Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 28

< 27 October	29 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 delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Fury[edit]

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

Delete. It's a weather report. Wikipedia presents encyclopedic articles. Weather reports can be found on the Weather Channel. WP:NOTNEWS Cindamuse (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this article sould be merged with october 2010 storm coplex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.206.89 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A10, duplicates information at October 2010 North American storm complex. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a redirect to October 2010 North American storm complex since there is no evidence that the name "Fall Fury" has become synonymous with that storm system. On the contrary, the term "Fall Fury" seem to have many other usages, ranging from a book title [1] to a boat regatta [2]. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Thparkth (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO --Elassint (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Youngblood[edit]

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

Contested prod, as such taking this to AfD. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PEOPLE, and many (if not all) of the claims lack sourcing for verification. Could not find additional sourcing to help verify claims or to meet notability. Akerans (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent vanity article. No obvious notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking past the peacocking etc, the only attempt at asserting notability I can see is the claim "George Varga of the San Diego Union Tribune did a three page article on Leon's talent showcases." As far as I can tell, this comment refers to [3], which contains only passing mention of Leon Youngblood. Can find no reliable non-trivial sources for the subject. 174.109.198.190 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - George Varga actually interviewed him in connection to one of his 'stars'. It's still not the primary focus of the article, but it's more than trivial coverage too. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. The interview contains two paragraph, out of 18, where he is mentioned. One he quoted in regard to the musician, the other indicates he flew with the musician to a preformance. There is not any attempt to discuss the subject of this article in that Union-Tribune piece. 174.109.198.190 (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement … totally devoid of WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment - I've added WP:RS. It's still a hell of an article but I think he now meets WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does anyone else think that I Apologize (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also appears lacking in WP:RS to support WP:NALBUMS? A WP:SPA has been plumping it up with cruft about this AfD's subject. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoDaikoCon[edit]

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

No coverage by reliable, third-party sources found to assert notability for either "GoDaikoCon" or "Anime Detroit". Disputed prod with sourcing to the convention's website. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources, either. Will consider changing !vote if some do come up. Captain panda 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources are available at this point. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even anything useful in the CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 30 October 2010 (GMT)
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone-Software-As-A-Medical-Device (SSaaMD)[edit]

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

Non-notable term, only four Google hits Corvus cornix_talk 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both of these terms (SaaMD and SSaaMD) were coined (and first recorded by) employees of a VOLUNTIS (Romain Marmot and Damien McKeon) on 12th March 2010. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a neologism that hasn't caught on. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Smerdis of Tlön and MelanieN. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --Elassint (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Baker[edit]

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

Non-notable missing girl, volates WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With all due respect to the family of the missing girl, Wikipedia is not the place for news reports. Cindamuse (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS; it's a local news story only national because of HLN's usual relentless and unreliable coverage of crime stories. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cinda and Nate David in DC (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. While what appears to have happened is tragic, the subject has no personal notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of news coverage in Australia but coverage is basic news reportage only at this stage. This is without prejudice to a re-creation of the article should we suddenly start seeing magazine articles etc. on the topic-- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for local news like this. --Elassint (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational performance index[edit]

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

I seriously can't make heads or tails of this.... 2 says you, says two 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I'm not sure that's a valid rationale for deletion, but I'll go with another) Non-notable neologism, WP:MADEUP. No reliable third party sources... none found in internet searches. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content that's so confused or confusing that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of it does indeed qualify for deletion. This text surely qualifies: The Organization Performance Index (OPI) is an integrated score that determines an organizations competitiveness. The scores are initially generated from weighted scoring of various areas of management which include Leadership and Management, Human resource focus, customer Orientation and Marketing, Financial Management, Innovation, Information and Knowledge Management and lastly Productivity and Quality. Metrics are used to come up with the weightings required in order to generate the required results. These strings of glittering generalities also have a strong whiff of spam about them as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable term as yet. Notability not established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a great way to play Buzzword bingo. (Might it even have been made up as a joke, from one of those templates where you choose three random buzzwords to complete each sentence?) But the real problem is not the mind-numbing jargon, it's the lack of any sourcing to establish this as a real term worthy of an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense (spam?), may also fit under WP:NEO --Elassint (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie DeCastro[edit]

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

Non-notable, failed politician. Even coverage of his campaign used as sources in the article is trivial. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Single source about his prison ministry efforts is about him, but I just don't think it gets him past WP:N. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Very odd. United States Senate election in Florida, 2010 lists him, but not his campaign site (at the bottom of External links) or any description of him other than his name and party. He's only notable for this one event, but he is notable for that, so some of the material about him should be summarized in the election article. I don't understand this "all or nothing" approach. Flatterworld (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect. I don't think he's that likely of a search term, but if you're proposing it, I wouldn't have an isse with it. I do think you're being unfair with your comment about an "all or nothing" appraoch, but that's a separate issue. Of course the senate race article lists him, he's on the ballot. It would be remiss for the article to not list him as part of the race. That doesn't make him notable as an individual though.

Comment I wouldn't oppose a redirect, but subject has been non-notable in more than one election, and is sufficiently below the threshold that delete is also an acceptable outcome. I just don't think he's notable enough to continue having his own article. Ray^Talk 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful political candidate. Never even got a major-party nomination to any office - apparently lost in primaries. Completely non-notable; don't redirect anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 13:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSX (emulator)[edit]

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

Non-notable software program 2 says you, says two 22:04, 28 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) • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable third party sources that show notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 29 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 / 00:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unified virtual infrastructure[edit]

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

At first I thought it looked like an advertisement, but I couldn't find anything in particular its advertising for. Unsourced essay violates what Wikipedia is not and possibly no original research , ~~and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if its a copyright violation.~~ 2 says you, says two 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate and I wrote from scratch I am more then happy to shame my original document and what it is detailing is UVI which takes both elements of virtual server and desktop and looks at creating a strategy to help implement virtual environments. There is no copyright infringement as I do not discuss any vendor it is purely written as something that the virtualisation community would benefit from. I hope this clears up things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan orchard (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was not accusing you of copyright infringement, but when a document goes up all at once like that, some Wikipedia editors such as myself start to wonder. Wikipedia is not the place to post essays or original research, but if you can have third party, non-trivial sources on the subject that support the content of your essay, it could become the start of an article on the topic. 2 says you, says two 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the wikipedia rules do you want me to fill the reference points for virtualization, and associate parts so that there is referable information? Please let me know I can do this so that it conforms to wiki rules. Thanks Dan Orchard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan orchard (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NEO. No sources of any sort, reliable or otherwise. Ravenswing 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With consolidation, power savings and with less administration, virtualisation is at the top of every organisations I.T priorities. So why look at a U.V.I strategy? The reason is simple, most organisations have virtualised or looking to virtualise, their server farms because the benefits are too compelling not too. So now we see Virtual Desktop being the next big virtualisation project because again, consolidation, power savings with thin clients and I.T control the desktop remotely as well as control software licensing by delivering the right software needed by the different departments. So what is a U.V.I strategy, this is where both virtualised server and desktop come together on a single unified infrastructure platform, which would be the physical server (cores matched to memory and I/O), storage, networking, protection and security. The infrastructure around these technologies needs to be designed accordingly so that organisations can reap the benefits from delivering virtualisation to the end users and hence V.D.I. I'll be reaping benefits? When do I start? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting essay with some novel ideas of interest to the field I work in. So delete I'm afraid - WP:OR. Thparkth (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and article is completely unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an essay, and unfortunately, not a good one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo (musician)[edit]

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

This article cites no sources and those external links provided are either unrelated or are the homepage of the subject. As mentioned on the talk page, there is also some cause to suspect the page is an advert. What little notability is claimed within the article is not supported by any evidence or citation. Mr. G. Williams (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a very good self-promoter, but not a great deal of independent coverage that I can see. Not even listed on AMG, which is usually a pretty big red flag. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MUSICBIO. Article asserts notability but fails to provide any verification of subject's importance. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Never mind Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tears, Lies and Alibis[edit]

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

Redirect declined by a cranky user who apparently gets off on undoing all of my edits just for the sake of undoing them. Article is a clear permanent-stub, no sources, no notability. Label doesn't have an article, no reviews or anything were found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album was reviewed in multiple reliable sources, some of which are available online to be used. Someone another 19:38, 28 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) 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable Uncontrolled Price[edit]

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

This may even qualify as WP:A1; there are no sources here, and no indication why this term (if it actually exists) is important. — Timneu22 · talk 19:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This apparently has to do with international economic regulations; but this definition would appear to make the distinction between this concept and the more familiar phrase, fair market value, rather elusive. There may be a place where this could be merged or redirected to. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a technical concept in accountancy and tax regulations, rather than the more general concept of fair market value. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to transfer pricing, where this is already covered more fully and in better context. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term is not common at all in international economics. Notability not established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is in fact very common, but in accountancy rather than economics. I suggested redirection above for the purposes of presenting the information to our readers in better context rather than because of any lack of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BenOneHundred (talk · contribs) has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of Mitchronson. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Phil; is a common term, but the article itself is wrong. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort[edit]

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

This article is, in the end, nothing but a cherry picked enumeration of trivial accidents, incidents and unimportant events that are only related to each other because they occurred in or near a Disney property, or involve a vehicle or employee of Disney's.

Every item seems to be sourced impeccably, but any newspaper will contain dozens of such unimportant incidents in every small town or public venue of the earth every month; and there is no indication that any of those events are particularly notable or why they are included. Such a list simply has no place in an encyclopedia. That the incidents, individually, are verifiable is necessary but not sufficient to warrant such a list - and I can't think of an argument that choosing to make such a list is neutral to begin with.

(As a note, it looks as though that list is part of a series of such articles that cover the other Disney parks and possibly other amusement parks; I expect they suffer from the same fatal flaws but I'd rather one be discussed before nominating others). — Coren ^(talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this particular article was broken out from the original Walt Disney World Resort (or related park) articles many years ago, where incidents were included as part of "Park History" or "Park Accidents" headings. SpikeJones (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the contents of this list could be trimmed down a bit to highlight only the most significant incidents, major incidents and deaths at Walt Disney World enjoy enduring, nationwide coverage in the United States (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). As a top tourist destination and seemingly safe and controlled environment, Walt Disney World enjoys a special scrutiny when it comes to incidents that would be regarded as trivial in other contexts.

Note: This list was recently split from Incidents at Disney Parks for purposes of edit and talk page history.Uncle Dick (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Incidents at theme parks will always happen for a number of reasons, one of these are the carelessness of its passengers...this is why a notice exists for them to read before they ride. Do we need a forever list of trivial incidents. In short, Wikipedia is not a collection of random news clippings nor it is an indiscriminate collection of theme park incidents. May I suggest these to be nominated for deletion below.
Incidents at Cedar Fair parks
Incidents at PARC Management parks
Incidents at Disneyland Resort
Incidents at Six Flags parks
Incidents at SeaWorld parks
Incidents at independent parks
Incidents at European parks
Incidents at Universal parks
Donnie Park (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, Incidents at Cedar Fair parks is even worse. I can't fathom why "On August 10, 2009, the train on this shuttle roller coaster stalled on the lift hill, stranding 24 guests. They were rescued from the ride without harm" would end up on Wikipedia, no matter how well sourced. I think it's better to concentrate on one for the moment, and see where consensus lies, before nominating others. — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you about some individual items may deserve being culled from the overall article(s), but that does not mean that the article itself is flawed/deserves to be deleted. As an aside (and not an attempt to derail the current conversation), I present other "incidents" articles that may need to be considered in the future if consensus agrees that these theme-park safety-related articles are nothing more than "trivial, indiscriminate, unrelated random news clippings":

