Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 September 26 September >

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. T. Canens (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Mauros from Miletus[edit]

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

Apparent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations: there is no source indicating that the Mauros family from Miletus had anything to do with the Mauroi clan in S. Italy. The tree of descent is also obviously fabricated, and many citations don't check out or are unverifiable. There are several indicators of improper synthesis in the chronological mismatch of the people listed: Pardos, the catepan of Italy in 1042, is presented as the son of a Maurus who was a wealthy merchant in the 1060s. The same Maurus is given as the nephew of Nicephorus, who was Patriarch of Antioch in 1084-1090. That same Nicephorus is given as the son of Basil Mauros, who was active at the same time (1080s-1090s) (cf. Nikephoros and Basil 1 & Basil 2 at the Prosopography of the Byzantine World), nor is any definite familial relationship between them known ([1]). Constantine ✍ 16:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Start over again maybe. In a sandbox this time. This is just way too confused and confusing. And worse, dubious. Seems kind of like somebodies genealogy. Or alleged genealogy maybe. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's exactly what it is, it was part of thi set of extraordinary claims initially. Someone writing up a fantasy pedigree for himself, apparently. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't take part in this discussion, because I had written this article, but I had written only from the cited literature, and I do not know whether is it true what is written in the cited literature or is not. Sorry, my English is not the best, isn't it. User:Budija, 26. September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • Budija, you have mixed around these people and invented connections between them in a manner that none of the cited sources support. This is original research and synthesis, and is not allowed in Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is very serious, what are you writing, dear Cplakidas. You are blaming me to intentionally deceive the readers. This is defamation. I guess, that you may be have not studied the whole cited literature. Please, write me your full name and your postal address, you will get a letter from my lawyer. User:Budija, 26. September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        • Note Budija has been blocked until he retracts his threat. We have zero tolerance for legal threats. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete reading through a couple of the sources it does appear there is WP:SYTH going on. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate - by sandbox preferably - to remove synthesis and fix it up. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation#Production. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lipsitz[edit]

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

Deprodded because he was apparently Emmy nominated. However, a search has turned up no non-trivial sources, and the article has been a super-short, half assed stub since its creation. I think if he were notable, surely there'd be more meat on the article and more sources than the trivial mentions already present. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect stub to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation#Production, the place within Wikipedia where this individual has contextual reknown. Seems he was part of the group nomination of the producers[2] in 2003[3] and again in 2004[4] for "Outstanding Drama Series" for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. And going through 47 G-News hits,[5] not all are simple mentions, though many are behind pay walls. And in looking at the 33 G-Books[6] results, we do find many that simply mention him... but a few that actually address him in detail... though mostly for his connection to CSI...where this stub belongs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Feynman. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Feynman[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Previous, four year old AfD discussion was - I think - wrongly closed - as there was an overwhelming consensus for delete. The reasons haven't changed. Relation to a highly notable person is not enough. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coment 'Notability is not inheritable' doesn't mean the the children of notable people are automatically non-notable. The first AfD (which wasn't a vote) seems to have been confused over this point. Carl and Michelle Feynman have both made independent careers for themselves, and we have to judge on the basis of those, not their parentage. WP can sometimes be too quick to grasp at an obvious policy (even if this is them mis-interpreted) because it allows us to play &deity; with biographies and then congratulate ourselves about how much Serious Admin Bizness we've been doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I think everyone understands that being related to a notable person is not grounds for deletion. The last AfD closure was based on two alleged published works by Carl Feynman. One of them was not by him (but by his father), and the other one is an out-of-print children's book he co-authored with two other people. He's not notable as an author. These claims were not properly examined. AfDs are not votes, but it's highly unusual for such an imbalance between opinions expressed and conclusion drawn. Before nominating, I tried to find material to improve the article. I couldn't. I cite non-heritability because I cannot think of any reason why someone would think this page would exist except for his father.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't thinking about the books. As an MIT grad at Thinking Machines, I'd be surprised if his career on those grounds alone didn't make him notable for his contributions to that field alone (Thinking Machines is pretty heavyweight, after all). However I am rather surprised at how little he seems to have published, hence my not yet !voting Keep on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for emphasising Thinking Machines - I didn't realise it was considered so important (I don't know the field at all). Following up that lead: most of the extant pages of "notable people" mentioned in the Thinking Machines article actually have Thinking Machines pretty low on their list of achievements - that is, it seems to have been, as you say, an indicator of future success - rather than something very notable in itself. I know that's WP:othercrapexists, but it's worth reflecting on. I also found this, which appears to be a message from Carl Feynman describing his life up to the year 2000. Good on him for walking out of work that he felt morally uncomfortable with, but it does appear that he hasn't done much else notable, unless he's being modest. I'd much rather expand articles than delete them - and thought I'd found a great chance to improve one. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he appears on eight pages of Genius by James Gleick, which with his own work almost reaches the notability bar, and might cross it someday. Stuff like Carl's facing Nobel-Prize photographers at age 3. Enh, I'll come back to vote delete after discussion closes. JJB 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are are ample reliable and independent sources out there to support a modest article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide some of them, Colonel? I'd be happy to work them in if they're good sources. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and looking at the above, group membership (even in important groups) or parents (even having one of the most notable physicists as a father) or books (especially a single children's book) do not impact notability. Only reliable, secondary sources covering a subject in depth impact notability. Those sources are not present, and from what I can find searching, do not exist, so the article cannot be sustained. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having famous relatives does not make someone famous. Little else to warrant a keep. Sven Manguard Talk 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gunrunner (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character with no significant third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a severe lack of independent sources and assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article states that the character made no appearances in any animated series, save for a commercial for the toy. His comic book appearances are very few, with one even being described as a cameo. Thus, notability is not asserted in this article. AniMate 20:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could not find sources that can WP:verify notability of this character / toy. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a severe lack of independent sources and assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bulk of this article is about his appearances in Transformers fiction. However, the article states multiple times that this character is minor and had few significant appearances. That being the case, the article doesn't assert notability. AniMate 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Protectobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one can WP:proveit that this article is WP:notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a severe lack of independent sources and assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is pretty sub-par here, with links to unofficial fan sites. No reason this minor character and toy cannot be reasonably covered in a list. AniMate 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots unless you can find third-party sources. --Divebomb (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to non-existence of third-party sources that could WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grandslam (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a severe lack of independent sources and assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source used here describes itself thus: "Seibertron.com is an unofficial fansite about Transformers toys, cartoons, comics, films and more!". With limited appearances in the comics, it's doubtful notability can be established here. AniMate 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Maximus[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Bumblebee (Transformers). T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbug (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Well, there was one story that had a Goldbug who wasn't Bumblebee. But that Goldbug wasn't important. NotARealWord (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - especially considering that that Goldbug isn't actually covered on this page. --Khajidha (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go Shooter[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A previous nomination containing this character was closed on the 10th of September, just over two weeks ago. Why is this up for deletion again so soon? --Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Reply Because the last nomination had no consensus. This character lacks the notability and coverage to have his own article. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the last AFD had no consensus, why is there any reason to suspect that this AFD, just over two weeks later, will have a consensus? Where do you recommend the article be merged to? --Malkinann (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there would be a list of characters somewhere. I'm just passing by and assessing unassessed articles. If there's no character list, someone should make one. A lazy creation would be copying and pasting the information to all the articles that were suggested for merge in the previous nomination. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This is definitely unnotable character. The information would stand better in the List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters page. How is everybody overlooking this? Sarujo (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters as we do with all other non-notable character articles. Seriously, aren't other options to cleanup the Transformers articles even being considered before nominating them for deletion. Especially since this article was nominated two weeks prior AfD? —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this into the list. Individual notability can't be established here, and the sourcing is bad. AniMate 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list per TheFarix and Sarujo. Please stop overlooking the character lists. Thank you. --Divebomb (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- better to go character list. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Shuttle[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No sources to indicate notability. Plus, this character only had one toy. That "unofficial" thing should not even be mentioned. NotARealWord (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- poor sources and notabiltiy. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources indicate that this isn't notable. The mere existence of this toy can be covered in a broader article. AniMate 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearhead (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fictional character with no apparent independent notability or significant third-party sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete a severe lack of independent sources and assertion of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor toy that can likely be mentioned in another article. No notable fictional appearances further reduce any potential claims of notability. AniMate 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no third party sources out there that can WP:verify notability of this character. Indicates they are too minor for Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (other incarnations)[edit]

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

There is already an article at Mirage (Transformers) which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be spurious, and does not have any significant third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ultra Magnus (Transformers). T. Canens (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Magnus (other incarnations)[edit]

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

There is already an article at Ultra Magnus (Transformers) which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be spurious, and does not have any significant third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into corresponding character lists - The information is more relevant to the series centric lists. Let's do it and be done with it. Sarujo (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to original Magnus article. If there's too much stuff to merge, it's likely fancruft and a violation of What Wikipedia is not, and thus should be trimmed until it all fits nicely in one page. NotARealWord (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rodimus. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodimus (other incarnations)[edit]

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

There is already an article at Rodimus which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be spurious, and does not have any significant third-party sourcing. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Good content fork. Wouldn't all fit well on just the main page for the highly notable character, which has been around years in many different toylines, cartoon series, and comic book series. He was once leader of the Autobots after Optimus Prime died and before he came back to life and took over. Dream Focus 23:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is a lot of content, does not mean it should be here. NotARealWord (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list of Transformers characters. The name Rodimus is not notable enough for its own stand-alone article. I wouldn't mind it in an exhaustive List of Transformers characters, but by itself it either fails the GNG if its trying to be an article or WP:SALAT if its trying to be a list article (extremely narrow).陣内Jinnai 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Rodimus Dwanyewest (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - This information stand better in series centric character list. Sarujo (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back to original Rodimus article. If either page has too much stuff to merge, it's likely fancruft and a violation of What Wikipedia is not, and thus should be trimmed until it all fits nicely in one page. NotARealWord (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rodimus. A lot of this is just fluff that needs to be removed. AniMate 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the original Rodimus page and trim. --Divebomb (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge each section into their respective series' character lists, List of Transformers: Energon characters and List of robots in Transformers Animated. We should always look for an appropriate place to merge non-notable character articles first, per WP:PRESERVE, instead of outright deleting unless the character is incidental (either having no affect on the main plot or appears in only one or two episodes. So far, none of those advocating deletion have not argued that this is an incidental character. The Transformers: Timelines version is, to my understanding, a fan-made creation. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You are incorrect. The Timelines version is just as official as any other incarnations on that page. --Divebomb (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to the original Rodimus article. Lack of independent sources to WP:Verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per weak consensus and as an unsourced BIO per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlie Brillault[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Despite the article's claim that she "starred" in the show, Lizzie McGuire lists her under "Recurring/Minor characters". SummerPhD (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clench (Transformers)[edit]

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

Restored after a PROD deletion via REFUND, but still doesn't appear to have any third-party sources that show any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- clearly. This is yet another hopeless Transformers trivia article. Vague snippets of trivia "sourced" to toy catalogues and primary sources, and seems to contain a fair bit of original research judging by the way the character is described as being "presumably" this and "presumably" that. Reyk YO! 01:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- poor notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability. Character has only been important in one story if I recall correctly. NotARealWord (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent, significant coverage in relible sources. AniMate 19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless, of course, someone can produce a reliable source. --Divebomb (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:16, 1 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) 02:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Panthi[edit]

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

Most, if not all of the sources do not even mention the name of the said person. One of them even referred back to Wikipedia itself. More reliable sources need to be proclaimed and it is clear that the chief contributors to this article have failed to do so. TYelliot (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a man doing a job. No great notability shown in article - in fact, it looks rather more like a Curriculum Vitae than an encyclopaedia article. I picked five references at random - two were in script I cannot read, two were profiles, and the fifth didn't seem to mention him. If I get time tomorrow, I'll check some more. Peridon (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: given the sheer amount of SPA accounts editing this entry, I have started a sock investigation page here. Hairhorn (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No serious evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Vipers. Unsourced BLP. Anything merged would have to be sourced. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Smirnoff[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, although much of it claimed. Drummer for a few bands that supported other acts, but which were not themselves famous. The only contributor to the article even admits a lack of fame, stating that the subject was "fading out of the foreground of British music" and " never achieved the recognition he deserved". Article is full of peacock terms like "legendary" and "drummer of critical acclaim". Entire thing seems more like a fan listing than an encyclopedic article. Dmol (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (EP)[edit]

