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Tarastar42 (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated the image used for deletion at Commons as it appears to fail the copyright policies there. Another editor has offered to move it back to Wikipedia and write up a fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks... I didn't know that rule. I got the pic from Flickr and it had the right license... but I see it is more complicated than that. Didn't.mean to introduce copyvio! Big thanks to Hydroxonium for the fair use fix! Tarastar42 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done The new image is at File:Momiji-doll.jpg. If everybody is OK with this, the previous image (File:Momiji.jpg) can be spedied over at Commons. - Hydroxonium (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. The summaries that appear are enough to indicated notability. Most require payment to read the entire articles though. One of them which didn't, is The Star which has an article published about them. [23]. Dream Focus 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Moe Tournament[edit]

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Saimoe Tournament, this is a non-notable forum competition Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define 'non-notable' and 'forum competition'. Should a poll that had more than 10,000 voters at one point be considered non-notable? Should a event that inspired other similar international events attracting thousands of voters be considered meaningless? Should a poll open to any voters without need of registration be considered a forum competition, when there isn't a single forum voters come from? Maglor1 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An internet forum poll generally isn't notable, regardless of the number of participants. The primary notability guideline is: did the subject non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources? (See also specific notability guidelines for web content.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anime as whole, is not something that is analyzed in detail by main stream media, thus claim of lacking reliable third-party sources can be used against almost all wiki articles related to anime. In fact, very little reliable third-party sources can be found for large majority of matters dealing with arts, books, and performance in most non-English culture due to the norms and history of the culture, and also often because of political oppression. The Korean word for Best Moe Tournament "최고모에토너먼트" returns 266,000 results in 191 separate webpages in Google. It returns 319 more webpage under its shortened form, '최모토'. There are many more Google results in wide range of languages, as Best Moe Tournament webpage is in multiple languages. All are independent blogs and forums, thus cannot be considered as reliable third-party sources as defined by Wiki. As noted before, this tournament inspired creation of large scale multi-lingual moe tournament, importance of which is spread out into several different language. The tournament is very unlikely to be acknowledged by main stream Korean media as the staff members involved with running the tournament has made multiple anti-government remarks in the past, plus that large media companies in Korea wish to tout their own poll as the most authoritative on the subject despite attracting less number and less diverse of voters while using means likely to induce bias. I like to put on the record, that by putting burden equivalent to Academic subjects on a multi-lingual event that English media companies won't have any interest in covering, you have placed a hurdle that thousands of other wiki articles related to matters of non-English Culture cannot hope to overcome, no matter how significant they are to a large number of diverse groups of people from different language, and especially if the matters of interest pertains to cultural events of the people that is discriminated against within their culture. Maglor1 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Moe Tournament is not a Forum poll. The votes are registered in an website where no registration nor text needs to be entered. No visit to any forum is needed to vote. Please visit the Best Moe Tournament website to verify this Maglor1 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by reliable, third-party source to be found. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. Coverage by third-party sources is a requirement of the verifiability policy and is not something that can be ignored because we may like to subject. —Farix (t | c) 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Farix. It doesn't seem to satisfy WP:WEB- while the tournament has a lot of coverage on many internet websites, I have not found much in the way of significant coverage by non-trivial published works. --Slon02 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said by Farix. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Garcia[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for tennis players. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets #6 doesn't it, as she has a record which is reconised by the ITF and WTA but that is all that it is notable for/mean that every single tennis player could be uploaded. Delete. KnowIG (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - junior player that has not won one of the Junior Grand Slam, no evidence this person passes WP:GNG either. To KnowIG: I do believe criteria #6 means a record in the sense of "exceptional achievement not done by others", not in the sense of "career win-losses are compiled in the ITF or WTA databases".--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this player has received significant press coverage in French-language sources, so should pass WP:GNG. One example here, from French newspaper Le Progrès. Goldenband (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers 137.122.49.102. Delete Hasn't won an ITF singles event and hasn't won a significant junior tournie, e.g. Orange Bowl, the one in France or a GS. Wait until she does something then upload again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 September 2010
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So notable an athlete in France her WP article isn't even in French, and... One reference and her best is so good that there are only 311 people who did better? Mtiffany71 (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Nova[edit]