etc. SpikeJones (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's sourced and well-written, but I'm not convinced this is truly encyclopedia material. There's also an undue weight issue to consider: by reporting incidents at theme parks and not safety and crime incidents at, say, factories, city parks, beaches, warehouses, county fairs, and so on, we seem to be implying that theme parks are somehow inherently dangerous when in actuality the opposite is true. I think an overview of each park's safety and security record with notes on some particular incidents makes sense, but an exhaustive attempt to list every incident like this is greatly overextending our reach as a general interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said we seem to be implying that theme parks are somehow inherently dangerous when in actuality the opposite is true. That's exactly why an article like this should exist, as it points out either the rarity of such incidents by summarizing on a single page what has occurred... or can act as an indicator of the severity of such incidents when they do happen to occur. To not acknowledge that incidents have occurred is to, in effect, sweep such info under the rug (so to speak). SpikeJones (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, encyclopedic. NPOV vs. coverage of other topics as Starblind posits above is irrelevant to this topic. List entries each meet V, the total topic clearly meets N, and nothing about this fails NOT. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets all criteria fr a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not censored, which this list surely would be from the article about the resort. As noted in the nomination, everything on here is sourced impeccably. Mandsford 01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that WP:NOT WikiNews, where more complete coverage should be provided on individual incidents, but there are Amusement park accidents articles that summarize the overall topic of how incidents are reported etc -- the various company-broken out incident articles provide additional detail in a single place without having the info scattered across all the related ride/attraction/park articles. When looked at completely, an incidents summary (note - these are SUMMARIES and not intended to provide ALL incident details...such as victim names... that one would find in a news article or WikiNews) can be used to determine if an individual park/company is providing adequate safety precautions, or if there is a safety trend being followed. In addition, all items are sourced with WP-valid 3rd-party references. There are guidelines in use by the page editors to determine what is an incident to be included (injury/death for sure, or one that significantly impacts park operations) or not (a man fell off a parking lot tram). SpikeJones (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random list of unrelated incidents of varying lethal degrees that just happened to take place at a popular theme park over a number of years. It is not encyclopedic, by any stretch. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Everything here is well sourced (as in the other "park incident" articles), and where else can I easily read interesting information about these stories? Here, they're all in one place. If this goes away, finding this information (specifically the sources at the bottom of the page) will become a lot harder. dogman15 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons already noted above, but - in summary - specifically, the piece is sourced (although it could stand to be better sourced, in my opinion), is about a subject of global interest (Walt Disney World), contains events that are / were newsworthy, and (to me, most importantly) because Wikipedia is not censored. The delete opinions come across to me as censoring. Strikerforce (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my commentary, per a question posed on my talk page, my statement about feeling that the article could be better sourced stems from the fact that, of the eighty-seven (87) references used in the article, twenty-five (25) of them are from the same source (the Orlando Sentinel). While I can see how this would be expected, given that it is the major newspaper of the market in which WDW is located, having 29% of the article attributed to one source (albeit in different articles each time) leaves a little something to be desired, in my humble opinion. I would challenge the author or anyone who might wish to edit the article (I may take up the challenge, at some point, given my interest in WDW) to find sources other than the Orlando Sentinel for perhaps half of the existing citations, in order to make the article as a whole feel less reliant on only one source. Right now, it just feels heavy toward that one source... again, just in my opinion. Strikerforce (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although I think the article should be kept, it needs a bit of cleanup. Perhaps some of the less notable incidents (i.e. those that did not result in major injury, death, legal action, or national coverage) could be trimmed. That may satisfy some of the concerns raised by the editors above. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination is convincing. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator of the type "read about every single minor incident that ever happened at X". The "keep" opinions are unconvincing. Sourcing is a necessary, not a sufficient requirement for inclusion (see WP:IINFO). The "Wikipedia is not censored" argument does not apply because it is not proposed to delete this article on account of any moral or political objections against the content, but simply because it is a type of information not suited for an encyclopedia on account of its triviality and indiscriminateness. A succinct summary and statistic of incidents should be part of the main article instead. Sandstein 11:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the listing of minor incidents that resulted in few or no injuries should probably be removed from the list, but there is still a core listing of major incidents (deaths, lawsuits, etc.) with national coverage that should remain. As SpikeJonze noted above, this list was originally part of the Walt Disney World Resort article and was split due to size. Reintegrating this list back into the main article will simply bring us back to an oversize article again. With some judicious editing, I think this list can be improved to address the concern that too many minor incidents are being highlighted. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cornville, Arizona.. Seems to be a likely search, so going ahead and redirecting. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verde Santa Fe[edit]

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

No sources to indicate notability. User removed PROD to add links to something, but these aren't third-party coverage sources. I don't see why this development is particularly notable. — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into Cornville, Arizona. There is no evidence of notability, but such developments are usually merged into the larger community. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see what's mergable. You going to add a sentence to state that this place exists? — Timneu22 · talk 21:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ya, nothing really to merge. CTJF83 chat 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually added one sentence and the the cites to the main article. Delete away! Bearian (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/~~Merge~~ no indication of notability [4] CTJF83 chat 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cornville, Arizona. Non-notable but a plausible search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of record labels Morgana King recorded with[edit]

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

Like the article name says, a list of record labels for whom Morgana King has recorded. I am not aware that we do this for any other recording artist. This information is already captured (in a different format) in List of albums recorded by Morgana King and/or List of songs recorded by Morgana King (both of which could probably be merged to a single Discography, but that's a different department). By itself I don't believe this is necessary or notable, so delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to accumulate articles sorting discographies every which way. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The album and song lists are more than enough to convey the same information. Jafeluv (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 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.

European Club (band)[edit]

The result was speedy delete; hoax articles (WP:CSD#G3) Gyrofrog (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

BLPPROD declined, but this really sounds like a hoax. The members of the band, including the dude from Tears for Fears, were born in the early 60s, and could not have been in a pioneering rock band in 1967. No sources can be found. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, i screwed this up, can someone help?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (Thanks to Tarc - --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete - This along with associated bio pages appears to be a blatant hoax. No google hits at all for the purported band name and variations of the member's names. The Tears for Fears guy is real, but the others new bio articles are close approximations of existing, notable musicians. Bella Fleck is fake, Béla Fleck of Béla Fleck and the Flecktones fame is real, along with Victor Wooten (British musician) (fake) a takeoff of Victor Wooten (real), who also played for the Flecktones with Béla. Speedy this, and the two fake bios, pls. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:A7 CTJF83 chat 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 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.

The article has been heavily edited during the AfD and one of the principal concerns of those advocating deletion - that the article drew an improper link between the pre-1900 society and future organisations - has been addressed by the removal of the link. A number of the early delete !votes (eg 4meter4) have to be seen in that context. The AfD has to be judged on whether there is a consensus to delete an article devoted only to the pre-1900 society.

In that debate, there is no consensus. There was some discussion late in the AfD about whether the degree of sourcing about the 19th century society was sufficient but there was nothing approaching a consensus either way. The concerns of some delete !voters - that the article retains highly aggrandizing statements about the society's influence that don't appear to be supported by the sources - look justified to me. There is significant room for the heavy editing, that has lead to a subpar article getting kept at AfD, being continued after this close. I would be happy to hear anyone's concerns if there are any ownership issues that impede such editing.

I have taken into account the fact that a number of the keep !voters appear to be associated, even if not by sockpuppetry. Even if I was to take the extreme route and disregard all those !votes, the outcome would still have been no consensus, because this debate is decided on arguments not numbers and there are a number of substantially well-reasoned keep arguments from unassociated editors (Voceditenore and DGG in particular) that stand in the way of a consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irving Literary Society[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork of Cornell literary societies. It was cut and pasted from an earlier article that was deleted in May 2010. On October 1, the author asked that a userfied version be restored in Deletion Review. Today, a checkuser found that of the total 7 !votes for "allow recreation" at Deletion review 5 of them came from a batch of sockpuppets, of which 3 were from the same person. So sockpuppetry distorted the DR process. After restoration, because the sources covered a number of literary societies equally, I moved it to Cornell literary societies and deleted unsourced materials claiming that one of the literary societies was now co-extensive with the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Absent that undocumented link, it is against WP:ORG for the Cornell chapter to have an article separate from the main Phi Kappa Psi article. All of the sourced material in this article is already in the other fork. Racepacket (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Seven (7) day review period as per Deletion review ends at 17:04, November 4, 2010.--Cmagha (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this note is. The admins/editors who close AfDs all know about the seven day period. However, nominations can be relisted (i.e. the discussion period extended) if the closing editor believes that more time would be likely to generate a clearer consensus. Is that what you meant? Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. For those participating in this discussion, also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive and this archive of the deletion review.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Allegation of Sockpuppetry found unsubstantiated by Wikipedia Checkusers.--Cmagha (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline The history of this saga is so convoluted that I've made a timeline so discussants will know what we're talking about:

The Irving Literary Society is deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society by the closing admin User:Spartaz on 14 May 2010
Article is userfied to User:Cmagha by User:Spartaz on 15 June 2010
Article is moved back to article space under the title The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) by User:Colonel Warden on 3 July 2010
The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) is re-userfied by User:Spartaz later on 3 July 2010
Article is brought to deletion review as The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and following the discussion moved back into article space by the closing admin User:Cirt on 8 October 2010
The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) is moved to Cornell literary societies by User:Racepacket on 24 October 2010
A cut and paste fork of Cornell literary societies is created by User:Cmagha as The Irving Literary Society later on 24 October 2010. This is the article now under discussion for deletion here.

– Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and per the original discussion. The sockpuppetry on the DRV was apalling, but equally appalling was the closing admin's apparent failure to notice it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. No sockpupperty existed; basis for this 'Delete' no longer exists.--Cmagha (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what he said. He did not give sockpuppetry as the basis for his opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An individual branch of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity is not notable; fails WP:Org. However, there is no definite connection provable between the historic Irving Society at Cornell and its current reincarnation as a part of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. This whole premise is therefore original research and synthesis (if not outright fraud and deception). The 19th century Irving Society may indeed be notable, but the current Cornell organization of that name is not. This causes a conundrum in the AFD because really we have a notable organization of the past being obfiscated by a non-notable organization of the present which is trying to capitalize on the earlier organization's history under false pretenses. Indeed, supposed "members" (ie JFK) of the organization are listed who were alive during a time period when the Irving was completely inactive in any form. The current article is so rife with false information, original synthesis, and inflated claims it would require an entire rewrite to be of any value to wikipedia. The best course of action is deletion without prejudice to recreate an article on the 19th century Irving Society. However, I personally believe this topic is better covered not at its own article but in context at Cornell literary societies. On a side note, someone may want to contact Cornell and the national office of Phi Kappa Psi and let them know about the shady behavior of this fraternity. This sort of thing is a bad reflection on both the university and the fraternity.4meter4 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an amendment to Cornell's fraternity recognition policy is already on the agenda of this weekend's Board of Trustees meeting. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Associate Dean for Fraternities & Sororities was briefed on Thursday; the End of Year Reports filed by Phi Kappa Psi have referenced the Irving; also sent him newletter clippings noting Irving activities (he receives the newsletter as a courtesy as well).--Cmagha (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified the two closing admins of the first AfD and the DR, User:Spartaz and User:Cirt, as well as the only non-sockpuppet participants at the DR, User:DGG and User:Umbralcorax of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. No sockpupperty existed; basis for this 'Comment' no longer exists. Please notify all you contacted.Cmagha (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notify them of what? These are the 4 messages I sent [5], [6], [7], and [8]. They do not mention the sockpuppet investigation at all. The only one who was later notified of the investigation was Cirt, and not by me. It was the T. Canens, the administrator who had made the initial blocks. I suggest you take it up with him. Or alternatively just tell Cirt yourself. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The sockpuppet issue seems to be more complicated than it appears from the SPI case. It may be that these are different people, after all. I'm checking with a checkuser who ran a check on these accounts previously. T. Canens (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the professionalism, et alethia.--Cmagha (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suitable sources exist. Cannot see any POV ISSUE requiring deleting. Sockpuppetry should have no effect on what we do, one way or the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are no sources to show that Irving Literary Society exists after May 27, 1887, and there are sources that say it dissolved at that point. Racepacket (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reference from 1896 mentioning it in present tense. Regardless, I am impressed that there are clear sources from long ago, and so even if it was short lived, there should be an article. If you are right, there may be a battle to remove mention of a non-notable revival group from the article, but, big as that battle would be, it is not one to be decided by AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, the article you cite says, "The oldest of the early socieities, the Irving, lived on until 1887, the issue of the Cornell Daily Sun for May 27 of that year containing the announcement of the meeting which proved to be its last." (p. 192) Racepacket (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right. I still don't know that the answer is deletion. There was a notable society. A new group has recently adopted the name. There does need to be a clear distinction between the two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough. sockpuppet drama is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as individually notable. Per WP:SS, it's appropriate there be a summary at the general page for the literary societies and and individual article. Regardless of prior sockpuppet activity, we're judging the article now. The relationship with the present fraternity seems real, but needs to be de-emphasized, as there is no indication it is presently important. The general information of Cornell literary society history is properly in the general articles and can be removed here. I did some editing accordingly. More is needed if the article is kept, but I wanted to get it started DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. First, no one is suggesting that this article be deleted for sockpupppet activity. Second, on what evidence are you basing this real relationship? There is roughly a century gap between the two organizations. Cornell does not list the Irving Society in any internal publications for over 100 years between the first organizations demise and the second organization's creation. Considering there are literarly daily records published by Cornell about student organization meetings/activities (including those by all this school's fraternities and sororities) this is quite telling. Further, none of the published books on Cornell history mention the organization exsisting beyond the 19th century.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if there is no real relationship, but only claimed to be, the matter can be discussed on the talk page, and appropriately edited to reflect the claim. A dispute about content is not reason for deletion. the later material can be moved to a separate article. The earlier organization was notable, and therefore is appropriate for an article. You are right that a very tolerant view of sourcing would certainly support articles on all student clubs, though we in practice have defined acceptable sources to prevent it. I take no position on whether we should change that practice, but it does not affect the notability of the historic 19th century societies. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Thank you for informing me of the AFD. For the time being, I'm going to abstain until I can get a better grasp on what the heck is going on here. My initial reaction is to keep, since I thought the article was good at DRV, but that may just be a knee-jerk reaction, and I'd rather be my decision be more informed than reactionary. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just took an axe to the article and removed the sections that were based solely on original research/synthesis and, dare I say it, out right lies. With the article now being solely about the historical Irving, I am fine with keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep – I was neutral in the original AfD (although I expressed serious doubts about the sourcing, style, spurious claims,etc.), and I did not participate in the Deletion Review. Ironically, the COI editors from the fraternity didn't need to resort to meat/sockpuppetry at the DR— it almost certainly would have passed in any case. Initially, it seemed preferable to me to incorporate this article into Cornell literary societies (minus the still completely unreferenced, and in several places spurious, claims about the current Phi Kappa Psi fraternity "version" of the society). However, after reading through both of these articles this morning (prior to 4meter4's edits described above) and assessing their potential, I've changed my mind.
The historical ILS which became defunct in 1887 has sufficient notability established via reliable sources for an article on its own. In fact, there is so much information pre-1887 relative to the other societies that it would seriously unbalance the other article. The general material about literary societies at Cornell in this article should sit in Cornell literary societies. The bulk of the information about the ILS should sit here with a summary and {{main}} link in the other. The version I read needed very heavy editing to bring it up to standard, and even the current one needs restructuring and more editing. Anyone wishing to read Talk:The Irving Literary Society and Talk:Cornell literary societies/Archive 1 will understand why such an editing process has been very, very difficult up to now and may prove to be so in the future, given the fraternity editors' stated intention to protect "their article". But that's no reason to delete it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to a very weak keep following the comments of Richfife below. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plea/Query for closing adminstrator If this page is kept, can it please be moved to a final appropriate title with all the histories and redirects sorted out once and for all? The Irving Literary Society is not suitable for two reasons: (1) Per WP:MOS and the historical sources, "The" is not part of the title of the organization and should not be part of the article title (2) There are several entities in the US called the "Irving Literary Society", most of which have a longer and well-documented history and are more notable than this one. I would strongly suggest using Irving Literary Society (Cornell University).
Also, a user who has just registered today, IndtAithir, appears to have cut and pasted a copy of this article (without attribution) at User talk:IndtAithir. My understanding of Wikipedia:UP#COPIES is that it doesn't belong there. I'll leave him/her a note about this, ~~but perhaps an adminstrator could take a look and/or advise too?~~ Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update After I left this note, the user removed the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the recent edits, there is nothing in this article that is not in the other folk, Cornell literary societies. As a practical matter, wouldn't it be best if this folk was deleted so that it would not attract further vandalism from the PKP members who want to add unsourced material about their fraternity? Racepacket (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not really. First of all, if the two articles are properly edited and structured, there will be virtually no overlap between them. Some material from this one belongs in Cornell literary societies; the bulk of the material specifically on the Cornell ILS belongs in this one; and spurious unreferenced claims, misrepresented sources, and promotional language belong in neither. Secondly, you can't delete an article on a notable subject simply because it might/will attract original research, conflict of interest and biased editing. By that token, half the articles on Wikipedia would have to go. ;-) Painful as it is, those issues will have to be thrashed out on the talk page, or taken to wider forums if necessary, e.g. the various content noticeboards. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were moved to "Irving Literary Society (1868-1887)" it would disamb. the other Irving Literary Societies and would discourage any tacking on of current Cornell revivals. What motivated the other fork was that the sources covered a number of societies equally, but that got translated as "Irving and its peers" in this article. Racepacket (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, simple dates are not good disambiguators in terms of the reader's experience, which should be paramount. Besides, if reliable independent sources can be found concerning the later "resuscitation" of its name as an aspect of the PKP fraternity, there's no reason why a brief mention of that (without undue weight) can't go into the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if there is substantial third party documentation of PKP being the continuation of Irving it should be reported. However, that has been requested since May 2010, and none has yet to be discovered. Racepacket (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As I have used wireless at Cornell and in the Metro Washington, D.C. area, my IP address may be the same, from time to time, as other Wikipedia editors. None are co-workers; some are peer Cornellians. I am also a member of the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society. The Chapter and the Irving are not one and the same, so this would not be a article about "the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi". Deanship passes from one Dean to the next; the Chapter enjoys coincident membership, and fellowship with honoraries. As for notability I provided these comparators and a summary of the research earlier this month. Brought forward for review, but do read all the commentary. In order of less, to more, evidence: Sphinx (senior society) (Notability based incredibly on primary, Dartmouth sources), Philolexian Society (like the Sphinx at Dartmouth, all are Dartmouth sources), Episkopon (nice, notability determined by three primary sources, one of which is somebody's resume), American Whig-Cliosophic Society (notability accepted from one secondary source which is a simple, unlabeled list), Elizabethan Club (notability determined by one secondary source dating from 1921, and not linked; everything else is a Yale publication), Franklin Society (Notability based merely on two secondary, Non-Brown University sources), - - Irving's evidence quality/quantity falls here. - - Philodemic Society (notability established from two secondary sources), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society (notability apparent from two secondary sources, which are exactly the same as the Washington's at UVA), Washington Literary Society and Debating Union (notability apparent from two secondary sources), Philomathean Society (notability well deserved from four secondary and one primary source),.