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

As with WP:NSONGS guidelines, where did this article go wrong...it says it all, not released by a major record label for a start, no chart positions. Therefore fail notability guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails all notability guidelines. AnemoneProjectors 22:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In general, an album by a notable musician is notable, says WP:MUSIC. But this album isn't by The Saturdays, it's by Una Healy before she joined that band. And it doesn't seem to have been written about by anyone, anywhere, ever, so there's no content that can be verified about it. Sure, I guess you could say that iTunes verifies the album's existence and playlist, but if an album is released and no one reviews it, does it make a sound? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. As the article states "EP failed to gain success", thus it didn't chart and it was not released by a major record label. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, does it mean anything that it was released onto iTunes, Amazon, Play.com, where you can download songs/albums?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma, 2010#Congressional District 5. T. Canens (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Coyle[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. TM 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Meets WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. I also see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." ttonyb (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources which cover Coyle in any detail are sources 9 and 10. One of them doesn't even mention Coyle by name. Still not seeing significant coverage to pass WP:GNG.--TM 02:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G11 (exclusively promotional page). Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glow Artisan[edit]

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

Written as a how-to guide, in contradiction of WP:NOT, completely unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Terrillja talk 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been speedy-tagged before the article creator deleted the tag; you probably could have just reverted it. HalfShadow 21:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it necessarily falls under g11, it's borderline at least, and there is no criteria for a WP:NOT violation beyond WP:IAR. So here we are.--Terrillja talk 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy please re-tag this for speedy, it's a G11 violation and the article creator was the one removing the speedy. Fæ (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel so, feel free to replace the tag. It can be tagged for AfD and CSD at the same time if you feel that the CSD is appropriate, I do not feel that it is however.--Terrillja talk 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not unambiguously spam, but contravenes WP:NOT and is not notable. I've restored the AfD notice that User:HalfShadow removed (while leaving the csd tag in place ... who knows, a passing admin might consider it a G11!). Jimmy Pitt talk 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2010#District 23*. T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quico Canseco[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." TM 21:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • He is notable. Consider that almost all of the handicappers think the election is a toss up.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately just saying he is notable does not make it so.--TM 02:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect, just don't delete. This is not a singular instance. It seems Jerzeykydd is adding articles for every viable Republican candidate. I don't have a problem with this, as they are indeed viable, but these articles are being created without Project Vote Smart, FEC, Open Secrets, and Follow The Money links (the CongLinks template). iow, they're just campaign brochures mixed with some rah-rah polling results. Many articles are also missing a link back to the actual election articles (or at least a link that works). In addition, the election articles are being 'edited' to not include all the qualified candidates, and even have the primary election results removed! I was surprised to see that some had the 2008 R/D percentage removed while other didn't, and then realized it was only the ones that did not go for McCain that had it removed! Wikipedia is not to be used as a handy-dandy spin machine for the Republican Party. I can understand some partisan enthusiasm, but either remember this is an encyclopedia or take a break until after the elections are over. Flatterworld (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that in any situation such as this, the article should be merged, not deleted. I don't want to have to find and add the links yet another time. Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jerzeykydd, do you understand the concept of significant coverage? Most of those articles simply mention Canseco. An example "Texas 23 (San Antonio, etc.) Incumbent Ciro Rodriguez (D) is getting a tougher-than-usual challenge from banker Quico Canseco (R), whose mid-August OnMessage poll showed him with a 43 percent to 37 percent lead. Canseco is raising money, much of it borrowed, and getting attacked as favoring privatization of Social Security." (Southern Political Report). Does this sound significant to anyone? How about another: "...Quico Canseco (R) won the opportunity to face Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. " (MSN). Come on, you know better.--TM 23:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2010#District 3. T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate for office. TM 21:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What the handicappers think is utterly irrelevant: see WP:CRYSTAL. And being a (former) member of a city council doesn't meet WP's notability standards: he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Force[edit]

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

Restored after a PROD deletion because "sources had been found", but it still doesn't have any third-party sources that show any notability for this group of fictional characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The villians of a notable TV series, with online non-primary sources that are "© 2010 Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved". Not some fansite. (PS - I hate you Black Kite for making me google "Breast Force"!) Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant independent info to justify been kept. Wasn't this article delted in the first place such reasons. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why nominate this and not the individual articles for the characters that merge to form this combination robot? Seems odd. This is notable because it is one of the main bad guys, apparently created for this notable series as the main ones. Dream Focus 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The individuals aren't notable either, but given that there are hundreds of non-notable Transformers character articles and I can't nominate them all at once, that's the way it goes. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - villains of a notable cartoon series, article is not beyond help. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:20pm • 02:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of what Black Kite just said about how he cant nominate them all at once -- how about if someone came up with a bot or automated script to delete or nominate all the transformers articles for deletion instead -- that way we can separate the wheat from the chaff easily, through the powers of the internets. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Senate election in Kansas, 2010. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Johnston[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Simply winning a nomination is not an indication of notability on Wikipedia and this candidate has no unique, reliable sources and no inherent claims to notability. TM 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's the offical Democrat candidate for Senate for Kansas. How can that not be notable? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read this guideline on notability, particularly this guideline for politicians if you want to state she is notable.--TM 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Democratic candidate for a major statewide election is very notable.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Care to defend that per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."?--TM 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Leonard McGee[edit]

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

Borderline CSD A7, listing on AFD to be on the safe side. Was deleted as an expired prod and recreated soon after. Does not seem to meet notability requirements, the only sources are IMDB and listings of articles written by the subject. Claim to fame seems to be production of some horror films one of which won a third prize at an independent film festival. Salix (talk): 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Moran[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Caitlin Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View|AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is not notable enough to warrant inclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsofabio (talk • contribs) — Notsofabio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Nomination reason was listed on talk page rather than here, copied here --Salix (talk): 21:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winning a British Press Award establishes her notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no substantive justification per WP:AUTHOR. In any event, she is notable for having written for a national newspaper (The Times) at the age of 16, and a journalistic career since. WP:N should be easily established by multiple reliable sources. Rodhullandemu 21:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quite a well-known Times journalist, even though she's disappeared behind a paywall. I've just linked to her in an article I was writing. Bob talk 08:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable as an award winning journalist, author and former TV presenter. Article could do with expansion and secondary sources but that is no reason to propose deletion. The nominator has also proposed Grace Dent for deletion on similarly insubstantial grounds. What's the story here? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known UK journalist and broadcaster. Neilplatform1 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, request is frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Dent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Grace Dent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is not notable enough to warrant inclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsofabio (talk • contribs) — Notsofabio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Nomination reason was listed on talk page rather than here, copied here --Salix (talk): 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no substantive reason given per WP:AUTHOR. Easily covered by WP:N as multiple reliable sources exist. Rodhullandemu 21:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another bad faith nom by a user with little or no other contributions. A disgruntled journalist without his/her own article, perhaps? Bob talk 13:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Impossible to assume good faith by nominator, just a time-wasting exercise. Grace Dent is a well known and respected journalist and commentator. Article is well sourced, subject is notable, no justification for proposing deletion. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Published author of multiple books with mainstream publishers. Notable as a journalist. Article could do with a few more secondary sources but the existing sources are enough to preclude any thought of deletion. The nominator has also proposed Caitlin Moran for deletion on similarly insubstantial grounds. What's the story here? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known UK author, columnist and broadcaster. Neilplatform1 15:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilplatform1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Notable UK author, article is sourced although I would assume ignorance on the part of the nominator rather than malice. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eyes (manga)[edit]

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

Non-notable manga. No reviews or scholarly discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to lack independent sources under English or Japanese names. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There are reviews at Mania.com, but I did not find anything else to show notability. – allen四names 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With only reviews from Mania.com, which are counted as one source, this doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a link to one of the Mania reviews. There are very few places that count as reliable sources that actually review any manga at all. It'd be pure insanity to rampage about mass deleting every single manga article on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it would be "pure insanity to rampage about mass deleting every single manga article". But since no one here is doing or advocating that, rather irrelevant. More relevant is that if there are "very few places that [...] that actually review any manga at all", that is an agreement with the non-notability argument. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you been the past year or two? A very large number of manga articles have been erased, based on the severely flawed notion that nothing is notable without getting two or more reviews, even if its a type of something that almost never gets reviewed at all. Thus the overwhelming majority of manga articles are vulnerable to deletion, different people making their rounds, and nominating one batch after another. Dream Focus 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, we seem to be in agreement that this article (we're not discussing anything else here) does not satisfy notability guidelines: the disagreement between us is that DF doesn't like the consequences. The place to get those guidelines changed is probably Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Brighton[edit]

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

Restored after prod, this researcher does not pass WP:PROF. Highest cited paper, 7. Total number of papers, 5. One forthcoming book. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable academic. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. FieldMarine (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Typical case of page-way-too-early. WoS shows 2 papers: citations 0 and 7, h-index 1. Lots of dead links. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Savigar[edit]

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

Only trivial mentions found (e.g. "X wrote this song with Kevin Savigar"), nothing substantial found. Edited extensively by an account with a COI name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Barkley[edit]

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

No professional apps yet. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. —Half Price 18:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Howard Stern Show games and bits[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. Near impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Dixon[edit]

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

Non-notable music biography. Borderline A7, but the article claims two self-published albums. Unable to find any reliable, third party sources or indication that the subject meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tag (game)#Grounders. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groundies[edit]

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

Non-notable game, fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources showing up on Google. Derild4921☼ 16:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexf(talk) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clearance goal[edit]