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

BLP of dubious notability, with the usual associated arguments about reliable sourcing for someone not really quite notable. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's really on the fence for WP:BASIC. While she's popular in the blogosphere, most mentions in reliable sources are incidental (and few and far between). The closest I can find to something directly addressing her notability is this article [24], but it's an opinion piece, so I don't think it counts as a RS. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:GNG and WP:V Minor4th 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG VASterling (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, as was mentioned already. --Slon02 (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verified Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. --JN 466 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T Narayana Bhatta[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO as it lacks reliable sources. --Slon02 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: Seems to be in IMDB as Narayan Bhatt. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Twist[edit]

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

Character has no proof of notability. Only non-fansite source is the lawsuit. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character is important to the real world as it was the center of a major lawsuit over intellectual property, and it's properly sourced. There are actually casebooks on copyright and patent law that mention Twin Twist. http://books.google.com/books?id=qIohAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&dq=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&hl=en&ei=zlGeTICvG8_PngfXxLSuDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg Mathewignash (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsui is more about Hasbro's ownership towards their products and isn't really coverage of the character. NotARealWord (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is positive proof of the character being noted by the "real world". Mathewignash (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not significant coverage. NotARealWord (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned here, where another book mentions their popularity http://books.google.com/books?id=VuDzAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&dq=%22Twin+Twist%22+transformers&hl=en&ei=cVKeTMr3NdSpngfJ5onCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA So I have a third party law book mentioning the character BY NAME and saying he's popular. Seriously, sources don't get much better. Mathewignash (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular does not mean notable. Needs to be significant coverage. If it's books they need to be third party sources with much information regarding the character. Like an entire page just about Twin Twist. Remember Bali ultimate's winning argument about the notabiliy of energon? NotARealWord (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poor sources that aren't independent. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The article lacks reliable sources and the topic does not have significant coverage. --Slon02 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't enough significant coverage by neutral, reliable sources to meet notability. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lao string bracelet[edit]

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

As far as I know there isn't really any such thing as a "Lao string bracelet" specifically - the tying of string round the wrist is widespread across Buddhist Thailand and Laos (and, I think, Cambodia), and they're used far more generally than just the examples given here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into bracelet, if some sources can be found for it. I don't think that this is notable enough to have an article of its own. --Slon02 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bracelet is appropriate - "A bracelet is an article of jewelry". This Buddhist string thing isn't jewelry, and isn't there for decorative purposes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless much better sourcing can be found VASterling (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Club 3 Tour[edit]

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

Failed the notability guidelines for concerts and tours, plus this article look like something that have been put together by somebody who sound like one of their members (Josource), possibly a WP:COI case. No reliable third party sources can be found, let alone a single one of them. As all other articles have been about major tours, this one seems too Mickey Mouse in comparison to have an article here. Donnie Park (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into S Club, although that is a large article already. This topic is not notable enough for its own article. --Slon02 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcecd and non notable. He iro 03:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos using animation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No attempt made at sourcing since last AFD. Seems like a trivia list. First AFD was closed as keep after only two WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes, second was closed (way too early IMO) as no consensus. Sourcing seems impossible; I've looked and found nothing that discusses animation as a notable factor of music videos. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've just made an attempt at sourcing an entry! Clear inclusion criteria for a list. Tag for cleanup and remove the non-notable items. Lugnuts (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing issues are quite prevalent. Additionally, as time goes on and CGI, which is quite proliferated, increases so does the inclusionary criteria for this article. It's an open-ended list with few discernable parameters, and a lack of any notability. Essentially, this is as notable a list as List of music videos using actors, List of music videos using moving pictures, or List of music videos using instruments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp962 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per user Sharp962s comments above. He iro 03:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are all of three (3) references listed, and 100+ entries (I stopped counting at 100, which brought me to the D's - Daft Punk). So there are serious sourcing issues, which will only increase as time goes on and the list grows ever larger. If the list were broken down into multiple lists by style or method of animation, then those sublists might be notable as subarticles under the appropriate animation style/method article (if those pages are in fact notable and exist) as examples of the form, but this list doesn't really stand on its own, although I do understand why people would want it included. Mtiffany71 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delte Per Mtiffany. 58.7.200.172 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see the significance of the list. Using animation is not something that makes a music video particularly notable. JIP | Talk 13:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could envision a list along this line being an appropriate list; however, I believe it should be limited to videos for which sources are cited that comment on the use of animation in the video, and instead of just listing artists and titles, each video cited should have at least some additional information, such as the type of animation used, who created the animation, and/or awards or critical commentary related to the use of animation in the video. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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