Total of nineteen (19) citations supporting notability, more than any comparator linked, supra.

Best Evidence, eight (8) Secondary Sources specifically citing the Irving.

United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, Circular of Information No. 3, (H.B. Adams, ed. 1900) at 393.</ref> (Non-Cornell secondary source describing the Irving specifically as “a purely literary society,” cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); see also p. 74;

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) at X.;

Thomas Spencer Harding, College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States, 1815–1876 (171) at 265; (Non-Cornell secondary source, albeit relatively minor, which nonetheless adds support for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

Catalogue of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity (Aldrice C. Warren, ed. 1910) at 1001 (Non-Cornell secondary source noting the importance of membership in the Irving);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shield (16:1)(Theta Delta Chi March 1900) at 210;

Fayette E. Moyer, "Literary Societies," Cornell Magazine (January 1895) at 187–194. (Although a Cornell source, this citation notes that the Irving also admitted women to membership, but the Philaletheian, believing that there ought to be one society which devoted itself purely to debate, remained an organization for men only, thereby meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations.). See also Carol Kammen, Cornell: glorious to view (2003) at 39. (non-Cornell source supporting the same);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) at 128 (non-Cornell secondary source noting that by 1884 and 1886, the Irving was feeling pressed by Cornell Athletics. Cite meets need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that — no evidence of the Irving being mentioned, let alone discussed Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977)(Although written by a Cornellian, this source notes that the Irving Literary Society, along with the Christian Association, was one of the few campus venues in which Cornell member could participate as equals with Cornell men. The early membership criteria are an example of the cyclical, rather than evolutionary, nature of gender inclusion noted by feminist theorists. As such, it supports reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.).

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Nobody claims that the post-1888 Irving, if it exists, was open to women. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that – no mention whatsoever

Strong Evidence, seven (7) Primary Sources directly identifying the Irving:

University Chronicle, “Educational” (Univ. Mich.)(Jan. 16, 1869) at 2. (identifying the Irving as one of Cornell’s two literary societies. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Just a list entry, not substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Irving Literary Society," The Ithacan (Apr. 4, 1869) at 2; (Non-Cornell source editorial stating that the Irving was "first in the field");

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Journal (Ithaca, New York)(Nov. 8, 1870) at 2 (Non-Cornell primary source noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Exchanges,” The Virginia University Magazine (12:2)(Nov. 1873) at 266 (non-Cornell primary source noting that the Irving was entertaining an agenda which strayed from traditional literary activities. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Democrat 2 (Ithaca, New York)(Sept. 27, 1884)(Non-Cornell primary source stating “The Irving literary society met last evening, but was poorly attended. This institution should be one of the most prosperous student societies in the college, but strange to say, it has deteriorated in point of numbers, and its management has fallen into the hands of technical instead of literary students.” Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884) at 2.

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Local. Two-sentence meeting announcement. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86. (referring to that the Irving and Philaletheaian as “the two literary societies [that] were everything . . .” during the early years, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations; the article is a memoir by a Cornellian);

refers to pre 1888 Irving. Not substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evidence, four (4) Secondary or Primary Sources which may not directly identify the Irving, but refer to literary societies at Cornell in a manner, which when combined with another source, prove notability of the subject:

improper invitation to violate WP:SYN Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Gumprecht, The American Collegetown (2008) at 77 (Non-Cornell general secondary source citation on student culture at Cornell, noting that the Irving and its peers established an environment conducive to free intellectual thought in the early years, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (3d.)(1874-75) at 77 (showing Irving as one of two senior literary societies) to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Cornell University,” The People’s Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (W.H. DePuy ed. 1897) at 687 (Non-Cornell, secondary sources, referencing literary societies in general. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (1879-1880) at 5 to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987), at 45–51 (Non-Cornell, albeit general, secondary source referencing Cornell on the role literary societies, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.) combined with David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) and Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) to confirm the general Gerald Graff cite refers, in part, to the Irving);

not a useful source Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869)(Non-Cornell primary source identifying Cornell’s literary societies as electing men of talent and work, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. But it is a primary source, not secondary. Though cited to round out the Graff citation, it also stands on its own as proof of notability).Cmagha (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refers to pre 1888 Irving Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that. Doesn't mention it by name at all full copy here Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To anyone still skeptical about possible "sock-puppetry": as I have also used wireless at Cornell, my IP address may be the same as other Wikipedia editors. I am also a member of the New York Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and the Irving Literary Society, but that is not why I vote to keep. I vote to keep because I think the above reasons stated by Cmagha, more than establish notability of the Irving Literary Society and merit a Wikipedia page.Tea36 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please explain what sources show that the pre-1888 Irving is in any way related to Phi Kappa Psi. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This describes what is available on line, "In 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell." Coldplay3332 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources and the referenced materials do not show that the pre-1888 Irving is related to Phi Kappa Psi. Racepacket (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All other issues aside, my concern with this article is its extremely inflated opinion of its importance and the way the topic is presented. The Irving may have been an important student activity for its less than two decades of existence over one hundred years ago, but there were many similarly important groups during the period (Cornell University Christian Association, Cornell Era, Cornell Congress, other literary societies, debating societies, social clubs, etc.), and there is no reason for these groups to have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the article has nothing to do with the Irving specifically. The "History" section is a skewed look at American intellectual history and an attempt to present the Irving as an influential part. The article tries to present Cornell's first commencement as an activity of the Irving simply because its members were there. Specific details of its meetings, discussions, and events do not belong on Wikipedia. The room in White Hall was used by all the societies, and this and other material could go under Cornell literary societies, although I similarly question whether the old literary societies collectively are even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I have no doubt that Phi Kappa Psi has internally maintained the concept of the Irving as part of their chapter's tradition, but it's foolish to pretend that it is a separate entity or at all notable on campus since its closing 1887. There is no legitimate published history (or historian) of Cornell University who would agree with the claims in this article about the Irving's importance. Morris Bishop's "A History of Cornell" makes a single mention of its founding, along with the other literary societies, noting that the Curtis Society was more important since it was the first to be coeducational. Cornell2010 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I may have the same IP as someone working in my building; doubt that I’d have the same IP as someone at Cornell, unless the IP is shared with service providers at Syracuse, when I visit my alma mater. Based on the notability evidence presented by Cmagha, above, this needs to be kept. Also, I’d like the text amended to put back the connection to Group House No. IV of the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966, the Irving’s steward. This is not duplicating the National fraternity’s page, and it is clear the National does not have an Irving organization at every Chapter. Take a look at the documentation on that page I linked. This is what the article should say to summarize the facts, NEW TEXT: “In 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell. You don’t even have to get into the debate over frat-bashing. It’s a Group House. Coldplay3332 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such sophistry. The argument moves from it being a social fraternity, to a literary society and now is it just a "Group House." If it is just a "group house" why is it a member of Cornell's interfraternity council rather than aligning itself with the various non-fraternity housing such as Watermargin? Racepacket (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not the place to discuss proposals/minutiae for wording of the article. Those belong on the article's talk page. Anyone reading it will find it a real eye-opener. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Cornell literary societies with expansion more or less intact. I see no need for a separate article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging back would form a copying loop, which can interfere with any future deletion. Upon examination of the net edits, one finds that the majority of changes are removals, plus moving a few sentences around. The "First Commencement Exercises" ref is newly added. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read the various sources recently added to this AfD. There is nothing to establish a direct lineage to the Irving Literary Society that existed before 1888. Some self-generated public relations material claims that this particular social fraternity is trying to keep the spirit of the Irving Literary Society alive, is its "steward" or has somehow "absorbed" Irving's legacy, but that does not represent a reliable source independent of this fraternity reporting that Irving continued on in this manner. Whatever notability the pre-1888 Irving had cannot be automatically transfered to the PKP fraternity, which is clearly a different organization, with a different membership criteria and a different purpose. Present day PKP is distinct from pre-1888 Irving just as Cornell University is distinct from Cornell College — similar names is not enough of a link. This POV fork is based on the assumption that both PKP and Irving are undisputably the same organization. I hope that the closing administrator will apply the WP:COWORKER policy and count the multiple users sharing the same IP address as just one !vote. Racepacket (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the excellent discussion. Cmagha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Strong Keep.” Readers should note that this is a Cornell student responding to the post of a former Cornell Trustee. Racepacket has asserted that that citations provided by Coldplay3332 --- who is neither a Cornellian, nor a member of the Irving, nor a member of Phi Kappa Psi – are not reliable or verifiable. In this matter, Racepacket is wrong and he has once again overstated a Wikipedia standard (a common tactic of Deletionists).

We know that “[n]o source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such [Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources source].” We have three sources here, all of which are verifiable, which when COMBINED, make a casual connect. One item is a legal document produced to order the relations between the University and a group of alumni. It is highly reliable in that it is not produced for promotion, or even third party review. And it was produced almost a half century ago; we have a letter between two individuals regarding the production of a directory for use internally, again a document not produced for promotion or purposes other than a directory’s accuracy. And then we have a collection of news clippings distributed to members returning for Homecoming, materials produced in the normal course of the Society’s business. All three of these are reliable for the reasons stated above, they are verifiable in that they can be accessed.

The evidence is best summarized as “[i]n 1966, a Cornell Priority Group doing business as the Irving Literary Society entered into an agreement with the University to support residential housing on its West Campus, through the Cornell University Residence Plan of 1966. That Priority Group is supported by a Group Sponsor with an historical association to the Irving. The Irving maintains a presence at Cornell.