The clearance goal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Note: deletion notice added to the article by 129.11.76.229 (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article discusses a controversial Premier League goal that occurred recently and has added to the controversy over Referre Stuart Attwell and his competence to officiate. An individual apparently not only nominated this for deletion but also continues to edit the article on Mr. Attwell to remove any criticism. He also criticizes this for having no references when it occurred less than two hours ago. It is a current event that is getting much discussion board attention, as well as special coverage by BBC sport. Whoever it is that proposed this for deletion does not even have an indivudual account, but simply hides behind the Leeds University library interface. If this person cannot even stand up and defend their work and be accountable for their edits, they should at the very least not be listened to. Check his talk page and there is a long history of abuse, vandalism and questionable edits present. This article discusses an event in the Premier League that is certainly being discussed elsewhere. All this person could do when I asked him to stop wiki stalking the article on Stuart Attwell was to insult me and threaten me with blocking. This article needs to stand and people who hide behind their edits without having the courtesy, or courage, of even being bothered to register as a user need not be listened to. The Moody Blue 16:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Controversial goals happen all the time. Some get more coverage than others, and some mention in another appropriate article may be possible (such as the Stuart Attwell article in this case), but controversial goals are not notable on their own.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete some fan whining about whether a goal was legal or not a few hours after the game is scarcely worth even arguing about. if this goal goes down in the annals of footballing history then we can maybe mention in a relevant article - but as a standalone I call WP:SNOW on this. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - not notable (many many controversial goals), original research, verbosely abusive editor. 129.11.77.197 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-noatble. --TitanOne (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS describes this situation pretty clearly: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". At the moment all we have is routine news reporting of this mildly controversial incident. If it gains substantial long-term coverage in the future then that will be the time to create an article with proper historical perspective. I would add that as a Watford supporter who was in the Rookery End when this "goal" was scored I am certainly no fan of Stuart Attwell, but there's no need to create a separate article about each of his perceived mistakes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR, WP:POV - need I go on? GiantSnowman 14:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Phil has this one correct, I think; there's no need for an article on each controversial goal. If the referee has a history of such calls, and if media coverage has explored this fact, then noting such in the referee's article (in a neutral and BLP-friendly way) may be in order. If the controversy itself generates press, or if the goal causes an official review of officiating practices or rules changes, then maybe this would merit a mention in that context. But no, there is no need for this article as it stands. There's a bit of OR as well, at the end. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already covered in perfectly adequate detail in the ref's own article, absolutely does not need an article of its own. Do not merge or redirect, as "the clearance goal" seems an unlikely redirect, especially given that hardly anyone even seems to be calling it that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doubt this will merit more than a ten second mention in a SKY end of season review next May, if that. Lasting notability - no.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I were were in charge, no article on a new event could be created for several months except where demand for such is clear and obvious: this sort of knee jerk "something happened, I must create an article" is of no service to an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. An event with no evidence of lasting coverage or impact. I'm half tempted to say we should speedy as an attack page, as this serves little purpose other than having a go at Stuart Attwell. And don't merge anything, his article is already unbalanced enough. Oh, and one of the sources is a Wikipedia mirror. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my point about Attwell's article, I think the criticism is given too much weight. See Talk:Stuart Attwell#Unbalanced for some thoughts on the matter. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China National Highway 110 traffic jam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
China National Highway 110 traffic jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:EVENT says events should have "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect". As no new developments have occurred regarding this that would be of use to an encyclopaedia (as compared to a news organisation), I really don't think the article meets event notability guidelines. During the first AFD, this was a developing event and maybe that contributed to the keep votes. But the coverage of this event has totally died off, suggesting this indeed is simply just a news event and not a significant event with lasting effects or consequences. WP:EVENT says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." It's been about a month since, with no news. This is also reflected in the fact that the article really hasn't been expanded much at all from the most basic of facts about the incident, with little mention of any sort of long-lasting impact (if there was even any). Therefore, I suggest a delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 16:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- My rationale remains unchanged from the previous AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. There's plenty of room there, I don't see a particular reason to split given the size of both articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and significant; well sourced, too. It might be renamed and made into an article with a more general title; there are actually 4 highways involved. Fred Talk 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reason with the previous AFD.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per FredBauer. This thing was and still is HUGE. It's well sourced, has more than adequate coverage, and is expected to expand with every passing moment. Buggie111 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why exactly has there not been any activity on the article since September 14 and before that, September 4? It doesn't really seem that it's that way to me, hence my deletion nomination. I just don't think this is anything more than a one-off WP:EVENT. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to comment by Tomchen. Should be closed due to WP:SNOW. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 22:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Extremely notable and significant event. Is the nom a Chinese reader and has he examined all web-available Chinese press to confirm his claim? --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — if this is closed as "keep", can the closing admin please consider Fred's and Tom's suggestions to rename the article? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely notable incident; I haven't even heard of traffic jam that lasted for days before this—Chris!c/t 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per 2-3, it was kept 36-3, which I think is a strong case, per 2-3. CTJF83 chat 05:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you'll find that that particular criterion notes that the new deletion discussion must use the "same arguments" to delete, which is not the case here, so imo it doesn't apply. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. If it was notable when it happened (which it was), it's notable. Lugnuts (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Due to magnitude of the event, which made global news for a week and stands as the landmark as a "worst ever" event of its type. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a significant event in the history of China National Highway 110. There is some significance and notability in the event itself, but that only means the core information in the article should be kept. It does not mean, however, that the article itself must be kept. Rather the core information can be merged into the parent article, which would improve the encyclopedia by improving the parent article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The majority of the sources are news coverage from the days after the event, but not all of it. Recent recurrences and coverage plus ongoing discussions on how to permanently solve this (all recorded here and here, which come from a month after the main event) mean this now passes WP:EVENT's requirements of lasting coverage and impact. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the article says, it has created a 'mini-economy' and lasted for weeks. It can also make a claim to notability by virtue of being both the biggest and the longest lasting traffic jam. It's attracted a great deal of coverage, and is a well written, well sourced and generally useful article. --Korruski (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced. --3sides (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: This event doesn't even come close to having "lasting significance." There is no reason to believe it will be the biggest forever, the event petered out after a week, and was more notable for being a part of summertime "silly season" news. The mere fact that it is sourced does not mean that the event is notable enough to have its own article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources, and as clearly notable. Very interesting too. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:N and WP:V--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting article, well sourced and well written. Slight modification is still required as an image is missing and the article is relatively short.
  • Merge to China National Highway 110 - Subject can easily be covered there. Dough4872 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Korruski -- Sandcat01 (talk) 01:14, 1 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 and rename to List of landmarks in Beijing. T. Canens (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attractions of Beijing[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or a guide for tourists and article has no sources, to demonstrate that this topic is notable. It could be converted into a category. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles K. Poole[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Book is listed at Gbook, but all the sources I found were blogs and social networks - not WP:RS. Article looks like a plug for a book and a a public affairs and reputation management firm. Kudpung (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean A. Moore[edit]

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

This author appears not to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the best response to this deletion proposal would be to repeat some of my comment from the article's discussion page in regard to the last time there was a delete attempt on the article. At least this time the process is being gone about properly.
"Looks like someone has a vendetta against the idea of an article on Moore. ... While not the article's original creator, I undertook to recreate it, ... because its disappearance left a hole in the otherwise comprehensive group of articles on Conan the Barbarian authors.
"Moore's involvement in the continuation of the work of Robert E. Howard entitles him to an article, in my view. Not only did he contribute a couple Conan novels, but his involvement in the Kull movie, both as a contributor to the screenplay and the author of the novelization, also appear to me to be significant. Both points are present in the article by implication if not explicit statement, and would be obvious to any student of Howard's work ..."
My opinion, as before, is that the article should be kept. BPK (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BPK2, do you have any reasons based on the notability guidelines you could cite to inform this decision? Thanks, Bongomatic 05:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Not a living person, therefore information is not apt to be commercial and is more apt to be historical. Subject was published by one of the most venerable publishers, Macmillan, per THIS LINK. Seems to be a subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, although one would like to see a national obituary of some sort to validate this admittedly impressionistic recommendation. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
Hi Carrite. I don't see any support in the guidelines for the notion that being published by a venerable publishing house makes an author notable. Can you please point out the provision? Bongomatic 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prolific author[8] whose multiple works have been themselves the subject of multiple critical commentary and review, bringing him in under WP:CREATIVE. Yes, the article needs to make use of additional sourcing, but as this is not a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT, such improvements should be done through the course of regular editing. Their current lack is not cause to delete an improvable article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give any examples of significant critical attention given to the author's work? Bongomatic 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... multiple books on a highly notable topic. Yup... such books get reviewed. It might not happen in the next few minutes, but either myself or others will search for and offer links to various reviews and comentary of his various Conan the Barbarian books. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through all sorts of media for the author's name. Typically a book review will mention it. So I'm skeptical. The subject specific guidelines (originally) were intended to be facts that if true give rise to a presumption that there was actually GNG-type coverage of something, just that it couldn't be identified. They seem to have morphed to standalone criteria. But I don't think concluding that a subject meets subject-specific guidelines because of the presumed existence of sources is a valid rationale. Moreover, I don't think your application of common sense is accurate—the more notable the topic, the more likely there is to be tons of non-notable fandom and other cruft about it. Bongomatic 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a "presumption" such as mine is a valid rationale per guideline, but invoking it always leads to WP:Burden being placed on he who presumes. As noted above, I will be looking for reviews of his works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a presumption not based on guidelines without any evidence is a valid basis for an opinion (specifically, an opinion that needn't be disregarded). I'm not sure where quoting BURDEN (a failed proposal) comes into it, either. Could you explain either?
A failed proposal?? Err... excuse me, but you are incorrect. The link I offered is a shortcut that leads directly to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence... a WP:Policy... and definitely not a "failed proposal". And my ability to make a reasonable presumption that sources may exist is encouraged by multiple guidelines. So my "presumption" IS based upon and specifically allowed by existing guideline. And I offered BURDEN only because it seems that quite often when an editor offers an opinion based upon a guideline accepted and encouraged "presumpton", another editor might respond "prove it", and declare under WP:BURDEN that it is up to a presuming editor to defend his presumption... and yes, this request/demand is made at many AFDs even though BURDEN is intended for when a user is editing an article, and not intended as an argument at AFD.
Your nomination statement is/was "This author appears not to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources." My guideline supported response is that the GNG is not the sole manner by which notability for a prolific writer of works on a notable topic may be established. And so here we are. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Burden, my mistake, I was erroneously referring to Wikipedia:Burden of evidence. Beyond this, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of AUTHOR, which provides notability for authors who have "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Here, to say that the author's (un-reviewed in RS, as far as I can tell) pastiche novels cannot be said to be part of a "significant collective body of work" as they are not part of the significant body (they are barely even peripheral to it). There are no sources that tie these books into the notable body of work they orbit around. The novelization of a film is not what the guideline intend with "the subject of an independent feature-length film". First, it's not independent of the film. Second, the film is the subject of the novel, not the other way around. Bongomatic 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I can understand why that one failed. But per guideline, his collective body of work includes many more than just the three pastiche novels,[9] hence my use above of the word "prolific". And that one novel came from a film rather than the other-way-round does not denigrate it under CREATIVE, as it is still a part of his "collective body of work". 02:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
  • Keep as per Schmidt. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is a little bit of coverage--more about his death than anything else, here and here. Then there is a mention (no more!) here. I also found this, which doesn't count for much. To all the fans: these are mentions; our guidelines require significant, in-depth discussion, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not done looking, but I don't see a keep here yet. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, while the GNG often tends to be a default now-a-days for determining notability, not meeting it is not an automatic deathknell, as guidelines in many situations allows notability to be found and accepted even when significant coverage is lacking. For example, WP:ANYBIO allows notability through the winning of a notable award... and WP:CREATIVE allows notability if someone's work is itself the recipient of multiple reviews and commentary... without demanding that the individual also have significant personal coverage. Indeed, thre are cases many of us have seen where an article might have met or exceeded the caveats of the GNG yet was still deleted. To summarize: The GNG and the various SNGs are meant to work in concert, but not be mutually exclusionary. An article might pass one or the other, but need not pass both... and SNGs are acceptable as long as the assertions of notability are themselves verifiable in reliable sources. And as helpful as significant coverage can be in expanding article content, there is no policy or guideline mandate that the verification itself must be in-depth or substantive... it simply needs to be reliable. Your finds so far are actually quite acceptable, even only sourcing a small or factoid in this article. They do not bring him in under the GNG, no... but simply meeting the GNG is not the asssertion of notability, nor is meeting it the mandate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The arenas for which meeting GNG does not qualify a topic for inclusion are very limited. While the subject-specific guidelines are frequently more inclusive, where they are not met, generally, meeting GNG would give rise to a presumption of inclusion. Here, I don't think anyone has given a credible basis for finding the subject to have met any subject-specific guidelines or the GNG—as such an inquiry into whether the GNG is met seems appropriate. Bongomatic 04:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an inquiry into meeting the GNG is always worth making. But in light of Drmies' comment/question above "our guidelines require significant, in-depth discussion, if I'm not mistaken," I felt a little clarification was in order... and ended up giving a lot. I might have simply written "meeting the GNG is one of the means by which one might show a presumed notability, but it is not the only way." I sometimes tend to be a bit too verbose. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agreed, national champion, withdrawn Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Nickerson[edit]

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

Collegiate wrestler who's had a fairly successful career, but who doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes. One article about his high school career, may be a future Olympian, but isn't there yet. Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


One of the requirements for notability in your list was "Have won a national award". Nickerson was 2009 NCAA Div1A National Champion at 125 pounds. In our earlier back and forth you maintained that Joe Dubuque was "probably notable" because he had been a national champ. Doesn't the same hold true for Nickerson? Also the only reason I wrote the article in the first place was because there was a link to Nickerson that led to a blank page. Being a wrestling fan, I did a little research and put some relevant information in there. --TobusRex (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - National Champion collegiate wrestler = notable. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Fisher[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP which does not demonstrate notability Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Elliott (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD; player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable game show tournament Us441(talk)(contribs) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Actors Word[edit]

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

no claim of notability in the article Melaen (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is purely a promotional article, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional Sadads (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Association[edit]