~~Strong Keep.~~ Wehatweet (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) — Wehatweet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have reformatted the indents in Wehatweet's statement above for clarity (it originally looked like 3 separate unsigned comments + 1 signed one. To avoid confusion, I have also struck through the second bolded "strong keep" in the same statement. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussants only state "keep" (or "strong keep" in your case) once in an AfD. Please strike the second one. Secondly, as was pointed out above, AfDs are not the place to discuss proposals/minutiae for wording of the article. Those belong on the article's talk page, where this proposed addition is already being discussed. Thirdly, you really must read No original research (especially the Synthesis section) and Verifiability as defined by Wikipedia, not dictionaries. From your argument above, I don't think you understand them. Racepacket is making his argument based on these key Wikipedia policies not because he is a "deletionist", a characterization which is unhelpful, without foundation,[9] and irrelvant to this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see Wehatweet in the discussion of this AfD prior to the Strong Keep just posted, maybe I am missing it. As for the No original research, not sure the standard is as tight as you state. It says "[s]elf-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field." The sources themselves are not promotional; one is a legal document, one is internal correspondance, and the other is a collection of newsletter articles printed as news to society members. Just a thought. Coldplay3332 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply He says it at the beginning of his oddly formatted comment ("“Strong Keep.” Readers should note that this is a Cornell student responding...") and again the end, the one which you have just bolded. One of them needs to be struck. Per the second part of your comment, see WP:SYN and Talk:The Irving Literary Society#Suggested New Text. I'm not sure why you both keep bringing this into the AfD discussion. It is irrelevant to whether the 19th century society is sufficiently notable for an article on its own. (I happen to think the 19th century society is sufficiently notable and have opined "keep" accordingly.) I suggest you concentrate your arguments for "keep" on that issue rather than trying to get text about the fraternity's version of the ILS inserted into the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope the closing administrator will consider the possiblity of off-Wiki Meatpuppetry among some of the keep voters here who were listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive. Racepacket (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References don't support the assertions made (they mostly talk about literary societies in general, not this one). Notability not proven. Seems almost like a case of reverse recentism (it's old, therefore it must be meaningful). - Richfife (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have a point about reverse recentism. I've just been going through it again today. A lot of it is off-topic padding comparing it to secret societies, on the completely unsupported contention that it is now part of a current fraternity (I've removed it). The business about choosing the name was a misrepsesentation of the source — John Rea is nowhere mentioned in it. I suspect there's still plenty more of that stuff going on there. The stuff on Society Hall, applies to all the 19th century societies and properly belongs in Cornell literary societies, not this one. An accurate, properly sourced article, devoid of purple prose would be rather short. Still not sure if that's grounds for deleting it, but my "keep" has now become a "very weak" one. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a certain "wow" factor going through either the bound volumes from the 1880s or their digitized versions. However, I think that everything worth keeping in the now-slimmed-down ILS article is already in Cornell literary societies. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a "wow" factor, which the editors writing the ILS article had when they first read them, and served as an inspiration for writing the article now under consideration for deletion. There is room on Wikipedia for TWO articles, one on the literary societies in general, and one on the Irving. Cmagha (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst the article has been rewritten I still have the same concerns as I did at the first AFD. i.e. that WP:ORG is not met sufficiently for a standalone article. Nancy ^talk 07:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the sources noted previously only refer to the pre-1888 version of the ILS, it establishes notability for the ILS. Notability is not temporary. The article may need modification to focus more on the older form of the society, but I don't see it requiring utter deletion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary for the same organization. There is nothing to establish that the pre-1888 ILS is the same organization as what Phi Kappa Psi is doing now. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is why I mentioned that the article may need to be refocused toward its elder incarnation. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree. However, when I looked at the sources, particularly the non-local sources, I found that they discussed the literary societies as a group. (They had a number of joint activities including debating contests and printing a student-written magazine.) So I moved the article to Cornell literary societies, and I don't think that the non-local sources would support ILS as a separate article. Racepacket (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Selman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY for coaches. Just as playing for a NCAA ice hockey team isn't notable, neither is being a coach of one. DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Selman is notable as the Head Coach of the 1979-80 Dayton Gems in the International Hockey League (IHL).[10] Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He still fails WP:NHOCKEY. It requires 100 games coached in a minor league. It was specifically written that way so that one season would not be enough. Had he coached more than one season there might be something to it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The full year of being a Head Coach of professional hockey, combined with the several years of being Head Coach of University and College hockey teams, is enough to satisfy the presumption of notability. It may be true that the current standard for inclusion is that "just as playing for a NCAA ice hockey team isn't notable", but this person was more than "just playing", he was a Head Coach of NCAA hockey teams for several years. There are many players on a team, but only one Head Coach. This is an article that should be expanded, not deleted. Dolovis (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if someone can find some reliable sources about him to pass WP:GNG then I will agree. Without any sources that significantly cover him then he isn't considered notable. Believe me I like to keep hockey articles when I can, but I couldn't find any articles that talked about him. Albeit I only did a websearch since I am not in any of the locations he coached in. But as long as there are no sources (other than a stats page), he doesn't pass the requirements for an article. Not only does he have to pass the presumption of notability but he has to also pass the verifiablity of his notability. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find it hard to believe that you made any attempt to establish his notability before nominating this article. Sources are plentiful and easy to find.[11] Selman was also the Coach of the American Team at the 1982 World Ice Hockey Championships held in Finland.[12]. That ices his claim of notability, and a speedy keep is warranted. Dolovis (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh I had no problem finding sources that mention him. But WP:N requires the articles to be significantly about the individual. Not just a passing mention in an article about something else. If he was a national coach then yes he meets WP:N. But he is still failing WP:V. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14 years in the NCAA, 1 in IHL, and a national team is definitely enough. Grsz¹¹ 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a book Selman contributed to about coaching hockey. Source as North Dakota coach, St. Louis, mentioned in the "Blue Book of College Athletics", in "Sport in the USSR", "WCHA Coaches". Grsz¹¹ 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if he was a national coach I have no problem with considering him probably notable, but we are still missing references significantly about him. Remember passing mentions which almost all of these are, are not good enough to satisfy WP:N. -DJSasso (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough coverage to pass WP:GNG CTJF83 chat 21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons by Dolovis and Grsz above. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it meets the guidelines that nominator suggested, specifically #6: "Played (coached) on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship)" which Selman did at the 1982 World Championship. Bds69 (talk) 18:53, 31 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 Mandsford 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Kaufman (corporate trainer)[edit]

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

Non-notable corporate trainer. References indicate only passing mention of Kaufman (i.e. we need a quote from someone), rather than an in-depth profile of Kaufman herself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is pure promotion of a personal business: As founder and President of the national training company, Wendy oversees a network of trainers who bring personal expertise to a wide range of work/life balance programs to corporations, not-for-profit organizations, employee assistance programs and educational institutions. Her catalogue of seminars ranges includes over 200 titles ranging from nutrition, financial basics, parenting, communication skills, and stress management. She and her trainer affiliates deliver in person, webinar and teleconference trainings in all 50 states of the US. In 2010 BLI began producing and distributing her trainings in video and audio formats. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Pure promoton. Agree with lhcoyc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotionalism as written; whether the sources might possibly support an article is another matter, but we have established that being interviewed by a newspaper about a subject does not prove one notable, merely shows one to have been a convenient source for the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources lack substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 20:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mee[edit]

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

First off, I see that there was an AfD #1 several years ago when she was only hiccup girl, which IMO should have been deleted as an iron-clad WP:ONEEVENT. It wasn't, but attitudes towards BLP's and 1E have I think become tighter since then, so if that AfD was held today, I'm sure it'd close as a delete. But anyways, at some point after that close on 29 May 2007, this article was redirected to something like Hiccuping I presume, but then that redir deleted on 19 June 2007. This is a new article created a few days ago. As for this nomination, what we have here is a woman who got her 15 minutes of fame a few years back for being unable to stop hiccuping, then nothing til a few days ago she was arrested for murder charges. I presume we'll see arguments along the lines of "that is a second event, thus invalidating WP:BLP1E concerns", but I honestly do not see it that way. She was "known" briefly for a single thing (hiccuping) 3 years ago, then faded quickly from the limelight. IMO the only reason this is popping up again is because some beat writer saw an otherwise ordinary murder rap on a young woman come across his desk and said "hey, isn't that the old hiccuping girl?" and ran with it. I'd like/hope to see a bit of editorial discretion here on whether this is the type of article we wish to have on the Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Notability (people)#What is one event is the consideration, and I question whether being arrested should be considered as having "ballooned from there" as with the examples given in that section. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply being a murder suspect isn't an encyclopedic claim to notability, nor will it become such if she's eventually convicted. So this is still essentially a WP:BLP1E. That said, I imagine we'll get a wave of "OMG KEEP IT WUZ ON TEH NEWZ!!!1" from all the usual suspects, and we'll get a no-consensus close and then another AFD leading to a unanimous delete in a few months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions do not a suspect make: "All three suspects admitted to their involvement and were charged with 1st degree felony murder." That would make you the "confessed killer".

Delete. Andrew Lenahan has it right - neither of the two know things about her are notable, and two unnotable things does not a notable person make. Sadly, I fear he's probably also correct that this will get piled on by people who don't understand what WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PEOPLE and WP:BLP are all about. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per the deleter's correct counterargument that one event will be argued as not applying since events run from 2007 to 2010. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do not run "from 2007 to 2010"; these are two blips separated by several years. And I said what I said in the nom in an (obviously futile) attempt to stave off boilerplate ARS nonsense. She was known for ONE thing in 2007, dropped out of the limelight for years, and just happens to be name-dropped in a few news stories of the day today for no other reason then that previous 15 minutes. I'm asking for a little thoughtfulness and common-sense here for a change, a genuine reflection on what it means to be a subject of encyclopedic value, rather than knee-jerk "KEEP ITS NOTABLE!" stuff. Tarc (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, it was BLP1E the first time around. As she stands now, she fails WP:PERP. What was a non-notable person before commits a crime that doesn't meet the criteria for notability of criminal acts.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems this is an example of TWO EVENTS, and which side of the line something like this should fall in is debatable; by IAR, one could either keep or delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two events. The first of which is of dubious notability and the second of which isn't close to passing notability. Sadly, murders are so commonplace that there is no real notability in a run of the mill homicide. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you define notability in this context? I can't imagine you are referring to WP:N as that is clearly met. What exactly are you trying to say? Hobit (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, not notable, not enough reliable sources, etc. Multiple issues.--InaMaka (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is a non-notable criminal, events like this are depressingly common. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you define notability in this context? Do you mean WP:N or something else? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really folks? Isn't this a case of "IDONTLIKEIT"? Is this a WP:BLP1E? Clearly not. Is there any problem with WP:N? Clearly not, there are a massive number of sources. So, we get back to the more fundamental question of what we should have articles on. My personal opinion is that if reliable sources felt it was worth covering and it doesn't run afoul of other issues, we should keep. To argue "it's just a guideline" is bogus when the guideline clearly applies. Finally the article was kept in 2007 and the coverage has only increased (not to mention added another event). In my opinion should we have an article on her? Sure. I see no harm and I see benefit to anyone researching the subject. (And you know folks will). Wikipedia won't be significantly worse off without the article, but that's true of 99% of our articles. And we would be worse off without all of them. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nauseated by the 2007 AfD, honestly, but as I noted above I believe that there has been a sea change in regards to hew we handle such articles in the last 3 years. There's no way on earth such an article would be kept if it came up in 2010. And no, its not "I don't like it", it is a nomination questioning whether something like this really satisfies the spirit of "has been involved in more than one event". Look at some of our recent contentious BLP1E deletes lately, e.g. the JetBlue guy or Debrahlee Lorenzana. What if next week one of them goes on a bender and wraps a car around a telephone pole? You know the drive-by media would glom onto that in a heartbeat. Would you honestly open a DRV in that case to get the article created, on a basis of "now we have two events", or support someone else that filed one? Tarc (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the article on Debrahlee Lorenzana to begin with as I believe the coverage of her in the context of sex and gender in the workforce pushed it beyond BLP1E and NOTNEWS. I'd prefer an event article of course. The Jet Blue guy is probably covered best by an event article in any case even if he went on a bender and made national news again. I just don't see why we avoid covering people and events that meet our inclusion guidelines AND have seen such massive coverage. In my opinion it creates a blind spot in Wikipedia. Maybe we should brush under the rug all these tabloid like things. But I think they are actually relevant, not just for themselves, but as a commentary on society and the media. Hobit (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fall on that side of DGG's line--but I consider these only half-events, so to speak. Some coverage of either one does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe google had 100 articles on the latest story. So again, what is notability in this context if not WP:N? Hobit (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Murders are a dime a dozen in the US, and hiccups, while marginally more rare, have no impact on anything. So there's two non-notable parts of this person, and the two combined don't add up to a notable person. C628 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presents BLP issues, even if it's not a BLP1E. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent at Paris Hilton. Insignificant stuff adds up, evidenced by the fact that the subject received coverage in the United States on all the major networks in 2007 (plus factoid blurbs in TIME and a couple books) and is again receiving coverage on all the major networks in 2010. Location (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is hardly even known nationally and will likely be forgotten by next week. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for criminals and WP:BLP1E. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If there is unsourced content in the article, we remove it, not delete a perfectly notable article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heebthong Krissada[edit]

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

Unref'd BLP; looked around for sources and I can't find any, questionable notability even if I could have. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this he is a professional baseball player in Japan. However, it does not state at which level. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Meets WP:ATHLETE, in that he participated in "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". Specifically, the 2007 Baseball World Cup, as a member of the Thai national team (see here or here, for example). I find the nominator's claim to have done a thorough search for sources unpersuasive - did he also check Thai-language sources, or ask members of WikiProject Thailand to do so? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph of WP:ATHLETE makes it clear that an article on an athlete must also meet the general notability guideline and that "the article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." That requires actual sources, not the hope that hypothetical sources might exist in another language. Consequently, I would argue that the article, which doesn't cite reliable sources, doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. BRMo (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's rather more than just a "hope" that Thai-language sources exist. Heebthong Krissada is one of the three or four most famous baseball players in his entire country, and baseball IS covered by the Thai media (see this article from an English-language Thai paper, for example, which includes a discussion of his performance in the Asian Games and a quote from him about the team's chances). To blithely assume that no articles about a foreign person exist without even checking that foreign person's native press is systemic bias, plain and simple. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never assumed that no articles exist on the subject. Rather, I claim that an article that doesn't cite its sources doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons, which requires that we "be very firm about the use of high quality sources." Assumptions about sources that may or may not exist aren't sufficient to meet that standard. BRMo (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bull. Subject clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. Vodello (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article, as currently written, cites no sources and thus violates WP:BLP, which requires that "material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." BLP and WP:N have to take precedence over WP:ATHLETE, and Hit bull, win steak's links notwithstanding, I don't see much hope for improving this article to meet even the most minimal standards of verifiability. BRMo (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger found four sources below. BLP rationale is no longer valid and I strongly disagree with it failing WP:N. Vodello (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is still a concern because the article still contains no sources, and the sources that Phil Bridger has identified are unable to verify most of the information contained in the article. BRMo (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources presented by Hit bull, win steak verify that this is a player for his national team. The article seems to have the wrong name order, so should be moved to Krissada Heebthong. More such verification can be found here, here, here and here, so there's clearly no problem with verifiability. The fact North American baseball doesn't recognise that the world extends beyond that continent doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to be so insular. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding some sources. Nevertheless, there still is a problem with verifiability, because even with the sources that you and Hit bull, win steak have identified, most of the information contained in the short (two paragraph) article can't be verified. Indeed, one of your sources contradicts the article (the Wikipedia article says his father is Japanese whereas the linked mb.com.ph article indicates that it's a step-father). That's a problem for an article that's supposed to satisfy WP:BLP. Furthermore, none of the sources that you and HBWS have located provide the kind of "significant coverage" of the subject that's required by WP:GNG (and also by the first paragraph of WP:ATH). I'd suggest that taking all of your sources together, it would be difficult to write more than about a three-sentence fully verified article about the subject. If this article is kept, given the paucity of information about the subject I think it would be better to merge and redirect it to Thailand national baseball team, which is also desperately in need of expansion. (BTW, if your snarky comment about the insularity of North American baseball was directed at me, it was misdirected. I've spent many hours editing and improving Wikipedia articles on baseball played outside of the United States.) BRMo (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete

Neftalí Cruz[edit]

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

Baseball scout who I can't seem to find any information on, including the bios of those he supposedly is the agent of. Unref'd BLP. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace. I found one reference that mentions he signed Pascual Perez, (blacklisted www.squidoo.com/ny-yankees-tickets) so he's not a hoax, but that's a long way from notability. There may also be a more deserving closer for the Texas Rangers with the same name.[13] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources noted by nom and Clarityfiend. BRMo (talk) 13:47, 31 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) 01:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Lugonjić[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP since early 2008, a search for sources came up empty on anything establishing notability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, not finding any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Two editors say they cant find sources, my version of Google instantly found this in-depth interview [14] a Germany-based Serbo-croatian-language magazine, which looks fairly reliable to me. Some of the youtube hits certainly indicate, that he should be popular (the article's sole claim). There are some blog hits in Croat and Polish, but strangely not a single news source, despite his video performances. This indicate a bias issue. If he reallyy is Serbian, then sources might exist in cyrilic. I'm not good at this, an automated transliteration gives Игор Лугоњиц - but that returns no hits. Perhaps others can continue from here. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps he's not notable. Can you provide a translation of the Germany-based Serbo-croatian-language magazine article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google can - see [15]. Man, I dont care about this article, what (marginally) interests me is WP:BIAS. MrCleanOut (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment. Cyrillic version is "Игор Лугоњић". However, Google is smart enough to find Latin hits [16]. Now, we seem to have here another singer mass-produced by Zvezde Granda [17], which owns the whole Serbian turbo folk scene, produce dozens of similar every year, and send to oblivion another set. The Balkan Media interview is not worth translating (basically, he speaks about trivia). He apparently also had an interview for last issue of minor magazine http://www.balkanestrada.com/. It's hard to google for sources, because of 1000s of YouTubes, lyric and forum sites. He is mentioned in passing in NIN [18], Press Festival report and a few more. So, he's probably just notable enough, but I can't be bothered to expand this article. No such user (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. Nothing in the article suggests that he passes WP:MUSICBIO. I looked at the articles linked in the earlier posts and nothing there has convinced me otherwise. In its current state it is an unreferenced BLP, if consensus is to keep I would suggest userfication or incubation until it is sourced. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mandsford 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thackston[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP since early 2008, can't find any sources beyond his website and a couple local passing mentions. Nothing to establish notability, including the listed quotes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Complete lack of independent sources argues strongly against notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One self-released album, no significant coverage, no hope of a decent article here.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GBIN[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG, unreferenced, original research per WP:NOR, can't find a single mention of it online. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3. An obvious hoax. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll amend my statement above to the effect that if this page is not a hoax, it's a blatant advertisement for a system that is otherwise unknown to the world. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly - not notable, but doesn't look like a hoax. Quarl ^(talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GBIN is not commercial in any way and this no advertisement. GBIN now contains the most published/researched brands (+2600) in the world and the GBIN codes are now offered online www.gbin.info. This independant GBIN number is/ can be used by researchers/analists/brandvaluation firms to exchange and link data and websites about Brand performance, turnover, marketshare, social media activities, advertisement awards etc. The GBIN code is public available and yes it is new. But is that alone a reason to delete this article? You can compare GBIN to EAN which can be used to identify a trade item throughout the value chain. HdG (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Blake[edit]

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

Unref'd BLP. Had a hunt around for sources, found 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are either not in-depth or she's inheriting notability from her father. Her sporting achievements fail WP:NSPORTS Bigger digger (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Does not pass Wikipedia guidelines for notability as either an athlete or a businessperson. Edward321 (talk) 01:57, 30 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. Nominator has withdrawn, no arguments for deletion aside from one outstanding delete !vote. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (3D figure)[edit]

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

Advert for a 3D model without multiple reliable independent sources. Basically its a version release list. Contested prod but contester refused to add sources and told me to sod off. His suggestion to look up "computer arts" revealed only one source [19]: still not enough to establish notability GDallimore (Talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree entirely with the nominator, this is basically an advertisement. The only source is the creator's own website. JIP | Talk 09:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known iconic figure in the 3D modeling universe (to the point that it is also parodied and made fun of). A search on Lexis-Nexis Academic for all news sources using the search "Daz3d w/10 Victoria" turns up 17 citations. Most are Business Wire announcements of versions of the product. However, there is one cite from ASIA PULSE (12/24/2004) for a "Miss Digital World" contest using Victoria 3.0, a similar article for the same contest in Business Wire Latin America, and an April 3, 2005 article in the Salt Lake Tribune mentioning the iconic nature of the product. I would posit that this might be the ONLY Daz3d product that might deserve a stand alone article. Don't mistake me for someone who will go to the mat to defend this article. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went and added three sources to bolster the notability of this article (I figured best to "put up or shut up"). Still not sure if this article will survive, but let's carry through the process. And I agree that the original editors should have done this originally, but since they didn't, I did. --Quartermaster (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to enlighten you all and lighten the mood, if you Google "NVIATWAS" you should be able to see how this figure is (at least slightly) ridiculed. Might influence thoughts about notability, might not! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - <rant>I was the evil PROD contester who told this AfD's nominator to "sod off" when he expected me to do his research. The utter inability of people to conduct an acceptable search for references concerns me given the number of articles we have and the number of editors we have. Some articles will get deleted for no reason other than a deletionist refused to consider appropriate search terms or even view the next ten search results in Google to get past all that SEO spam. That's not the ideal Wikipedia editor that I have in mind.</rant> Back to relevant commentary: Regarding the Computer Arts review, what you are seeing online is not even the full article!!! Obviously without assessing the full review, one cannot conclude whether it contributes to notability or not. Additionally the find sources template used in this AfD to provide shortcuts to search results is flawed once again as it uses the Wikipedia article's title, not the Real World name for the topic. There are multiple versions of Victoria, so "Victoria n", where n is 2, 3, or 4? is more appropriate. "Victoria" is also used to refer to the enter line. I'll look for sources (relunctantly as all of you should instead of agreeing or disagreeing with the nominator or whoever without verifying whether their assertions are correct or not) when I have time. Rilak (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral and calm tone: In my personal and totally non-authoritative opinion, the onus for finding and presenting relevant third party sources establishing notability should be primarily on the creating and contributing editors. Anyone can contribute references (as I did), but I see a PROD as a mechanism to suggest to the interested contributing editors to extend a little more effort in beefing up an article. The editor placing the PROD is obviously seeing a deficient article, and since they are likely a naive third-party reader (like most wikipedia readers) it's a clue that to such a naive reader the article is not supplying enough cited content to be of particular utility. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment Thank you to Quartermaster for tracking down multiple independent sources, as required by the notability guidelines. Following his edits, my nomination is withdrawn. Rilak, you need to take a look at your attitude. GDallimore (Talk) 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a funny old world we're living in today. Despite the sheer intangibility of this, or any, 3D render, it does have a certain significance and persistence within its unfamiliar world. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 28 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) 12:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Entrepreneurship[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Even the references don't necessarily specifically use the term. Was a contested PROD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Entrepreneurship is an active area for research around the world. I have added recent references (publications) in this area, however there are more that are in development at a number of universities. Vicperotti (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism/buzzword for what its advocates view as the "up and coming next big thing" in business. It may become famous; it may go into the dustbin of history with eEntrepreneurship and iEntrepreneurship and any other lexicological τέρᾰτος may be spawned. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weird and unclear article that kind of reads like a mixture of a Make big bucks online! brochure and the first page of a For Dummies book on modern technology. As a result we get the obvious "The digital world has opened up the possibility to have virtual teams where no physical meetings are required." as well as head-scratchers like "Support - Information or assistance may be provided to support use of products or services that are free, provided by other vendors, or both". Overall, the message is that people can use the internet for business, which isn't exactly shocking to folks who've been alive in any of the past 15 years. Much, much better covered in our Electronic commerce and Electronic business articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly, the article could be improved. On the issue of a non-notable neologism, I would suggest that Digital Entrepreneurship is in fact a very active area. It has become the standard term for the new forms of entrepreneurship and new groups of entrepreneurs that have begun to work in this space. Google search for EXACTLY "Digital Entrepreneurship" yields over 55,000 results including: An initial definition from a 2002 Harvard paper, a grant-funded academic center (2007), several published articles, a new Master's degree, and many more relevant items. These items are all recent, indicating that Digital Entrepreneurship has and will continue to emerge. Vicperotti (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaporing of a sort that's so confused that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of it: Hot trends in content is the idea of social networking, bringing with similar interests or commonalities together. Also, is the idea of globalization, linking with different people all over the world, a key theme of Web 2.0. Web Services such as SOAP and RSS feeds and user interface technologies such as AJAX are whats hot in web development because they support the notion of Web 2.0: that information should be as readily available as possible and everyone everywhere should have access to the information. These web services offer interconnectivity between different sites and databases, linking information from many locations. Wow! The Internet! It's all so interconnected it's cosmic! And here's a vague plan to Make Money Fast from all this cosmic interconnection. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 28 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 deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs). ((NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abunai! (convention)[edit]

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

No third-party references, I am unable to find any worthwhile coverage which suggests that this is a notable event. As I don't speak Dutch, there is a possibility that there may be sufficient coverage in Dutch, but even then it needs to be added. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do speak Dutch, but all I can find is [20], which appears to be a reliable but is not really "significant coverage". Alone it is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, so unless more sources can be found this should be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only cited fact in the whole thing is the pitiful attendence figure of 190, and even that is only sourced to their own website! Unlikely significant coverage in reliable sources exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. >1600 isn't bad attendance, but there is a distinct lack of sources - CSE hits only show that it exists and then it's swamped by all sorts of tangential hits for 'Abunai'. --Gwern (contribs) 19:35 30 October 2010 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literary and Debating Society (NUI, Galway)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the fact that other debating unions exist is not valid as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. the article looks like cruft with large chunks of copy and pasted text. gnews reveals only event listings rather than indepth coverage [21]. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News hits are clearly more than simple event listings. Where is the text copied and pasted from? Gustavus (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 11:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student club at a single school. If for some reason this is kept, at the very least the long list of "Auditors and Vice Auditors" needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 28 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 redirect to Dressage#International_level. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix Dressage[edit]

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

This article duplicates material in the main Dressage article in which it is discussed under the poorly named subsection Olympic_level. My PROD was contested, the response This is an independent event, not only Olympics. missing the point imo - the Olympic level section name in Dressage should be changed to Grand Prix dressage with a mention that the Olympics choose to use the Grand Prix dressage competition regulations -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is weak, but needs improvement and expansion, not deletion. This is basically like saying you should delete Formula One because it is briefly mentioned in NASCAR. The Dressage article also needs work, but hey, there are only about five truly active members at WPEQ and about 2,000 articles, so give us some time, please.Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your analogy doesn't work - the Formula 1 article is a B rated article containing a detailed description. Grand Prix Dressage has sparse information that duplicates the main Dressage article - it has not got sufficient information to warrant being a separate article, neither has it any references. Normal Wikipedia practise is to develop information in the main article and only if there is sufficient information, to then move it to a subsidiary article. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. I'm not saying the article is high quality, I'm saying Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. The article needs to be improved, sure; and tagged for improvement, definitely; but not deleted. It needs to exist, even if it's not going to get fixed right this instant. If we deleted everything in wiki that wasn't B class, nothing would ever be written. Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for it to exist when it's a poor duplication of the main article, and this after 6 years of 'development'. Normal Wikipedia practise is to develop information in the main article and only if there is sufficient information, to then move it to a subsidiary article.