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

Probably not notable. the website of this society doesn't look like the one of a notable association, i.e. no registered domain name, banner made with mybannermaker.com, etc. Melaen (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Founded in 2010, the society is new and many doubt its legitimacy." - including me. It's too soon to have garnered interest from anyone except current and pending members. Come back when you've made it. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A new society, yet to establish credibility ... it's clearly not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Blob[edit]

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

This game is at best a non-notable homebrew production, and at worst only a vague plan for a game that doesn't even exist yet. The article creator has added "check this every week for updates" to the article, suggesting that he plans to use Wikipedia as the primary host for information about the game. —Soap— 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Frogs[edit]

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

dubious notability Melaen (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Slide to Play was founded by former GameSpot staff, which should make it amply reliable in this sector. Gamezebo reviewed the game here, nice little interview on Pocket Gamer. The two reviews should be fine for notability, there are other misc. sites used currently, at least one of which (148Apps) is part of the O.A.T.S. reviewing system and is an established site which really should be enough to allow it to be used as a source. Unfortunately WP, despite being a web-based and supposedly up to the minute, is woefully behind the times and we still haven't sorted out where these app review sites fit in with WP:RS. Someoneanother 13:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 26 September 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) 00:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of references quoting notabilty to the article and many more if needed, a quick google search would reveal these. I see no reason why this article is not notable enough for wikipedia. ISmashed TALK! 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be some notability here, as Someone another indicates above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Looks like there is sufficient coverage out there to easily establish notability. –MuZemike 12:34, 1 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 List of Transformers: Cybertron characters#Lugnutz. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnutz[edit]

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

Non-major fictional character. No sources to indicate notability. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge - weak notability and doesn't even have bad sources to pretend it has notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. No real word in real life note. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mathewignash. This doesn't deserve its own page. --Divebomb (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to the list of characters. --Malkinann (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. We should always look for an appropriate place to merge non-notable character articles, per WP:PRESERVE instead of outright deleting unless the character is incidental (either having no affect on the main plot or appears in only one or two episodes. So far, none of those advocating deletion have not argued that this is an incidental character. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When/if the list mentioned is created, feel free to ping me on my talk page to get the content restored and merged (though as there is nothing sourced to merge it might be better to simply start from scratch). T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Energy[edit]

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

Nothing to establish notability. No sources for years, appparently. Since even energon (the fuel) got deleted, this likely stands very little chance. NotARealWord (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When/if the list mentioned is created, feel free to ping me on my talk page to get the content restored and merged (though as there is nothing sourced to merge it might be better to simply start from scratch). T. Canens (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angolmois energy[edit]

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

Nothing to establish notability. No sources for years, appparently. Since even energon (the fuel) got deleted, this likely stands very little chance. NotARealWord (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of some sort. It's patently stupid that Energon is a redlink now, but this could likely go into some sort of list of energy elements in transformers, since it seems to be the focus of conflict throughout everything I've seen of the various series. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte merge to what Jclemens there is no list to merge this fancruft too. Another pathetic attempt by incluionissts to hoard articles with weak notability and even weaker sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've articulated no deletion rationale. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK Jclemens there is no RELIABLE third person sources to support that this articles contents are true. The article is filled mainly with primary information. Also you suggested Merge to a list of some sort. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a list of Transformers elements and Merge this article to it. --Divebomb (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- very minor fictional element, no sources, no obvious merge target. Reyk YO! 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a list of Transformers fuel and merge or redirect this article to it. JIP | Talk 07:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if reliable sources cannot be found, and I sure can't find any. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as R3, G7. Hut 8.5 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfed L. Buser[edit]

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

This unnecessary redirect was created when I inadvertently misspelled the subject's name when I created the article and subsequently moved the article to the subject's correctly spelled name. Please delete it—it serves no purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters#Clocker. T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clocker (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-major character, no proof of notability. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. We should always look for an appropriate place to merge non-notable character articles first, per WP:PRESERVE, instead of outright deleting unless the character is incidental (either having no affect on the main plot or appears in only one or two episodes. So far, none of those advocating deletion have not argued that this is an incidental character. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-mode[edit]

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

A Transformers-specific neologism. "Sourced" to fansites. No indication (or likelihood, really) of notability, and thus, no place on Wikipedia. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I recognise this term exists in the fan community, it isn't used anywhere else, which makes it non-notable. The article is very short and vague and provides only few sources. JIP | Talk 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable outside the TF fandom. --Khajidha (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's actually not a Transformers specific term, it's a common term. Mathewignash (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mathewignash once again fails to show any independent information to support his assertion it used in the real world.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable TF-specific neologism. This isn't TFWiki. --Divebomb (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as of this writing, there doesn't seem to be a fan-mode article on TFWiki. NotARealWord (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not Wikipedia's problem, it's ours. --Divebomb (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by "ours" you mean TFWiki editors, it wouldn't be the first time a non-obscure (to the fandom) topic is neglected it's own article. They didn't have an article on multiverse until after I (of all people) brought that up. NotARealWord (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what the hell are we waiting for? --Divebomb (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see anyone outside the Transformers (GoBots, RoBoTruks, or whatever else) communities wanting to look this up, and there doesn't seem to be any general coverage of the topic shown. Possibly a brief entry on Wiktionary would be all that's needed (if they are agreeable) from THIS community. I would recommend someone to put it up on tfwiki or whatever GoBots use (sorry, I invented RoBoTruks...). Peridon (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricks Center for Gifted Children[edit]

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

nn primary school, doing what primary schools do, no sources... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vibgyor High School[edit]

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

This page is a mess, full of content that looks like the work of a few angry parents and students. I don't see very much about it in news media except one story so I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. Teewikit (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) — Teewikit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: I agree with Teewikit, this page reads like WP:ATTACK. Also, the notability of the individual school is not clear. Perhaps of the school organization, but that is not established here. -- BenTels (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can find plenty of independent sources in the news media. In my opinion this high school meets WP:SCHOOL and the article is expandable/fixable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under per se notability of secondary schools. I agree with the nominator that the page is a mess. —Carrite Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page needs to be fixed, but high schools are judged notable unless shown otherwise. Suggest stubbing per WP:ATTACK. LK (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are generally considered notable. POV problems should be dealt with by editing, not deletion, and it appears a lot of the negative points are sourced. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - need for cleaning is not grounds for deletion. Can be easily sourced to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poet as well as Civil servant of Bangladesh[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic list of people who just happen to fall into two unrelated categories - contested PROD/PROD2. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Oh dear. WP:RS, possibly WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR (in two different ways), .... -- BenTels (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete otherwise Wikipedia will fill up with some very peculiar articles indeed, like golfing violinists of Florida or something. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial intersection. I can just imagine it ... Mountain climbing game show hosts of Sudan Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is something notable about this intersection of poets and Bangladeshi civil servants. I'm guessing intersections like this are generally non-notable. If they were, we could have pages like "Microsoft employee as well as Arsenal supporter" or "politician as well as fan fiction writer". NotARealWord (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well as remove per above. Even a book noting that many civil servants in Bangladesh happen to be poets would still fall under one or the other headings - a section under "Poetry of Bangladesh", perhaps. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7mm-30 RG[edit]

7mm-30 RG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a hobbyist’s project undertaken by Joseph D'Alessandro (Joe4570) and Real Guns (a website owned by Mr. D'Alessandro. The contributor of the article is Joe4570 as well. There is a conflict of interest WP:COI] issue associated with this article. Furthermore, the cartridge is not well known and there isn’t much interest generated by this cartridge. There is scant information regarding this cartridge on the internet apart from the Real Guns website owned by Joseph D'Alessandro. Mr. D'Alessandro does acknowledge these RG cartridges are hobbyist’s projects himself. This cartridge does not meet Wiki requirements regarding notability WP:FAILN. DeusImperator (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lacks information and fails notability. NotARealWord (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: There's some interesting information in this article, by somebody who obviously knows what he's doing (says I, a person who feels that private ownership of firearms should be absolutely forbidden). Somewhere it seems to me that at least part of the article is salvageable, although I don't know where you'd merge it exactly (something more general on custom ammunition, perhaps). However, I am concerned about the WP:COI and the WP:RS. -- BenTels (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate to do this, because the article "looks" nice. But I can't find anything that makes this notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.358-378 RG[edit]

.358-378 RG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a hobbyist’s project undertaken by Joseph D'Alessandro (Joe4570) and Real Guns (a website owned by Mr. D'Alessandro. The contributor of the article is Joe4570 as well. There is a conflict of interest WP:COI] issue associated with this article. Furthermore, the cartridge is not well known and there isn’t much interest generated by this cartridge. There is scant information regarding this cartridge on the internet apart from the Real Guns website owned by Joseph D'Alessandro. Mr. D'Alessandro does acknowledge these RG cartridges are hobbyist’s projects himself. This cartridge does not meet Wiki requirements regarding notability WP:FAILN DeusImperator (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lacks information and fails notability. NotARealWord (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: There's some interesting information in this article, by somebody who obviously knows what he's doing (says I, a person who feels that private ownership of firearms should be absolutely forbidden). Somewhere it seems to me that at least part of the article is salvageable, although I don't know where you'd merge it exactly (something more general on custom ammunition, perhaps). However, I am concerned about the WP:COI and the WP:RS. -- BenTels (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate to do this, because the article "looks" nice. But I can't find anything that makes this notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE - A7 - WP:BAND -- Alexf(talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Genuine Imitations[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any point of WP:BAND. Their only album was released by "Calrock Records", a firm that only has a myspace page and doesn't appear to have released anything else. Only broadcasted via college radio? Only source in article makes a passing mention in a list of other groups. Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 - no change since last AFD, however if he does ever play for the first team it will merit restoration ϢereSpielChequers 17:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Henley[edit]

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

WP:ATHLETE requires that a footballer must have played a competitive first-team match for a professional club to be notable. This player has not done that; being named as a substitute is not enough. – PeeJay 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will James (Welsh footballer)[edit]

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

WP:ATHLETE requires that a footballer must have played in a competitive first-team match for a professional club to be considered notable. This player has not done that; being named as a substitute is not enough. – PeeJay 10:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pragyan CMS[edit]

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

Promotion. Cannot find any notability signs for this article. Haakon (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find any either. A mention in the Pragyan is enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pragyan. The CMS software seems nicely designed, but only designed for a single purpose. It's only major use seems to be the Pragyan, and its only other notability so far the bug- and vulnerability listings. Perhaps it can be an article in the future, but not now. -- BenTels (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the http://www.nitt.edu ? This also uses the Pragyan CMS. I do agree that it is not so popular now, but is that in the policy of wikipedia that only highly popular software will be listed? (Also, how do you define *popular* ?) After all, there's no damage done to wikipedia if the article exists, as the interested people will definitely look into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekdelta (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No, it's not about popularity, but (among others) about notability. That is, how much notoriety has the software gathered, has its existence been noted throughout the industry? Wikipedia also has an article about OpenIndiana, which is hardly the most popular OS in the world – it's included because notability has been established for that project. -- BenTels (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See general notability guideline for the definition of "notability". -- intgr [talk] 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed those tooth-rottingly spammy words. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.195.143 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources and it is yummy yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kambah, Australian Capital Territory#Schools. T. Canens (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Neighbour Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Few hits for the school on google, mainly primary sources, corporate profiles, and social networking sites / forums. Doesn't appear to meet the GNG. Addendum: on top of that, the article itself indicates that it had less than 130 students a couple of years ago, and was determined structurally unsound and scheduled for demolition; it seems unlikely this school is going to be notable in future either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it was the first school built in the new suburbs of Tuggeranong (actually there was an old school house in Gowrie that would not ahve an article yet.) Google will have few hits as the school was built in the 1970's. It won't become more notable in future as it was demolished as a prominent example of government waste of money. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: To Tuggeranong. There's not enough in the article for it to stand alone (also missing sources). It was the first school in Tuggeranong Valley, so it's history is a nice subsection for that article. -- BenTels (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anything beyond the basic information about the school is likely to be helpful in an article about the region in which the school is situated; merging the article would be rather excessive, and it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant much coverage in another article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy gameplay[edit]

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

This article is essentially a huge gameguide. It describes gameplay elements of each Final Fantasy game, one by one, and even goes into really curious details like patent ID numbers, number of cards or magic spells and even lists of metals used in armor. I am really wondering what the point of the article really is. Even the article seems to reluctantly admits that there isn't much point, since the "Reception and legacy" section contains barely one sentence simply stating that the Final Fantasy series "is credited with defining the structure of subsequent role-playing games", without going into any sort of explanation or giving any arguments as to why it is notable and defining. This article can only be useful to hardcore fans of the series, and even then, they are probably more likely to check specific FAQs or articles at the FF Wikia rather than this article. For anyone else (i.e. the general public), the section at Final Fantasy#Gameplay already summarizes everything notable, important and relevant about Final Fantasy gameplay. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tember 2010 (UTC)

  • Looking at the article, I saw some information that could be merged to other articles. The page itself is not currently encyclopedic, but if it could be re-written, then maybe it could be kept. But otherwise, delete the article and merge other parts to other articles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE. Also, not encyclopedic. And not very interesting (but that's probably just me). -- BenTels (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a really well sourced article from what I can tell. Lots of independent WP:RS and the like. I'm going to look more closely at it later, but I don't think this is as open and shut as the discussion to date would indicate. At the very least it should be a merge to somewhere (Final Fantasy I should think). Hobit (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure any of the delete !votes have a leg to stand on here. Meets WP:N by a wide margin and isn't a how-to manual (which is what WP:GAMEGUIDE refers to). Could someone siting WP:NOTGUIDE explain how it applies? Hobit (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Oh, absolutely, it's well sourced and certainly meets WP:N. But I disagree with you on WP:NOTGUIDE – large tracts of this article read (to me at least) exactly like an instruction manual for a game. Just to be clear though: I'd be willing to change my !vote if someone did a rewrite; I'm not saying that all the content is hopeless. -- BenTels (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, clearly there is useful information and plenty of sources that could help improve other articles, at the very least. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy long enough to be moved/merged/trimmed somewhere more appropriate (Final Fantasy#Gameplay or Wikia?), though the main contributor User:Randomran doesn't seem to be active as of late. It's well researched at the least. Certainly a good bulk of the article's content could be kept as Gamespot and IGN both have long articles dedicated to the series' history and evolution.[10][11][12] As for the mention of such things as patent ID numbers, that's really more of an example of good research. SharkD  Talk  22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Sjones23. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm unsure right now, but Hobit does have a valid point regarding not necessarily violating WP:GAMEGUIDE. However, I am concerned about the high quantities of original research present as well as relative lack of real-world relevance. Moreover, this source in the "Reception and Legacy" section indicates that the Final Fantasy games – not the series' gameplay – have been considered influential. "Well-sourced" doesn't necessarily equate to meeting WP:N when all you do is include information sources not necessarily relevant to the series' gameplay (most of them culled from other Final Fantasy WP articles) and attempt to blend them together. –MuZemike 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Keep the article has significant problems with OR, but I think the topic itself is not in violation of NOTGUIDE and clearly meets our general notability guideline by a lot. I'm loath to take a hatchet to it while it's at AfD, but the OR can be fairly easily removed and I'll volunteer to do so if it's still around. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Userfy I think after a lot of trimming, this could be a quality article. Final Fantasy is a giant series, so it needs a separate Gameplay article. It has plenty of sources. Plenty of games have gameplay articles. Just type in "Gameplay of" and see what pops up. Pokemon, World of Warcraft, Dragon Quest, etc. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a policy rationale for deleting this article. Just a bald assertion that this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. But it looks to be pretty well sourced, to independent and reliable sources no less. Definitely enough to verify that this is a notable topic. (Contrast with Final Fantasy character jobs, which has almost no independent sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong communicate 04:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not seeing how this article is a guide. I'm not seeing any parts that are guiding you on how to beat the game or anything like that. It appears to be a study of gameplay elements which have remained relatively constant over one of the longest running video game franchises. Much of it is well-sourced and well done, while much of it needs a major cleanup. SnottyWong converse 04:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Userfy - Article needs fixing, not deleting. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Showing various notable and constant aspects of these games, which are insanely successful, is quite encyclopedic. Its something someone could actually learn from. And by Keep, I mean keep the article, don't delete 90% of it. Articles exist for those who actually read them. Dream Focus 05:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously parts need major attention, but as somebody who has no interest or experience in this topic, I found that this article was actually a fairly clear and relatively well-sourced explanation that largely avoided the "trivia trap". Those are good signs, and I can see no way this material can be migrated without losing its structure or coherence. TheGrappler (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Vessel Mottos: United States[edit]

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

Non notable, unreferenced collection of trivia per WP:NOTABLE. These mottos should be included in the individual ship articles IMO and do not require a separate entry. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Military Unit Mottos: Canada (Air Forces) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Australian military unit mottos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Canada (Cadet Services) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Canada (Joint Service Forces) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Canada (Land Forces) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Canada (Naval Forces) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Military Unit Mottos: United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mottos of Greek military units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yeow. At least for the two American articles, they are a mess! Perpetually incomplete, OR/unreferences, vandalism magnets, and a significant number of entries don't even have articles. Seems like most of the contributors are anons and SPAs who are members of the listed unit (COI). Really, just note the nickname of the unit on its article and leave it at that, there is no real encyclopedic value or meaningful intersection to this list. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 10:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial though is Delete. Though it's not impossible that they could be reclaimed as stubby articles. Called list of... and with the capitalisation sorted out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are certainly notable, but delete per other reasons by Bahamut, it is more important that the mottos are on individual unit pages, Sadads (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per GraemeLegget's improvement suggestions WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: largely seem to be original research and, to be honest, I think it is just trivia with limited, if any, encyclopedic value. I certainly find these things interesting, but listing it on the various unit pages themselves would be enough, I feel. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this info should be on the relevent pages ... not listed seperatly from the units involved. Putting them on Unit pages will also put more eyes onto it, where it is more likely to find a WP:Cite. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Articles listing a selection of military unit mottoes for a national military force or parts thereof does not add any useful understanding to the units, the mottoes, or the use of mottoes by military forces in that nation. Most, if not all mottoes will be found in the unit articles, where they can be more effectively cited, and elaborated on as necessary. -- saberwyn 05:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki all to Wikiquote. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - should be on relevant pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While certainly many of these are unreferenced, that's a cause for cleanup rather than deletion. Military mottos are themselves studied and commented upon, though I doubt the above links will show up anything simply searching on the article titles themselves. "Trivia" is used pejoratively and unconvincingly here. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of what policy? Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you about the use of "trivia". If the mottos really are a matter of study and inquiry, then where are the sources? The referencing for these lists are sadly lacking, and most of the few sources that are there are simply that unit's website or veteran's alumni association, not a reliable third-party source. Not to mention that there seems to be an incredible amount of OR going on there. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, really have to question these 'keep' votes. On the basis of what policy is this being suggested? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of any policy-based deletion rationale is sufficient reason to keep. WP:NNC is clear that individual entries (e.g., in a list) need not be individually notable. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly cited policy in the deletion rationale - WP:NOTABLE - and I will add WP:MILMOS/N. To say that the rationale lacked a basis in policy is as such disingenuous. I have no problem with these mottos being included in the individual articles (if referenced), but as they stand the bulk are unreferenced, non-notable trivia (many are even 'unofficial') so would probably constitute WP:OR. AFDs are not popularity contests and voting keep just because you 'like' the article or the information in it achieves little. If you can improve the articles and add reliable sources that establish notability then feel free to do so. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:NNC is rather deceptive in this case. NNC refers to the notability about content within an individual article, not the content of a list. In fact, it specifically states "However, notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists. This guideline does not override that usage (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)." NNC doesn't allow us to disregard the notability policies merely because the information is arranged in a list format. You may find it helpful to read WP:listcruft. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; this is essentially trivia that is nonnotable. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; a magnet for unsourced trivia. (I think "trivia" is often misused; being an encyclopaedia, wikipedia should aim to cover lots of things, including relatively minor ones; but a motto is just about the least substantial or useful detail of a vessel that I could imagine. It's just a made-up phrase; sometimes made up "officially", sometimes not. Even the name of the person who ceremonially swung the bottle is more substantial). Keep them in the articles about each vessel. bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 1 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. Delete comments in this AfD correctly point out to the lack of RS to support claims within the article. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ralston[edit]

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

Cheng Hsin, the martial arts system developed by this man was deleted after this discussion. This bio is also lacking in independent evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The man won a martial arts world championship and created his own sport; that has to be notable. The article needs improving though, so I've put it up for {{Rescue}}. -- BenTels (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I originally put this article up for rescue; however, after looking more carefully for resources online I no longer believe rescue to be possible. All the occurrences are derived from Wikipedia or mention Ralston in passing in relation to Cheng Hsin. I'll leave the template up so others can try, but I'm giving up on this one... -- BenTels (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BenTels (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are now many Cheng Hsin centres all over the world. They all refer to Peter Ralston as the founder of Cheng Hsin. Obviously there are many practicioners and Peter Ralston has a significant meaning to them. This article should be kept, as many who have never heard of this person (who is notable as stated above) or Cheng Hsin, may want to reference this. Where else than in Wikipedia? --JHvW (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has never heard of this person or his art, why would they want to reference them? If he and his art are unknown except to his followers, then I don't see how he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This person appears to pass the notability threshold (probably per WP:AUTHOR), however this article needs major work. Large portions of this article need to be deleted. For instance, this quote apparently claims that this person possesses telekinetic powers: "Mostly, his experiments to find effortless power were unsuccessful but now and then he would effortlessly move someone. Over time, he learned to produce those effortless results intentionally, mostly through the generation of particular mind-states and feeling-states." I'll try to do some cleanup. SnottyWong squeal 15:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete - I went through and cleaned up the article, and in that process realized how spam-laden it really is. It reads like it was written by Ralston himself, or someone who is close to him, and it relies almost exclusively on primary sources. Much of it is unsourced (and makes some extraordinary claims), and secondary sources do not appear to be forthcoming. Unless secondary sources can be provided which establish the notability (per WP:GNG) of this person, his books, and/or his fighting style, then this should be deleted. SnottyWong verbalize 16:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmmm. I don't agree that it should go entirely (as JHvW remarks, we can pretty well call it established that the man developed Cheng Hsin). However, I'm starting to think the article may have to go all the way back to stub status. I've been looking and I can't (so far) even find which championship he won in 1978.... -- BenTels (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Cheng Hsin was recently deleted at AfD, so basing the notability of this individual on Cheng Hsin is probably not valid. SnottyWong chat 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources supporting the claims can be found. I didn't find any independent sources that support his notability. There are no independent sources in the article, the art he created isn't notable, and I can't find documentation for his world championship. There's a bio of him at usadojo.com, but it turns out that came from the Cheng Hsin home page (hardly independent). The only thing that does seem to be verifiable are his books, but there's no indication that any of them are notable so he doesn't seem to qualify as an author. If someone can find reliable sources supporting notability, I'll reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search his name and "martial arts" shows some results.[13] A nice article about him and his notable accomplishments is found here: [14] Dream Focus 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing reliable sourcing. The "nice article about him" appears to be from an interview with a local paper, with no independent fact checking. It was written years after his claimed world tournament win and doesn't even name the event--it refers to the event as being like the one Bruce Lee attended in "Enter the Dragon." I'm sorry, but that sounds more like the unsupported Frank Dux claims of winning secret no holds barred competitions. There's no doubt that being a world champion would make him notable, I'd just like to see a reliable source. I can't tell who wrote the book review referenced by Dream Focus. Astudent0 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has COI issues and no reliable sources. There are some extraordinary claims, but no supporting evidence. 204.126.132.34 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Exchange Students Society[edit]

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

Organization can barely be verified to have existed, let alone pass WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Prodded five times. Abductive (reasoning) 08:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London bus route 941[edit]