I don't see anyone saying that everything in wiki that isn't B class should be deleted. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would be OK with a merge of this material (minus the laundry list of people) into the Dressage article with this title remaining as a redirect, if that would settle the matter. (And we definitely don't need the laundry list of people, that's what categories are for...). But someone else needs to do the merge -- if someone else copies and pastes the material into the Olympics section of the Dressage article, I can probably do the cleanup in a few weeks, though too busy now. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm happy with that, presumably the closing admin can do it. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it, creating the redirect. I don't know how to tell an admin that we need to close this now, can someone do the remaining cleanup? Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Muscat (Maltese footballer)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who never played in a fully professional league J Mo 101 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is another Maltese footballer named Emmanuel Muscat who is a professional footballer playing for Wellington Phoenix and has represented Malta internationally. In the event this player is found non-notable (which appears likely to me but I'll give it due diligence tomorrow) I'd suggest a redirect. --ClubOranje^T 10:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Also no need for a redirect as there is only one primary topic. Giant Snowman 10:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of Maltese league football is semi-pro. Therefore, the subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is no indication he passes WP:GNG either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence he has played at a notable level per NSPORTS, no coverage to justify inclusion under GNG.--ClubOranje^T 07:42, 29 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. Courcelles 01:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vesko Petrovic[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable footballer who never played in a fully professional league, and the claim that he is an international footballer is unverifiable (he's not listed here and a Google search didn't help. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE as non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maltese league football is semi-pro. Subject clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources and there is no evidence he's played in a fully-pro league or in "A" internationals. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 28 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 Nomination withdrawn. Userfying article Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Söderberg[edit]

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

I have recreated the article with plenty of sources (unlike the earlier deleted versions which were very poorly sourced). It seems clear to me that the coverage is both substantial and reliable and that the article thus passes WP:GNG, but considering the earlier AfDs I thought another discussion might be warranted. WP:ATHLETE does not apply when the WP:GNG is met. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NSOCCER, and sources are not of sufficient quality to satisfy WP:GNG. The independent reliable sources only have trivial coverage. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - sources only give passing mention and therefore, as he has not played a pro-game yet he is non-notable. On the plus side, give it time and he will probable play. They usually do and when he does, recreate.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played a game in a fully professional competition, and only one of the refs really mentions the player in much more than a passing mention, failing WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG! If/when this is deleted can an admin please salt the page and stop all this nonsense! Giant Snowman 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Without any first team caps for Newcastle, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is no indication he passes WP:GNG either. Given that it's been deleted and recreated three times already, most recently just over a month ago, I recommend the page be creation protected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 29 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. Apart from Starblind, no established contributor suggests deletion. Consensus is that the man is notable enough for an article. If there are any deficiencies in the article, they can be addressed through editing, if need be through a request to WP:OTRS. Sandstein 11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Halstead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject has requested that the article be deleted per OTRS email 2010100310006325. They state that the information contained in the article is untrue and violates WP:UNDUE. They provided a BBC news article and and Oxford mail article as sources to clear their name.

I will be trying to clear up any WP:UNDUE but in the meantime this is what I've been asked to request. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: Ticket:2010100310006325. Sandstein 11:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and check for npov. Subject is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I can't see any valid argument for deletion here, although I can see that the article might be slightly embarrassing for the subject. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sensible practice when a subject of marginal or unlear notability requests deletion of their own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable with coverage in the media, any suggestions of undue weight and and information that is not true should be cleared up on the article talk page not by deleting the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clear from the vast number of media articles about him over the past 5 years as referenced on his page that he is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. WP:UNDUE might require some changes to the text of the article. I don't think it does, but that is a matter for separate discussion. It certainly is not a reason for deleting the article. Jonbryce (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is, perhaps whether they want to be or not, a notable part of aviation history in this country with reference to not just one but two airlines launched in a blaze of publicity. The fact that the police do not believe criminality was involved in the failure of these airlines is not a reason for not recording that the failures ever happened, and the admitted use of a fake name does add a bit of extra interest and notability to an already worthwhile historical record. Barrybounce (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undue attention given to a subject that appears to have little or no real public value or agenda other than his own self promotion. The article has been vandalised on numerous occasions both by supporters and detractors of the subject. Angrygnome75 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC) — Angrygnome75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Vandalism in any direction is no reason for deletion. (If it were, then bye-bye Jesus, Mohammed, and anything sounding sexy to an eleven year old.) Peridon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (WP:BLP violation removed by administrator) Delete and forget. Navigatetoav8 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC) — Navigatetoav8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean. Parts of the article are indeed outrageous as a personal attack, but the subject is nonetheless notable DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit to reflect conclusion of BBC/Oxford Mail reports, i.e. that the police have found no evidence of criminal offence. Subject is therefore entitled to "clear their name" of implication of impending criminal charges, but grossly unethical business dealings have already been adequately demonstrated/admitted. Ecozeppelin (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG and Ecozeppelin. (Not often I'm that brief...) Peridon (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No problems with this. It is notable and supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scenejs[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article about non-notable 0pen source software project. There are plenty of open source projects out there and there's no reason to believe that this one is worth an encyclopaedia article. No evidence of notability in the article, and nothing on Google that would indicate notability either andy (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a JavaScript framework which provides a flexible JSON-based API for defining, querying, and manipulating 3D scenes on WebGL. Now that we're clear on that, Google News results are interesting. They peak around 1891 and peter out in 1919, which would be interesting for an open source software project; too bad they're typos. There are a couple of Scholar hits that are at least relevant, although they all appear to be incidental credits or lists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:20, 29 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Lipton[edit]

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

microstub article with no assertion of notability, not even a full sentence Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. She was a prima in New York City which means there's a lot of press coverage [22]. East of Borschov 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very outdated approach to article writing, but Lipton really does have an ANB entry, and that alone should be enough. The entry also provides several sources for further reading. Zagalejo^^^ 08:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage[23] means it's expandable, which means it's a cleanup issue and not a deletion issue. Redfarmer (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article a little with a couple of refs. She's clearly notable enough, the article has been flagged for rescue as I'm not really that hot on opera singers, I'm confident more can be added. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember, it only takes two seconds or less to do a Google news archive search. Do that BEFORE you nominate something for deletion. Being short, is never a reason to delete an article, and also its only one day old. Dream Focus 02:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -meets guidelines and has plenty of available sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially in its present well-referenced and expanded form, but even in its micro-stub form. Note that this page was linked at Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics. Always worth checking for that (and "what links here" in general) before putting a biography up for deletion. Martha Lipton also has 10 incoming article links. I also echo Dream Focus's remarks about nominating an article for deletion 7 hours after its creation without even doing a minimal check for sources. Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above and WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 08:06, 30 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Lafayette Riley, Jr.[edit]

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

microstub article with no assertion of notability, not even a full sentence Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can confirm that he does have a multi-paragraph entry in the ANB. That should be enough by itself. I don't think this is an ideal way to start an article, but stubs are allowed, and this could definitely be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagalejo (talk • contribs)
Keep A Google Scholar search suggests he was quite the prolific writer in his day, and the fact the he has an ANB entry is enough to suggest third party notability to me. A better course might be to help the creator of the article rather than delete the article. Redfarmer (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't get access to ANB but if he's there that clinches it. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -meets guidelines and has plenty of available sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though User:Rich Farmbrough's original creation of the article was total AfD bait.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is featured in a printed encyclopedia, so the stub [24] mentioning that and a sentence about him was fine. Dream Focus 07:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but hopefully 10 seconds more effort summarizing why he is notable would have warded this off.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A printed encyclopedia already said he was notable, so there. Dream Focus 07:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Delete I was under the impression that he was listed in the ANB but I see it cannot be verified. Perhaps someone who has access could upload? Also, the limited info in the stub does not seem to indicate why he is notable. For creating the archives? I attended UM and was pretty up on it's history, but I have not heard of this person (not that that means anything, just saying) The Eskimo (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's listed here. I can't link to the article directly, but do have full access to the site, so I can at least add some info to the citation. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access to it is here [25]. It seems completely satisfactory for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanapia[edit]

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

microstub article with no assertion of notability, not even a full sentence Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't the best approach to article writing, but Sanapia does indeed have a 1000+ word ANB entry, and is also the subject of an entire book: [26]. Zagalejo^^^ 08:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a cursory Google Scholar search[27] reveals plenty of sources. This is a clean up issue, not a deletion issue. Redfarmer (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google book search, and you will find many books written about notable Native Americans, all listing this person in it. Don't nominate a one day article just because its short. Dream Focus 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my expansion and obvious notability and encyclopedic interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been sufficiently expanded to show notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per great work by Dr. Blofeld. -- œ ^™ 13:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azeline Hearne[edit]

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

microstub article with no assertion of notability, not even a full sentence Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The person is a title subject of a historical study ([28]). "Hearne ... became one of the wealthiest ex-slaves in the former Confederacy" ([29]). OT, have you spoken to Rich F. before nominating a whole bunch of his stubs for deletion? East of Borschov 07:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't encourage Rich Farmbrough to make more of these, but Azeline Hearne does have a multi-paragraph ANB entry, so this article definitely has potential. Zagalejo^^^ 08:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory Google Scholar search[30] reveals sources, confirming notability and making this a clean up issue, not a deletion issue. Redfarmer (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version is a workable stub, with independent references that focus squarely on the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did

18:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep -meets guidelines and has plenty of available sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 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. The comment by Ret.Prof was not taken into account in closing this discussion, because notability is not among the problems being discussed here. Sandstein 11:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian exonyms[edit]

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

This seems suitable for an Albanian dictionary not an English encyclopedia. (WP:DICDEF). And there are no references. (WP:V, WP:N). Colonel Warden (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--at least, pending a broader discussion. This list is part of a large category of similar lists, essentially a series of subarticles stemming from the topic of Exonym and endonym, that were discussed collectively in late 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms. Cogent arguments were made on both sides in that discussion, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus, leaning towards keep". It may be that standards have changed since then, and possibly a transwiki to Wiktionary (suggested but not implemented in 2007) would now be deemed more appropriate. In any event, deleting this article would damage the overall completeness and coherency of Wikipedia's coverage of exonyms. Accordingly, this list should be kept unless and until a consensus is reached that the entire group of similar lists no longer belongs on Wikipedia. I'd suggest that discussion might be conducted first in an appropriate policy-based forum such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for some history of this matter. But in what sense is that project policy-based? I'm getting a different impression. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also posted a mention of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics and Talk:Exonym and endonym.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate article about exonyms in the Albanian language. That's a very special topic, hard to research even if notable, and unlikely to get an article in the next few years. This is not an article but a mere list. It's hard to tell why precisely it doesn't belong here, because this type of list is simply too rare to have received specific wording in any guidelines. But this is simply not how we present this kind of information. Albanian exonyms are readily available simply by following the Albanian interwiki links. Hans Adler 19:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Lists about how different cities and countries are spelled in every language don't belong in wikipedia.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Arxiloxos comment, it is piece of wider category, if deleted whole category needs. --Vinie007 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary even if this is not deleted, it should exist on Wiktionary. `76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That each language has its own words for places (as for anything else), which are necessarily adapted to its own phonology, is obvious and trivial. I can't see how a list of Albanian (or any other language) words for places does any better against WP:DICT than a list of words for engine parts or spices. But it seems we mustn't delete any one of this horde of useless lists until there's a consensus for deleting all of them — and any proposal to do that will draw objections that it's too sweeping. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; is there anything in the policy pages about Morton's Fork? —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) as an article created by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of his ban. –MuZemike 05:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit over the firing of United States Inspector General Gerald Walpin[edit]

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

This lawsuit was dismissed and so a ruling was never reached. Olk87 (talk) 03:45, 28 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mustafa Khalil Muhammad Ibrahim el-Hasani el-Makki el-Baghdadi[edit]

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

Article makes some grandiose claims about this person, including that he was the 4th President of Egypt and the "Father of Baghdad". Of course, none of these claims are backed up with a reference. Additionally, the picture on the article is of Ahmed Ben Bella. If all hoax content were removed, we'd be left with a completely unreferenced article on a person who fails notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a hoax. At the very least, nobody by this name became president of Egypt on 14 October 1981, because Hosni Mubarak has held that position ever since that day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very probably a hoax. JIP | Talk 06:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete father of a city founded hundreds of years ago and president of a republic only a few decades old? delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information, sourced, notable, and verifiable. Should be a featured article one day. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above comment is likely a WP:POINT response to this RfC concerning this user's behavior at AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, apparent hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 28 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) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLASS environment[edit]

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

Undue promotion of nonnotable software. Google for "GLASS environment"+ linux" gives a miserable number of hits, as xpected from a new brew. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Note that this is a smalltalk based environment for rapid web application development. It is promoted by the creators of the Gemstone/S RDBMS, GemStone Systems. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Yworo (talk) 22:16, 29 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) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Phillips[edit]

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

Someone's unfinised vote for deletion, which I concur with Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 No assertion of significance, no realistic prospect that there's a valid article there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources for notability, and no real evidence to suggest that they exist. While A7 may apply, the article is (somehow) over four years old. Best to take the extra week and do things proper. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything about this musician. Delete unless some sources are offered before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 30 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) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Barret[edit]

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

Non-notable former Af2 player, never played a game in a fully proffesional league per WP:BIO Delete Secret ^account 02:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:05, 29 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) 13:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

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

Redundant, no justification for an article. At the very least it should be a redirect. Buttons (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would it redirect to? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't redirect to two different articles I suggest back to the main article or just move to delete and call it a day. Buttons (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially meaningless article. JIP | Talk 06:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned page, I don't see any one linking to this any longer since the countries split 4 years ago. Admrboltz (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless dab page at the moment. {Also we have many articles about no-longer extant states.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough. The fact that the countries split up makes life a bit difficult for Wikipedians, but I see no reason not to leave a signpost behind pointing to where the previous information has been moved to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a rather useful disambiguation to me. What's the problem? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a serious problem by any means, but I can't see how it's justified under WP:DISAMBIG. The guideline says that Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.; I don't think that really applies here. The phrase itself doesn't lead to the two articles, although the topic itself sort of does. Assuming this is a plausible search term (which I'm not convinced about ), searching for it gives Transport in Serbia on the drop-down list, and offering Transport in Serbia and Montenegro as an option is probably more confusing as it suggests the presence of another article on the topic. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say "keep as harmless", but Alzarian16 raises an excellent point, so weak delete. Sometimes "harmless" things are harmful just by the virtue of existence. No such user (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless -- nothing substantively links here, except Transport in Serbia and Montenegro (disambiguation) which also ought to be deleted. This may once have eben a substantive article, but if so, has (correctly bene split into the two successor states, leaving nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there not scope for an article covering transport in Serbia and Montenegro during the time that the country existed? Mjroots2 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly; there should be sufficient sources and it would (I think) pass any reasonable benchmark of notability. However, Serbia and Montenegro was only a country for 14 years, during which time there wasn't drastic change in transport afaicr - there's simply not a great deal of history. What would you write about, a couple of train timetable changes, a rebuilt bridge, and some resurfaced roads? :-) bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue here is one of minor complete-ism. If our coverage of "Transport in ..." runs from 1900 (say), one should be able to pick any point on land, and any-time since then and find the appropriate page - that should lead to the appropriate information. I have no issue with this page being a redirect "Transport in Yugoslavia" "transport in the former Yuogslavia" , a dab page ,or a very short article that says a bridge was built (or more likely blown up?) adn "see also" the precursor and successor states. Any of these seems reasonable, depending on detail. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Is a useful navigation tool for one who may be looking for one of the two articles listed. If there is a suitable page to merge it to, I would support that. Sebwite (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. Mandsford 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Serbia and Montenegro[edit]

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

Redundant, no justification for an article. At the very least it should be a redirect. Buttons (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There was Serbia and Montenegro; there is a section "Geography" in its article. Of course, the discussed page is kinda weird, but non-nosense, and the subject is plausible and expandable. May be I will take a look tomorrow. While indeed, it may seem redundant, still, there are some basic facts better to find out in one place, rather than deducing from two separate pages. I am not talking only about total area and population numbers. There are other things of various importance in ecomomy and politics, such as access to sea, natural resources, etc. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect. Changed my vote because google shows that nobody wrote about "Geography of S&M" except wikipedia mirrors and these "Crooks, LLC", er,... sorry, Books, LLC, who fleece wikipedia, or, rather those stupid ones who can find "Books, LLC" in internet, but cannot find wikipedia there. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content is essentially the same as that in the "Geography" section of Serbia and Montenegro, so it hinges on whether that content can be expanded, or whether the expansion should be in Geography of Montenegro or Geography of Serbia. I see no reason why there might not be expansion in this articles that is more relevant to the former country than the two new countries. Let us be careful to have a NPOV on this one and not a political outcome. So a weak keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. We don't have an article for the Geography of the USSR, we shouldn't have it for other defunct states, especially if it's as short as this article is. Any relevant information that a reader would want to find, can be found in the Geography of Montenegro and Geography of Serbia articles.--hkr Laozi speak 04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we do have Geography of the Soviet Union.... and Geography of the USSR now as well. But, ah, my bad, we still don't have Geography of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics :-). Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Serbia and Montenegro at most). Redundant and unnecessary. I don't quite get the Lokys's point that "some basic facts are better to find out in one place" is a justification for existence of this article. That assertion is true, but that place is Serbia and Montenegro#Geography. No such user (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is basically that a well-defined and reasonably notable subject deserves a separate article, rather than requiring readers to compite the corresponding knowledge themselves: Wikipedia is not paper. We have standard format for countries and it is reasonable expect that a reader may type "geography of S&M" to go to this page; only to learn that S&M does not have geography in wikipedia. Since this knowledge must be somewhere in wikipedia, it is a small step to allow placing it into a separate page, if it is more than two sentences: no harm. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The harm is in having to fix, expand and otherwise maintain duplicate information, which invariably leads to discrepancy in two versions. This is a former country, and for most former countries we do not maintain separate geography articles, by the virtue that most of basic geographic information does not change. As Sjakkale pointed out before, the content is there already. In my view (coming from a lot of experience in software programming business), duplicate code is for the most part actively harmful. 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro since the content is there already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. No need for a specific article on geography of a defunct country. Anything new could go into Serbia and/or Montenegro. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 30 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 Mandsford 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Segmented Filamentous Bacteria[edit]

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

Not the name of a thing but a generic descriptor. Like "Dirty brown rocks" (which we propose be called Sandstone). We wouldn't have an article called "Dirty brown rocks". Rmhermen (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the WP:GNG. There are >50 scientific publications on segmented filamentous bacteria which means we should have an article on them. The nominator seems to be suggesting that we should delete salmon and elephant because they are general descriptors for a group of organisms, rather than being specific names. The article is not well written at the moment, but that should be adressed by clean up, rather than deletion. Smartse (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 58 hits on PubMed for "Segmented filamentous bacteria" including two review articles:
- Ivanov II, Littman DR (May 2010). "Segmented filamentous bacteria take the stage". Mucosal Immunol. 3 (3): 209–12. doi:10.1038/mi.2010.3. PMID 20147894.
- Klaasen HL, Koopman JP, Poelma FG, Beynen AC (June 1992). "Intestinal, segmented, filamentous bacteria". FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 8 (3–4): 165–80. PMID 1515159.
The reviews make clear that the application of formal taxonomic criteria to SFB has been limited by the lack of in vitro culture techniques, but that they represent a widespread class of commensal bacteria with important health effects. I think this is an entirely appropriate topic for Wikipedia coverage. — Scientizzle 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I agree with all of the above comments. I am doing my best to add to this page. It is also very accurate to indicate that the title of this article is not ideal, but the taxonomy regarding SFB is not well established. I try to start the article out this way. I think if Wikipedia keeps this page, that with more additions from people out there, we can learn a lot about this bacterial species.--Vupadhyay85 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is written as a proposed but not yet accepted species, not as a "class" or possibly class. Rmhermen (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for editing, not for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 30 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) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Your Life (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best seller with numerous reviews. Deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Col. Sadads (talk) 19:56, 21 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) 03:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nyttend declined a G4 speedy deletion on the grounds that the deleted article is different from this article. The reason for deletion is the same, however, because this is currently WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the creator of this article wrote it entirely from scratch; other than the topic of the article, there are no similarities between this version and the one deleted before — that's the sole reason that I declined the speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A year's time hasn't made any difference. Basically, this comes down to the current officeholder will probably run for re-election, and some people from the opposing party might seek the nomination. I predict that the World Series will be played between the American League and National League champs in 2012. Mandsford 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) keep: On a 6-year cycle this certainly trumps WP:CRYSTAL only 2.0 years out, in that it would be significant OR to assume it will not take place. The problem is the lack of sources, but that is very easily remedied, without my needing to provide the links to prove it, since I've said it before on numerous similar AFDs. JJB 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Which criteria of WP:SK do you believe this article satisfies? SnottyWong ^babble 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the metaphoric rather than casuistic kind. The kind of brash, bold speedy that rhetorically sways the closer to recognize how poor the deletion arguments are, in the same way the deletion arguments are also largely rhetorical. But as for the facts-and-logic kind of speedy, per Crystal #1, it "is notable and almost certain to take place", "preparation for the event is [] already in progress", "examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election", and something "can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research". The point "speculation about it must be well documented" is WP:SOFIXIT even if the inserter was fully relying on WP:OR. It looks like a simple source list will change the deletionists' views, so that may turn up in a couple days. Jim Webb has $471,080 cash on hand for this race (click Virginia and 2010, though there is no 2010 VA Senate race). JJB 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete - There's no doubt that this event will happen. However, using that reasoning, we could create United States Senate election in Virginia, 2072. Articles that are created way too soon are a pet peeve of mine. There needs to be coverage of this election before an article can exist. There's no way anyone can accurately surmise who might even run in this election with any certainty at this point. Until candidates officially announce they are running, then adding their names to this article as candidates is pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. No matter how likely you think it is that the incumbent is going to run, there is no guarantee. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a difference between 2012 and 2072. For 2012, it is already possible to talk about the possibilities, even before the 2010 election . In two weeks, after that election, it will be possible to talk more accurately, and for a position of this importance, the sources will do so. As for the next world series, surely sportwriters are already writing their expert opinions about who the AL and NL champions will be? I think in both cases it's reasonable to write an article here about the next event, and in some cases the one immediately following that. Neither politics nor baseball are wholly random. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasoning of Mandsford. Come back in September of 2012 or so, when there is a definitive list of candidates, instead of what is there now. I'd wait for the republican primary election to have a final list of candidates (as in, certified by the election board, not speculated by pundits) before saying that this is ready for being recreated. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure speculation. One of the "possible" Republican candidates (Bob McDonnell) is highly unlikely as his term as Virginia governor doesn't expire until January 2014. He will instead probably try to run for Senate in 2014 against Mark Warner, although that is still speculative. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per speculation, not because of crystal CTJF83 chat 04:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - within a week or so we will have the current crop of Senate races more or less concluded and the next cycle, ie 2012 will be in the headlines. For an article that seems "distant" only for a week or so, is it really necessary to delete it? SE7^Talk/_Contribs 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is no indication next Wed we will all of a sudden have the candidates for 2012 CTJF83 chat 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, this is just to far out (chronologically, not metaphysically) to be of any use of an article at this time. Too much crystal-ballery. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete except for the incumbent, mentions of the other potential candidates calls for total speculation. Bring this back only when we have declared candidates for the race. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speculation on the part of reporters regarding potential candidates has precedent in other articles (e.g. Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012), and reliable sources are already starting to mention this particular election and the potential candidates. In June, the Washington Post speculated that the Republicans will field George Allen or Eric Cantor [31]. Two weeks ago, Politco said Allen is prepping for a run[32]. I acknowledge that there isn't much to report on right now and that the article would likely remain a stub for a little while longer. Location (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~WP:TOOSOON~~ WP:CRYSTAL. Some events are notable two years in advance, others are not. Senate races per state would fall under the latter. There's nothing notable to be said at the moment.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:40, 29 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. There is no consensus for deleting the content. A discussion to merge with List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events or Jeopardy! can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

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

Non-notable game show tournament not worthy of inclusion. Basically a couple weeks or normal episodes of a game show that culminated in a three-day tournament of the top winners.

Nomination follows similar reasons as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. If someone was so inclined, the highlights for these types of tournaments (tournament name, year, champion, earnings) could easily be included into one table and included in Jeopardy!#Tournaments and events or some sub-article linking from there. I support the idea of listing some of this information at Wikipedia, but not all contestants and their totals need to be listed, IMO. -Addionne (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, several months long (not "couple weeks") tournament bringing together the best of the best over 21 years of Jeopardy!. Calling this a non-notable 1-time event is a little like calling an Olympics Summer Games a non-notable 1-time event. No policy-based deletion rationale articulated--merely a denigratory statement founded on falsehood. Robert K S (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Olympics happen every four years; the 2008 games featured participants from 204 nations and were watched by 4.7 billion viewers worldwide. A one-off American game show tournament (which, although may have resulted in higher ratings for the period in which it occurred) is not a notable event, nor is it comparable to the Olympic Games. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are right - I did not mention any guideline-based rationale for my deletion argument, so I will clarify now. In my opinion, the article fails to provide any evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources - and in doing so fails to assert notability. The inline references are to Wikipedia articles, which do not qualify as reliable sources, nor does the Jeopardy site (self-referential) or J! database, as it appears to be user-generated content. As such, this article consists almost entirely of unverifiable information and should probably go. If you can find some sources to assert its notability under WP:GNG, or some guidelines that explain why it should be exempt from the GNG requirements, I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep - though I still think it would require some major pruning based on the amount of info that fails WP:V. Also, the Olympic summer games happen every four years and were founded in 700-something BC. Even if it proves notable, this one-off tournament is a wee bit different, I think. -Addionne (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Click on the News link, and you'll find this tournament continued to get noted in the media for at least three years after the event. There's your GNG. RobertKS's comparison to the Olympics isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, if you consider it to a comparison to one particular Olympics (say, "the 2004 Games"), which is a one-time event. The rest of this nomination is based on flat-out falsehoods, as noted. 271828182 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. The one-off tournaments can be described or listed in a paragraph or two. Except for the annual ToChampions, aren't they all "one-off tournaments"? JTRH (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jeopardy!. No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. I've been bold, creating an article to merge all these special tournaments and events into.--hkr Laozi speak 00:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (addendum): searching for "Ultimate Tournament of Champions" (without Jeopardy in front) turns up at least four mentions in books that are not self-referential or user-generated. 271828182 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple mentions in books and news sources, easily passes GNG. At worst, merge with list-of-J!-tournaments. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbolton Kart Club[edit]

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

Delete. Self-documented. Does not appear notable. Appears to be WP:PR or WP:SPAM for company. Student7 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the hell does WP:PR have to do with this? It certainly isn't spam. Jeni ^(talk) 10:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, you have not addressed how this is notable. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only a handful of hits on Google UK, zero hits on Google News UK, which you'd think must be the case for any track reporting public match results. No independent sources. Are there any valid policy grounds to keep? Ravenswing 15:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Google News Archives in the U.S. only turns up a few passing mentions in relation to events held there. Nothing seems to be enough to establish notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kimbolton. There are a few hits on GNews (if you remove the quotes) but not many. However, the longevity of the track counts in its favour. Since this article barely says anything other than this track existing, it makes sense to mention this in the article of the village the track is nearby and named after. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hrm. 14 days open? Shouldn't this be closed by now? Ravenswing 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No: you failed to list the AFD properly until 20th - see Dumbot's posting above. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, it managed to make the list, enough for there to be several people who found it and commented on it, myself included. Ravenswing 22:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kimbolton: this is the best solution for local facilities such as this. This is not a major sport. However, we probably also need List of karting venues in England, since the deletion or merger of venues (this beign the 3rd recent AFD) does not enable there to be a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 28 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueGriffon[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not vaporware, but an unreleased program that has no evidence of notability beyond being a finalist in an open software competition (that in itself doesn't appear to be notable). The previous program is notable, but it doesn't look like anyone has actually picked up on this yet as it hasn't even been publicly released yet. I don't have any problem with this being recreated in the future once it's released and there is some press on it, but right now it's just a bit of code that is being tinkered with. Terrillja _talk 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's wrong: BlueGriffon has one public release, v0.5, and the first articles about it appeared recently (Silicon.fr, Soundscape out) since it got the top award at the OpenWorldForum a week ago. At 108,000 lines of code, an entry at archlinux and a few thousand daily users already, BlueGriffon is a bit more than a "bit of code"... BlueGriffon is the only wysiwyg editor able to edit all of CSS 2.1 and all what's implemented in browsers of CSS 3. It will also be the only editor html5-compliant, with UI for all html5-specific elements. And it's open-source. You said no evidence of notability? Daniel Glazman, 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.96.19 (talk)

The only one that you know of. As someone who has made software for companies that was never made for public release, there is all sorts of software out there that people don't know about. --Terrillja _talk 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources demonstrating notability. The Silicon.fr source mentions BlueGriffon once, in passing, in the last line of the piece. The Soundscape out link is just to the announcement that v0.5 is available. An entry at Archlinux confirms existence, which is good as far as it goes, but does nothing for notability. The sole source in the article merely confirms the award, which also does little for notability. The number of lines of code in the software is not material to its notability, as Wikipedia defines it - see also WP:NOTABILITY for the general notability guidelines applicable to this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that 'unsigned' didn't sign his/her entry because I pretty much agree with all that is said there though it could also have been said that it includes a SVG editor. (There aren't many of them around.)