London bus route 941 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another bus route article that offers nothing as to how WP:GNG is met. Nothing in the way of references are provided and none appear to available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Teddybears. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klas Åhlund[edit]

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

Suitable for deletion because there is nowhere near enough coverage to satisfy notability conditions. Though notability might exist in terms of who Ahlund has worked with the fact that the media and industry have provided little coverage about him indicates that he is not notable on wikipedia either. it has been tagged for missing citatiions in BLP articles since may 2010 and no attempt has been made to rectify this. defo WP:BLP here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to Edward, Åhlund doesn't just "know people" but has produced their music; this includes the latest albums of Robyn, with whom he shared a "composer of the year" grammis award in 2005. He is also founding member of a notable band, Teddybears. This article may possibly be deletable on a BLP basis (as currently badly sourced -- the only source is an article that emphasizes how his personal problems after a divorce had affected his then [2004] latest album, something he actually seems to have been unwilling to speak with the reporter about), but the subject is notable and it would be a perfectly valid topic for recreation. --Hegvald (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - borderline case, possibly notable, but rather weak referencing (the one reference was added by me in WPSweden's UBLP drive). Tomas e (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with the Teddybears band article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and writers do not establish notability.Rirunmot 17:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ngensolutions LLC[edit]

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

There is a claim to notability, explicated on the talk page, so A7 does not apply, and that is why I am taking this to AfD: the company is not notable by Wikipedia's standards; coverage in reliable sources is non-existent. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the references and it is notable as it owns television and radio stations in Reno, Nevada
      • Wikipedia doesn't really do the public interest, but thanks nonetheless. In response to your note on my talk page, the public interest of US citizens is not Wikipedia's primary concern. I note also that what you need to explain is how the company meets notability guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those sources are press releases. It hasn't got independent sources so it can't possibly fit WP:GNG. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flanagan (Jewish convert)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, essentially just a personal testimony. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a previous AFD for this article that closed as no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Flanagan (former Minister) ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Everything I find about him revolves around one event, his conversion from Baptist minister to orthodox Jew. The previous AFD closed as no consensus based on the one article is the Jewish week. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the article title is an implied admission that he is known for just one event. And conversion to another faith, even by a minister of religion, is neither unusual nor inherently notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If conversions made you notable, people would be changing religions all the time Vrivers (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic conversion story. This is nothing more than a brief anecdote in the biography of an otherwise unnotable individual. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Delete - I changed religions a few years ago, can I have an article too? No? thought not. A minister's conversion away from his ministry's faith is interesting, but not really notable. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The tone of this discussion thus far leaves much to be desired. It seems that in spite of this article surviving the AfD in January 2009 when it was deemed worthy of being retained, and as indicated in that AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Flanagan (former Minister), when the subject was rightly called a Minister, meaning a high-ranking priest in his previous religion, yet still-and-all he saw fit to leave his former faith and openly convert to Judaism. So this is about a WP:NOTABLE personality who "capped" his spiritual life by conversion to a rival faith, in this case Orthodox Judaism. This is no small matter in the annals of either Christianity or Judaism and it almost never happens and that is why it was so significant. See the very few names mentioned in Category:Converts to Judaism from Baptist denominations. Naturally, many Baptists and Christians automatically felt the need to cut him down to size, and as part of that his article was subjected to all manner of assaults. First he was "downgraded" from "Minister" to mere "convert" and then came the first AfD and now this second one, as well as a number of other attempts to rid WP of this article. It is a pity that the nominator has chosen this role of deletionist of such an important topic and personality in light of Jewish-Christian affairs and yes, spiritual confrontations. For example, there are strong efforts to keep articles about so-called unknown "rabbis" who went over to Christianity, lots of them at Category:Converts to Christianity from Judaism, but now this one in the other direction part of Category:Converts to Judaism from Christianity is facing not just deletion but ridicule. What a pity and a loss to WP openness and inclusiveness of valid topics and biographies. IZAK (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do hope you're not accusing people in this debate of religious bias, because that's a bad direction to go. I've never been a Christian or a Jew so don't go including me in your conspiracy theory, thank you. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no "conspiracy" just read the tone and smarminess of some of the comments on this page. If users wish to make serious comments that's fine, but making wise cracks about a serious subject, especially relating to change of religions, is uncalled for. By the way, how can anyone be assured that "religious bias" is not a factor when they are making a laughing stock of the subject matter as they vote? Even during, and especially during AfD the law and spirit of WP:NPOV must prevail! IZAK (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The last AfD was from over a year and a half ago, and it was kept because the article was new and still needed work, and no consesus could be reached. Since then, this article has been mainly ignored and has not improved since then. The single source has remained alone and this individual has yet to do anything notable since changing his faith. Ishdarian|lolwut 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtney Brooks[edit]

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

Has never played in a fully professional league, and has only played for Wales at under-19 level. He therefore fails this glorified essay, and as far as I can tell the GNG as well. --WFC-- 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --WFC-- 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Watford. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (He doesn't play for Watford anymore.) --WFC-- 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has played in the Football League Cup, a professional competition. Eldumpo (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In no way does a 10 minute cameo against Barnet confer notability under the WP:GNG, nor does Brooks pass the pick-and-mix-test. This is not a policy-based keep !vote and must therefore be discarded by the closing administrator. --WFC-- 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment. So appearing in a professional competition doesn't count? Okay then. Argyle 4 Lifetalk
    • In no way does a 10 minute cameo against Barnet confer notability under the WP:GNG, nor does Brooks pass WP:ARBITRARY. This is not a policy-based keep !vote and must therefore be discarded by the closing administrator. --WFC-- 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't get me wrong, my view is that WP:NSPORTS "doesn't count", as WP:ATHLETE was branded by the community as a complete crock of sh...muck, making NSPORTS recycled, rebranded sh...muck. I'm merely pointing out that this guy doesn't meet the lower notability bar that football editors hold, which strengthens my view that he doesn't pass the slightly higher bar that the pan-wiki community will hold. --WFC-- 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the same goes for NSPORTS. It's the essays fault that deletion discussions are completely devoid of empirical findings and that does reflect how footies vote in other discussions (as in AfDs of games). Sandman888 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of non-trivial coverage in any argument above, nor in any of my GNews searching. I see mentions, not coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a ten minutes cameo shouldn't be enough to pass #2 of WP:NSOCCER. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to agree that the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fadael Mosque[edit]

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

Delete because there is no support for this article in secondary sources. I have checked a number of Syrian guidebooks and travelogues and found no mention of Al-Fadael Mosque in Homs. These include Burns The Monuments of Syria; Darke Syria 2nd ed. (Bradt Travel Guide); Burckhardt Travels In Syria And The Holy Land; Dunston & Carter Lonely Planet Syria & Lebanon; and Balt Syria: A Historical And Architectural Guide as well as a search of Google Books. The article has been marked for lack of any references since March 2007. Bejnar (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is truly not-notable, then it should not be in the list either. See, for comparison, the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that you could find more too, it certainly should be notable, but apparently isn't. One news article on a home town website, a couple of blog entries, and a large number of "false drops" is all that I get from a search using the Arabic name. By the way, when I listed the Afd, I also provided notice at the Mosques task force, hoping that someone there could help. --Bejnar (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This mosque gets a mention in a list of five ancient mosques in Homs on page 162 of Historic cities of the Islamic world by Clifford Edmund Bosworth (ISBN 9789004153882) under the spelling "Al-Fada'il" (with diacritics that I don't know how to enter), but there's no more than a mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a historic in spite of the currently meager sourcing. I would expect there is more in Arabic, but there is no way I can tell. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be consensus above that there is a relative lack of reliable, non-trivial coverage of this topic. Claiming the topic is inherently notable doesn't convince me of much of anything. I need to see sources that are more reliable than the individual opinions of Wikipedia editors. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless an Arabic article lists more information, I see no potential for this article if even locals do not have the urge to expand on it in their own language. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:BLP1E argument does not appear to have been substantially rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

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

Non-notable game show contestant. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons for deletion as above—non-notable game show contestants, both who appeared on eight episodes or less:
Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sottolacqua (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • More pertinently — why any of them? —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Qualified Keep Does WP have a policy acknowledging record-holders in sports? It appears to in some cases (e.g., golf). John Isner, to offer another example, is a pretty non-notable tennis player, except for his record-setting 11 hour match. If it is general policy to acknowledge record-holders, Craig meets that threshold, having broken a record of long standing. 271828182 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your reference to Isner is completely specious, if not outright mendacious. The Isner article contains a lot more information than just "participated in the longest tennis match in history." Mtiffany71 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - un-notable biography. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Delete The only thing that he did was play on Jeopardy for one week. If there is an article on notable Jeopardy contestants, he should be noted there instead. --Carpetmaster101 17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. Not opposed to being mentioned in the appropriate Jeopardy! article/section.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he is only notable for one event (winning many money on a game show) and Wikipedia is not the news. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He broke the records of Ken Jennings for one-day winnings and Larissa Kelly for "Highest 5-game total on Jeopardy!, first 5 games (unadjusted)". Since, as evidenced by those articles, Wikipedia is documenting the "records" aspect of Jeopardy, and he's the holder for two of the more notable ones, it makes sense to have an article on him in Wikipedia. Heatkernel (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who get published in the Guinness Book of World Records, or have a notable athletic record, are notable, even when someone beats their record later on. Dream Focus 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. He broke a show record on the show, but did absolutely nothing else of note. Should he remain in the public eye for a long time á la Ken Jennings, then he'd make the cut. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. No enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)**[reply]
  • Keep There are over 91,400 Google hits for "Roger Craig" Jeopardy and over 130 news articles. It certainly shows the notability even after his run is over. Desperado28
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's been a large amount of media coverage of his record on the show, which occurred only a few days ago. History indicates that the holders of Jeopardy records continue to receive attention for a long time after their accomplishments (similar to holders of sports records). Now that I think of that analogy, I propose that record winners on Jeopardy should be treated like people who have held world records in track & field (athletics), who are deemed notable under WP:ATHLETE. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orlady (full disclosure: Roger is a long-time friend of mine). Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userify per Larissa Kelly, Tom Walsh and John Isner. Maybe re-evaluate AfD when someone breaks his single-day record. (Full disclosure: I think Roger Craig is a badass) -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both I agree with Orlady. These people have earned their spot in the history of one of the most popular game shows. Verifiability is not a problem, and I don't think we need to fret about BLP1E when the "event" is clearly a good thing. (Full disclosure: I have the same real-world name as one of the competitors under discussion here.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This BLP1E only being relevant when the event is a not good thing is news to me. I've never seen that suggested before, and find it a pretty strange interpretation of the rule which, to me, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the event is good, neutral, or catastrophic :). No offense intended, just think that's a very novel take on the rule. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recall, the main impetus to create the rule was to prevent undue harm to people associated with scandals or embarrassing incidents. IMO, this article doesn't really violate the "spirit" of BLP1E. Zagalejo^^^ 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the record is notable enough to get this much news coverage, then it is a notable accomplishment. Dream Focus 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Userfying hoping the editor/author comes back. I'll improve it if possible myself. Some references are available on initial search. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kalarickal Temple[edit]

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

non notable structure, removed prod WuhWuzDat 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment New user's first article prodded two minutes after creation. Prod removed with talk page note: "Its a notable structure and having great history, It is not notable to all persons.. Several articles related to the temple need to be addedd, so it require time.. This is a starting page for the article...and will be improved on the coming days..." Immediately sent to AfD. No welcome on new user's talk page. May be Kalarickal Temple mentioned in Fairs and Festivals of India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu. Perhaps we may find out if we give the new user more than two minutes to inform us. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the book, it is apparently a different temple (Kalarickal Bhagavathy Temple, p. 105). The location doesn't fit, though it is close. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have userfied this, but the creator seems to have retired. Relisting now for other comments. —fetch·comms 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer song[edit]