True, Blue Griffon is only just appearing after quite a long gestation starting, as I understand, at the end of a W3C meeting in La Napoule about three years ago over breakfast with Sir Tim Berners Lee who suggested to Daniel Glazman that he should seek a way to bring such a product into being. I think it is quite likely to become rather 'notable' before long.

The 'previous program' referred to is presumably Nvu. Granted that is notable but it is not true that it has not been released. It reached version 1 on 29th June 2005 though earlier versions were publicly released in the autumn of 2004. I seem to remember an announcement of over a million downloads from the original site. That has now closed but it is still available from a number of sources and the Cnet site reports over 400,000 downloads from that site only. (http://download.cnet.com/Nvu/3000-10247_4-10412423.html) It is certainly widely used.

But though Nvu stuck at version 1.0 the development did not stop there. An other worker took up the task of updating the product which for copyright reasons had to change its name to KompoZer and this still lives on. (http://kompozer.net/)

Wikipedia has pages on Blue Griffon on both French and Japanese sites so it would be illogical to ban it from the English site. I would like to suggest that the page be permitted from now on so that it can be kept up to date as BlueGriffon develops.Carolus21 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each language Wikipedia can have different rules for inclusion or deletion. Whether or not this is logical, it's there. There are other procedural differences, too, which does make life difficult at times... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the page could stay in place with a request for more input on the history of development. Basically what is the story of the product. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia benefits of having detailed history of things (aka Products). The nature of the collective editing makes it something which is worth or not. It is always difficult to know at the start of the life of a product if something will become obsolete or not, but documenting product history or product genesis (sometimes mythology around a product) becomes a lot harder when the time has passed. There is value in keeping records of things. I'm in favor of keeping this page. KarlDubost (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we can't speculate on what will become notable. If the software never takes off, it will never meet WP:N. I have no prejudice against recreating it once it appears to be notable. Right now though, it doesn't appear to be such. --Terrillja _talk 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official reference to the Open World Forum 2010 Innovation Award was added to the page. Press Release is pending. Glazou 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a co-organizer of the Open World Forum Innovation DemoCup, i confirm than the jury (who includes investors, entrepreneurs, Open Source managers from leading IT services companies, and consultants) was impressed about the demonstration of BlueGriffon, the quality product and business model behind. That for those reasons, than BlueGriffon was one of the 5 winner of this DemoCup. -- Lcseguin - 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)— Lcseguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think that BlueGriffon is well-enough established by the history of Daniel Glazman and his prior tools, Mozilla Composer and Nvu. Clearly, BlueGriffon is an update and advance of these prior projects. The recent 0.5 release seems to work for me, so it's not vaporware. While conflict of interest has been raised as an issue, the article has been scrubbed of non-NPOV. Also, conflict of interest doesn't destroy notability. To me, these facts (notable developer of prior notable software for the same purpose) are sufficient to establish notability of BlueGriffon, especially given its milestone release and favorable reception by the Open World Forum reviewers. Ultimately, if I were investigating HTML editors, I'd want to consider BlueGriffon. To me, all these facts, taken together, justify keeping the article. — HowardBGolden (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very borderline case. The creator, Daniel Glazman, is certainly notable. So is the program's predecessor Nvu. I say, merge the article into either the Daniel Glazman entry or ~~the Nvu entry~~, and if it ever becomes widespread enough, with enough media coverage (which is very possible), then it can merit a separate article. But until then, merge it.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This makes sense to me. I'd prefer merging into Nvu as a separate section with a redirect on BlueGriffon. FWIW, my guess is that the article will become standalone in the next year or less. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree 100%. BlueGriffon has just nothing in common with Nvu, not a single line of code. It's not because it's yet another web editor made by same person that you can aggregate the data like you suggest. So let me summarize: different products with 0 lines shared, not same copyright owners, not same logo, not same feature set.Glazou 14:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response If you can establish notability by the byzantine WP rules, that would be great. I'd prefer that. If not, my suggestion for merging into Nvu is based on my assumption that the look and feel of BlueGriffon is similar to Nvu. (If this is an incorrect assumption, please correct me.) From the point of view of WP's readers, the facts that the code base is completely different and the copyright is different aren't that relevant. I want this article, or at least its content, kept. Please help make this happen. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep Ok, let's remove Netscape and add it to Mosaic's page, let's remove OpenOffice and add it to StarOffice, let's remove all forks and all apps "looking like" (in terms of UI) to another one. As I said earlier, BlueGriffon and Nvu may be use rather similar themese (but hey, they are BOTH wysiwig markup editors) but they are _entirely_ different. Let me say it clearly: I am totally shocked by the current discussion and I don't understand you guys at all.Glazou 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so the notability of the author or other software, whatever the relation to this software is, I think, not relevant. Glazou's comment about the subject not sharing code with Nvu is well taken, so merge seems inappropriate. We do not have a crystal ball, so keeping it in mainspace until it achieves notability seems ill advised. HowardBGolden, this software doesn't remind me of Nvu, the look and feel are very different. I hope the software succeeds, FWIW, since I would love to have a decent wysiwyg html editor again, missing HomePage very much, but regardless of that desire (since desire does not support notability), this does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I maintain the reasons I have given earlier on. A page is a receptacle for history. I would though recommend that BlueGriffon should be described into Comparison of HTML editors. On this page, there are quite a number of other tools. For example if we look at the [history of] BestAddress HTML Editor, it is difficult to imagine why BlueGriffon or any other authoring tools are not described in Wikipedia. KarlDubost (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, other stuff exists, and I believe the key issue is lack of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline, but probably the recent award is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just flops over notability threshold. Article is what it should be right now. - Richfife (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Losers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Had a long reason typed out, but Twinkle ate it.

Anyway, a rundown of the sources shows a great deal of synthesis and primary sourcing, without any reliable secondary sources. The Maxim citation is only a comic that supposedly plagiarized this strip (with no mention anywhere of said strip anywhere in the pages of Maxim) and references 4 and 5 do not appear to be reliable sites. The supposed popularization of the term "fap" is synthesized through the strip itself (the strip itself doesn't mention the popularity of this term), and the fact that it appears in a non-notable magazine is not an indication of notability. A search for better sourcing turned up no reliable third party sources whatsoever. First AFD in 2007 was closed as keep due to a deluge of WP:ITSNOTABLEs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He iro 19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:WEB. The article is carefully written so as to appear notable at first glance, but actually isn't. Claims lots of hits (what, a sex cartoon on the web getting lots of hits? I'm shocked!) but the number given isn't especially impressive, claims to be the origin of an online slang word for masturbation but then a sentence later admits it really isn't, and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starblind is right. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources here are horrible: Livejournal, the website itself, and unreliable blogs like "Modern Humor Authority" which honestly appears to be a really clumsy hoax of a blog or a junior high school webcomics fan blog with pseudonymous or likely sock puppet contributors. This is a textbook example of why we shouldn't write encyclopedia articles sourced to any old crap we found on the internet. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:34, 28 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) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belper Musical Theatre[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur organisation. At best requires a mention on the Belper page. HornetMike (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully, since I love amateur theater - but the notability just isn't there. Could be merged into a short entry on the Belper page. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable theater. Only people from that area would probably know it. Maybe it should be merged on the Belper page. Housewatcher (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, and do not merge into Belper—if we do we might as well list and describe all the shops, organisations and businesses in the entire parish. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. No assertation of notability (nor much of anything else, really, the whole article is almost entirely a list of plays they've done). Do not merge, that would be unfair to the editors of the Belper article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage from third party sources is required. Refer the editors to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 29 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chapman (Canadian)[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:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of information listed on the page, but does not seem to be a notable personality who might be known to the general public. Housewatcher (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well, it certainly claims notability, no doubt about that. Doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny though. For example, neither of his "bestselling" books are available on either Amazon.com or Amazon.ca. And I don't just mean they're not in print or not in stock, they're not even search results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not pass go, do not collect $200. All of the sources cited either fail 'trivial mentions' or WP:SPS Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:11, 28 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. No policy-based reason to keep has been suggested. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. Sandstein 11:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG Nouse4aname (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for that matter how is the self-titled tour notable? My opinion: It stays. Simply because it provides everybody with easy access to the tour's dates and setlsts very easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.108.12 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add this tour's associated with Billboard 200 Number 1, Nightmare, and that's why I want it to stay--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge The tour is not a notable tour, but just happens to be going on at the moment. This information could be used on Avenged Sevenfold page. Housewatcher (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It stays. Simply because it provides everybody with easy access to the tour's dates and setlsts very easily.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason based on policy or guideline for keeping the article. "Easy access to tour dates and set lists" is what the band's own website is for. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Escape the Studio Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG Nouse4aname (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Also nominating the following tour for the same reasoning.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable tour. Information on the page should be merged onto Linkin Park's page. Housewatcher (talk) 02:15, 28 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) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexander Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking GHtits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching is difficult, because the phrase "Alexander group" appears in so many different contexts. But a more refined search for "Alexander group" combined with "executive search" found many hits [33] in major sources like the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Los Angeles Times. Admittedly these hits are not ABOUT the company - they are quoting executives of the company to shed light on news stories of the day - but their widespread use as a go-to source by journalists suggests that they are regarded as notable experts in the field. If kept, the article needs major work, since the only references provided now are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN what could be done to improve the page? I created the content, and it was my first Wiki article. More sources? More editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Stuart (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs is references to WP:Reliable Sources - not press releases or company websites, but independent third parties writing about the company. These are needed to prove that the company is "notable" by Wikipedia's criteria - see WP:Company. The examples I cited above show the company or its employees being cited by major news organizations, which I think help to support notability (other editors may not agree, however). Adding some of those references could help - maybe a line saying something like "The Group's expertise is often sought by journalists to shed light on current news stories," and then cite three or four of the references I found. The article could use a little more history - for example when the various branches were established. Also, delete the WP:Puffery boosterish comments like "the firm is justifiably proud..." That kind of thing makes the article's purpose sound like advertising rather than encyclopedic; the tone has to be completely neutral. Ideally the lead paragraph should explain why the company is notable - for example, how does its size compare to other similar firms? Does it have any significant "firsts"? Good luck; I think this article can be saved. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there don't seem to be any sources that are primarily about the subject. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 28 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. If there's anything you think is worth merging, do let me know. Courcelles 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Surf's Up characters[edit]

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

Unnecessary level of detail for singular film. Anything that is relevant can be included in the parent article. HornetMike (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the film's article. I agree, there's no need for "list of characters" articles for a single film, and there's no indication that a sequel is planned. Plot seems excessive, but that can be fixed editorially. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would support a merge with adequate description, (but not excessive--I agree with JClemens that the current version is excessive) but this will not happen. Most film articles avoid a list of characters, and think it enough to simply list the cast and the names of the characters they portray, relying instead on an exceedingly brief plot summary to give their significance. This is not an adequate way to deal with any work of fiction. As the people who apparently dominate that group insist on doing this, the rest of us need to preserve content. Keeping a separate article seems the only feasible way at present. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Surf's Up (film)#Voice cast. The main article already has a plot summary, so nothing is technically required to be merged. If however someone prefers to work from the plotty character list, I wouldn't mind to see the Voice cast section of the main article getting expanded. Either way, film articles without a surrounding franchise nearly never need a separate character list to report on real-world information (WP:NOT#PLOT), and neither does this film. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This could be a very useful article for anyone who wants to know about the film. I think too much information is included on this page to merge onto the movie's page and not clutter it up. Housewatcher (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A plot summary is quite enough to describe any film—long, excessive lists of personalities that feature in it are simply not needed. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I always support character lists for fictional franchises, but this is just a single film and likely to remain so, so a character list is better suited to very brief coverage in the film's article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage in third party sources to WP:verify notability of these characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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