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

Dicdef, unlikely to expand. This is starting to creep its way back into being a duplicate of the deleted List of answer songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it is not even a widely used term. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not used so much anymore, but it is historically important. There are plenty of references in print. Somebody should be a watchdog and make sure that the examples list doesn't get out of hand. I think there's plenty of information to be added; for instance when Lieber/Stoller threatened to sue Sam Phillips over "Bear Cat".—Chowbok ☠ 08:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable theme in popular music. Incidentally Smokey Robinson's first record "Got a Job" was an answer record, and FURB was an answer record that hit number 1 in the UK...notable? Looks that way. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' provided that some sources are found for the term itself and not just for records which are answer songs.--Salix (talk): 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No outstanding delete !votes. Courcelles 03:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 Ultimate Alien: Fame[edit]

Ben 10 Ultimate Alien: Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television episode, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep And work on sourcing through regular editing. The premiere episode of a notable series is often the most notable of all, as it sets the pace for all that follows in that series. And as the series itself is geting coverage[18] and accquiring a fanbase,[19], that notability began with this premiere episode. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination: agreed. It needs some improvements. JJ98 (Talk) 23:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Timişoara. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Timișoara[edit]

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

unless the list contains a lot of notable buildings (ie those with their own article), then it is not worth creating such articles. the notable buildings can easily be mentioned in city's article. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Timişoara. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. No value added to the encyclopedia by having such a silly list. I might support a merge, too, although I hesitate given how goofy a precedent it might set for future lists of "Tallest Buildings" in any given municipality. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Delete and merge is not a valid AFD outcome, pick one or another. riffic (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • He doesn't actually say that, he says delete or merge. Thank you for the link though, I was not aware of the licensing problem. Yoenit (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
he says he hesitates to support merge, sounds like delete to me. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Yoenit (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Timişoara. While I generally think that "Tallest Buildings" are a legitimate list topic, not being able to come up with 10 good entries indicates that this is a list not ready for primetime and that the relevant information about the biggest few buildings could be neatly merged into the main article. —Carrite, Sept. 22, 2010.
  • Merge and possibly Redirect to Timișoara per comments above. Could be closed due to WP:SNOW. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Timişoara; cities w/ few tall buildings shouldn't have such list—Chris!c/t 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into the city's article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Timişoara. ∙∙∙Pepper 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This one is back via Deletion Review after a bit of a premature closure. I still think MERGE is the correct result for this very specific "Tallest Buildings" list due to the lack of tall buildings in Timișoara. If there were 10 good entries, I'd have no issues with it, speaking for myself. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Delete - unencyclopedic cross-categorization ("tall" building, random city), list not long or notable enough to be meaningful. Of the completed buildings, we're talking about 16 floors max, 12 for most of them, that's just not notable at all and certainly not enough (too trivial) to call for a merge.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: the three buildings with articles also do not pass the notability guidelines and should be deleted as well. There's two counts of WP:CRYSTAL (one is under construction, the other is just a proposal)and one of utter lack of significant coverage (also not completed yet it would appear).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, WP:CRYSTAL clearly says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Both of the buildings are verified with sources and therefore are not violations. ∙∙∙Pepper 22:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You're only looking at one aspect of WP:CRYSTAL, which is the verifiability side. You're forgetting notability. verifiability and notability are two different things. That a building is proposed or under construction can be verified, but unless the proposal or the construction itself are notable, the articles shouldn't be made ahead of time. We cannot predict whether the proposed building will ever be built, or how long construction will take for the other one (due to delays, etc., just as illustration, a friend of mine bought a condo in a tower that has been under construction for a while; supposedly the parking should have been done by last November, and the rest by June 2010, as of now the parking is still not done and the finished condo is expected by May 2011). It's the same as with films and albums prior to shooting or recording. Without evidence of notability in the present, articles shouldn't be made in anticipation of future notability. Besides, even if the buildings were completed now, I doubt they would pass the notability guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the notability guidelines and being the tallest building isn't mentioned at all. Being the tallest maybe of interest to the world i.e. causes them to take note - but in and of itself doesn't meet the notability guidelines. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a particularly compelling argument --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the size of the city should have no bearing on whether or not these lists should exist. It just makes no sense for cities with few tall buildings to even have tallest buildings list. IMO, all of them should be merged back to the city articles.—Chris!c/t 04:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it reasonably sourced? Of the whole list only the first three buildings have a single source in their article (one of these looks like a marketing video on youtube), the others have no article and no sources. We have no source at all to say (in combined/comparative terms) these are the tallest buldings, perhaps we should rename it to "List of buildings in order of height for where wikipedia editors have found some sort of source...", which is what it is, a synthesis of the few sources for a third of the list. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Giver (2011)[edit]

The Giver (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unmade movie in "early development", very few details known. See WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stewart Jamieson[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, BLP lacking citation for most of the article content. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The only easily-verifiable reference is to the website of the 'Royal House of Aragon,' a so-called Royal House without any throne, subjects, or governmental involvement of any sort. I find any involvement with such to be... unpersuasive as to someone's credentials, given the silly number of such 'Royal Houses' extant online, some of which have created severe headaches right here on Wikipedia (further details available on request). → ROUX ₪ 06:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I wondered about that "Royal House" myself. It has been several months since I looked it up, but I think it was a link to an actual King of Aragon that the family claimed, but the Aragon dominion is currently the right of the King of Spain. I am not sure what right they claimed to have over Aragon. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heart of the matter is that Andrew Stewart Jamieson is a leading heraldic artist who has received international recognition for his work (e.g. the award he got at the Ottawa congress, with inline citation). Heraldry may be a limited field, but that does not mean someone can not be outstanding in it. Having made a quick scan of who is mentioned under the rubric of heraldic artists, I can only conclude that Jamieson has just as much right to be there as say Guy Selvester. Richardot (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not want to argue with, "If that guy is in, why not this guy." It jsut might lead to the counter-argument of, "Delete them both, then." Besides, they aren't really that similar, as Guy Selvester is more like a herald who designs the coats of arms for priests and churches, offers simple emblazons, is a man of the cloth who heads his own congregation, is entered into religious orders and a leading expert on Church heraldry. A better comparison would be Anthony Wood, who had a career as great as if not greater than Jamieson's. Wood also taught Andrew Jamieson and Neil Bromley, two of the leading heraldic artists active today. Now, since Wood does not have an article, so then one could argue that Jamieson does not deserve one either. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I would not denigrate the Ottawa congress, it is the other 'qualifications' which bring the man into disrepute by association. And Xander.. one notes that Cathy Bursey-Sabourin has an entry (as she should). What I would like to see is an RS which shows that this particular heraldic artist has done anything significant, which the article does not currently show. → ROUX ₪ 09:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editors, who are fans of Jamieson, have not even bothered to search out sources. Rather they bicker about why citations are needed and prefer to leave the article unsourced. Either they do not believe Wikipedia policy applies to their beloved artist or there are none, either way it is not conforming to the standards required. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per xander — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was not able to find any independent sources writing about Jamieson or his work. His chief claim to notability seems to be that he has received the Corel Prize for Excellence and that he is Catania Herald of the Royal Aragonese College of Arms. These two facts appear to be true, but I cannot find any evidence that they have been written about independently of the organizations which gave those recognitions, so they do not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. As far as I can determine using Google books, he has not been the subject of significant writing in books, either. With no independent, reliable sources writing about this subject, there is no information that could appropriately be included in an article on the subject, and so there is currently no need for an article with this title. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability per policy not shown. A Google news search returned 8 results, none of which were about this subject. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't turn much up on Google about the 'Corel Prize for Excellence', just a few hits here and there. The article says Jamieson was awarded it "at the Governor General's residence" - not by the Governor General. Maybe that's a clue.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Cabral (evangelist)[edit]

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

Was deleted after a PROD in Dec 2009, but undeleted in June with the comment I have restored this article from deletion, believing it to be the biography of a notable person. Please give me a chance - about five days - to link the article to sources confirming his notability. In August I reminded that editor of his statement, but he doesn't seem to have contributed since. The article itself is only referenced to self-published sources, and I don't see any real claim to notability, just an extensive, worthwhile employment history The-Pope (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus for Keep Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyerusalem[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary definition of a given name. Weakly sourced. No indication of significance or potential for expansion. No articles link to it other than a disambiguation page, where its inclusion is questionable older ≠ wiser 02:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a common name in use in Ethiopia, there are multiple sources listed and more can undoubtedly be found and ample opportunities to expand upon the history and usage of the name. One example of a namebearer is currently included. There are also numerous other articles on Wikipedia already about names common in other countries. There is also a group dedicated to expansion of articles about names, as indicated on the discussion page. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There could be use for this if enough information could be found. Or perhaps merge it into a Jerusalem (name) article, as Jerusalem is found as a name and surname occasionally. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eyerusalem is the more commonly used name, though. I haven't heard similar uses of Jerusalem unless it's an Anglicized form of Eyerusalem. This appears to be a very well used name in Ethiopia based on the number of hits for the name on Google. In one list of Ethiopian children it appeared several times as opposed to one or two references for other female names. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Ethiopia. The English Wikipedia would have little reason to have an article on every name that tops the lsit of most popular baby names in Ethiopia. Jerusalem, though rare, appears more often as a name in English sources than Eyerusalem does. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is little reason to have so many articles for similar names, they should be focused to one article which covers the list of variations. Otherwise we end up with the John\Jon\Johnathan\Jonathan mess. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John and Jonathan are two different names with different meanings. As for Eyerusalem and Jerusalem, it is likely that Eyerusalem is also more common in English-speaking countries because emigration by Ethiopian immigrants. I found several references to women and girls named Eyerusalem in newspapers based in the United States over the past months. Jerusalem is not used as a name to any real extent. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One keep vote prefers a stub (?). Non-notable! Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eladio Ribeiro Neto[edit]

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

fails each of the criteria listed WP:Notability for Sports for tennis players, unless I m mistaken Mayumashu (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment *tilts head* The requirements for tennis notability seem to be higher than other sports. Hold on a bit, i'm going to go bring this up on the notability talk page. SilverserenC 22:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started here. SilverserenC 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:TENNIS has only 6 criteria. The material you found on the talk page archive is not the guideline. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    • NOTICE: Recently deleted page recreated Mayumashu (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Give a vote, don't back it up with logical reasoning, there is a huge chance I won't consider the vote worthy. As much as the Delete commentators have supported themselves with policy notes, the keep commentators have brandished emotive appeals. That's the case in many vote comments in this AfD. Allow me to showcase some gems: "Keep: Let this be remembered as a warning to others who consider that path." by Paul (User:Lpgeffen). Another one:"Keep The fact that large numbers of random people such as yourselves are reading and debating about Mitchell Heisman in-itself proves his noteworthiness" by brilliant argumentator Ancient Infant. If the suicide note is notable, prove it using Reliable Sources then create an article on the suicide letter. If the book is notable, use GNG or Notability (books) to prove your point. This article, or BdP if I may tastelessly place it, is a clear delete. If you have issues with this close, contact me on my talk page. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)(struck out two words from the above comment Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)) [reply]

Mitchell Heisman[edit]

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

Sad story. Otherwise unknown 35 year old shoots himself on the Harvard campus. He happens to leave a 1900 page suicide note. But Wikipedia is not a news organization so this article does not belong here. Pichpich (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not the news or a memorial site (only notable for her death]]. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable death—Chris!c/t 04:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or perhaps move the article to "Mitchell Heisman Suicide" or "Suicide Note (book)". There's coverage by five separate journalistic organizations (i.e. who did their own separate investigations, not just reprinting each other's work), including two worldwide news organizations, one in Portugal, plus Gawker (which I didn't reference because they merely repeat the Crimson story). If you read the comment threads on any of the referenced articles, you'll find lots of random people saying things like this:
    • "This man just earned himself a place next to Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche (of course) in the historical records,"
    • "the most important thing I have ever read,"
    • "very well-researched, reads like Nietzsche in its genealogy of liberal democracy. Also like Nietzsche, it apparently brought him to a psychotic break. It seems like he was a witty, thoughtful guy who simply became obsessed by the absurdity of existence."
    • "I sense he has written something important for all of us who have ears to listen to."

Well-known theoretical physicist Luboš Motl described "Suicide Note" as "pretty impressive work" and praised Heisman as "a man of wisdom". Of course, it's only been a week since publication, so it's hard to tell reliably whether this particular work will turn out to have any enduring importance or influence; but all indications so far are that it will. We can hope that it does not influence future scholars to publicize their work in the same manner. Perhaps we should have a deletion discussion in a few months, after secondary sources have had a little bit more time to digest this stuff; right now all we have to work with is the primary source itself and shallow news reports and the like, not real academic analysis. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the note itself stands the test of time as literature, there will be plenty of time later to recreate a page about it, mentioning the biography of its author. As of now, this is just a bit of breaking sensational Newsotainment that is unworthy of inclusion. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
I can see how someone would think that, but I think a careful consideration of the available facts and analysis will show that this book is likely to have substantial historical importance, in popularizing certain philosophical and sociobiological points of view if nothing else. (I am not endorsing those points of view.) We must be careful not to be distracted by our entirely understandable prejudice against suicides in general and publicity-seeking suicides in particular. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, I think part of the success of Wikipedia is that it's an instant Encyclopedia. There's no need to wait until the next year's edition. Wikipedia is an instant encyclopedia. As the times change, so does the record of them! Wikipedia is a valuable source to the Internet in general; and much of that is due to precisely what you're trying to curtail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.180.250 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72...250, it's true that Wikipedia has a major advantage in being able to update quickly; however, another reason it's such a valuable source to the internet in general is that it's reasonably well-maintained, which in part is a function of restricting its scope to things that have enough interest that people will maintain the articles. I'm arguing that this is probably going to be such a thing; Carrite is arguing that it probably is not. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it made blogs, Wikipedia is not governed by such gossip. It made news for two peculiarities, the length of the suicide note (or book, given its length) and for occurring at Harvard, but hardly encyclopedic. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The five blogs currently cited by the article are journalistic publications, not self-published personal blogs, so I think they carry some weight. Of course, journalistic publications have somewhat different standards of notability than Wikipedia, but I think that in this case there is overlap. In a few months we should be able to judge more accurately whether this was just "gossip". Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An extended statement by unregistered IP, no vote was given but safe to think it a "keep". [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Note: When I posted this comment, this article was currently marked as a being considered for deletion.]

How on earth could this article be being considered for deletion? Just because the guy killed himself?

Everyone's focusing now on the fact that Mitchell Heisman killed himself - but so did Cleopatra VII of Egypt, Hannibal, Nero, Virginia Woolf, Sigmund Freud, Ernest Hemingway, Alan Turing, Sylvia Plath, Yukio Mishima, Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Cobain, and Vincent van Gogh... and people don't focus solely on the fact that they ended their own lives, but also on what they produced during their lives.

(A cousin of Heisman's has stated [in a comment at Huffington Post] that he was really affected by the death of his father when he was twelve, and it pushed him into a kind of overly materialistic view of life... which could go a long way towards explaining the kind of materialistic reductionism in his book - and maybe also, in part, his suicide. Heisman also says this in the last chapter of the book.)

Focus on his book, not on his suicide. It's not a fun or perhaps even a "healthy" book to read - but it sure is fascinating. He is attempting to grapple with some fundamental issues at the core of Western civilization. He may be right about some things, and terribly wrong about others - but his book is a serious attempt to address core themes in philosophy, science, politics, and biology - and as such, his book merits analysis, discussion, rebuttal perhaps - and certainly inclusion in Wikipedia (ie, an entry about the author, and eventually an entry about the book itself).

The book (ie, the "suicide note") is quite ambitious, far-ranging and interesting - it presents some extreme and provocative theories about the Jews and Egyptians and the Greeks, the origins of Judaism and Christianity, the Americans and the English (which he breaks down into the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans), tribes and races, biology and technology, God as artificial intelligence / Kurzweil's "Technological Singularity" (sometimes paraphrased as the idea that God hasn't actually been invented yet), Darwin and Nietzsche and Marx and Jefferson (and Leo Strauss and Hitler)... It ends with a very moving self-examination describing his exaggerated objectivity, his inability to take his own emotions seriously.

He does ignore lots of things which seem crucial to me (like the collapse of Gaia, which seems to me to be the central fact of existence today and which probably doesn't leave much time for the Singularity to ever take place - or even just basic human experiences such as love and happiness*), but within the limits of his discourse (which is still pretty broad, encompassing a lot of the classic major intellectual themes of western civ), he raises some interesting issues in unusual ways.

[*Actually, now that i've gotten to the end of it (the "punchline" chapter), i see that there IS a section about normal human emotions such as love, which he admits he basically analyzed away, with his obsession with being materialistic and objective and his experiment in nihilism.]

The middle of the book contains a lengthy (and possibly quite original) historical analysis attempting to show that the American Civil War was not fought to liberate the black slaves - it was instead just a kind of tribal warfare between the people of Massachusetts (Anglo-Saxons) and the people of Virginia (Normans) - as revenge for the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England way back in 1066. I'd never heard of this theory, as i'm not very well informed on historiography - i wonder if it's original with him. At any rate, it's quite interesting.

At the beginning of the book, he claims that the Jewish invention of their God was a way to escape their enslavement by the Egyptians. Again, I'm not sure if this is original or not - but again, it's quite an interesting assertion.

There's lots of other stuff - some of which may or may not hold any water - it's definitely the strangest thing i've ever seen since Schreber's memoirs or Deleuze & Guattari's Anti-Oedipus - wildly outrageous in some places but also weirdly lucid in other places...

I wonder what kind of reaction this book will provoke over time... I certainly don't know what to make of it myself, except maybe to view it as something which should be warded off. Is it just a very extreme view of history? Or maybe a symptom (or a diagnosis) of a mad civilization (or of a mad individual)? Could merely reading it be a sign (or a cause) of madness?

It makes me wonder: what if aliens from another planet stumbled across this book? If they studied enough human history and learned enough English to be able to process what it says, would they be aghast at a species and a civilization and an individual that could produce such a strange stream of symbols?

If one accepts James Lovelock's assertion that humanity is indeed killing Gaia, then the individual nihilistic self-destructiveness documented by this book could serve as to document the planetary nihilistic self-destructiveness of civilization itself.

I do feel like his book like a car wreck, and i'm a rubber-necker. Again, this does not mean that this author and this work should be excluded from wikipedia. Reading Kafka also gave me the creeps, but Kafka has a page in Wikipedia too.

Basically, i would say that this book represents a kind of twisted culmination of Western thought, a blow-by-blow description of someone who pushed certain Western notions of objectivity and materialism to their ultimate conclusion and thereby painted himself into a corner - perhaps somewhat along the lines of Kafka's short parable "A Little Fable" about a mouse who thought the world was so big, until the walls appeared, and started closing in on him, and he ran in every which way, confused, until a cat told him to change directions - and ate him.

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/LittFabl.shtml

Heisman's book is a fascinating examination of where Western thought can lead, if pursued ad absurdum. As such, perhaps it can serve as a warning to some people, as a counter-measure, a cautionary tale, telling us where we might end up if we embrace truth and objectivity in extreme over life and subjectivity.

I'm not saying that everything in the book makes sense - but it is certainly a poignant document expressing one individual's attempt to understand his place in the universe. He himself accepted that he had "failed", and acknowledged this in the last chapter. It is touching to see how he tried to anchor himself in the world of emotions by listening to music - specifically to Bach (perhaps not the most inspiring musician to listen to - as in my opinion Bach is himself rather reductionist, mathematical - ie not terribly emotional.)

But, as I remarked above, Sylvia Plath and Curt Cobain and Vincent van Gogh are all in wikipedia, and they all produced fascinating works, and they all destroyed themselves. Mitchell Heisman probably falls into the same category as them - a great mind who willed his own demise - and his far-ranging work does constitute an ambitious attempt to make some sense of the trajectory Western civilization itself. Whether we regard his work and his life as a failure or not, it certainly is an interesting enough case to be included in wikipedia.

Whoa, can we put a hat on this? Ishdarian|lolwut 07:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable event, and even it if wasn't a notable event, the work is definitely notable. It's a notable event, as it gets discussed more and more, people are going to show up here looking for more information about the author's life. I know, I just did. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates scads of policies, especially BLP1E. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E indicates that we should rename the article to be "Mitchell Heisman Suicide" or "Suicide Note (book)", not delete it. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that BLP is not exactly relevant for someone who just committed suicide. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"BLP1E" is a misnomer. The notability guidelines for people notable for only one event say nothing about being alive or dead. And renaming the entry after the event instead of the person is only an option when the event itself is notable, which it isn't. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hairhorn, can you elaborate on the remaining scads of policies ostensibly being violated? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of the non-notability of one who is known for a single event of non-historic importance. In addition, it would be a terrible precedent to allow a Wikipedia memorial article to stand for someone who just killed themselves this month. We're not here to give the Wikipedia seal of approval to creative or stylish suicides. Dude wasn't notable and leaving the world's longest suicide note might get him into the Guinness Book of World Records (although I doubt they'd want to encourage that behavior either), but it most certainly should not get him in Wikipedia. —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
Wikipedia article coverage is limited to topics that are notable, not topics that receive a seal of approval. Disapproval is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, this is a clear case of ONE EVENT notability which should make deletion an obvious call. It is ALSO a terrible precedent to allow a memorial here. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
I agree that Wikipedia is not a place for memorial pages and that the article cannot be justified as a memorial page. I think it's very likely to turn out to be a notable event and book, though, which suggests renaming rather than deleting the page. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, is it REALLY just ONE EVENT? It seems like TWO events to me... 1) He committed suicide on a major holiday, in a major public location. His suicide had news articles written about it before his name was even known (or perhaps it wasn't released on purpose.) His suicide had news articles published about it before it was known he had written and released this 'book'. 2) He released this long 'book.' This book itself may have been/may be worthy of an article on it's own as the so-far analysis (as above) already makes a note the intricacies of it's theories. (Lets face it, even no matter what the quality of this work, even horrible works get some attention.) Yes, his book gets a heck of a lot more attention because of the proximity of it's release to his suicide, as well as it's title/intended 'use' as a suicide note; and similarly his suicide is made a lot more interesting because of it. If anything, I think this is one reason why his suicide seems so pointless -- if he could create such a thing on a whim, imagine what he could have possibly done with the rest of his life had he not died. Either way, I count two events here. Centerone (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's notable enough for the New York Post and Huffington Post, it's notable enough for wikipedia. 24.18.46.29 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general that is not the case — the Huffington Post reports frequently on daily trivia that are not notable in the long term, and the New York Post even more so — but it does represent some kind of evidence in that direction, because the event is clearly more notable than the vast majority of suicides. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horrible car crashes in the New York area are typically reported on in each of the major NY papers. It's called daily news and it belongs at WikiNews. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pichpich, I concur, but don't think this is a similar case. Horrible car crashes in the New York area are not typically discussed over the following weeks in the Huffington Post (based in California), whatever the Boston equivalent of the New York Post would be, the blogs of Czech theoretical physicists, and Portuguese, Turkish, and Romanian newspapers. Strangers don't usually comment on blogs about how the car crash changed their lives. Published poets don't call for a performance reading of the car crash. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to be notable enough not to warrant deletion. As a student of philosophy, I suggest that it be reviewed to determine the exact nature of the suicide note so that it can be expanded upon in the article. The note is 1905 pages in length and over 500,000 words. 124.168.8.164 (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC) — 124.168.8.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Until the Guinness Book proclaims this the longest suicide note in history, his suicide and his suicide note have had no notable influence on the world outside the people he knew. Kingturtle (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - wikipedia is just a blog anyway so who cares about whether it's "notable". People need to stop taking wikipedia so seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.252.135 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is not a blog. There are policies with regards to notability.—Chris!c/t 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's obviously the longest 'suicide note' in history. Is that really a point of contentious debate? I don't think we need Guiness to recognize that, when it is blatantly obvious. (I also believe it is unlikely that Guiness would ever use this as a category or record, since I would expect that they would not wish someone to try to break the record.) That being said, there are plenty of suicides on wikipedia with people who may only be notable by one thing, or for the reason or circumstances of their suicide..(i.e. one known distinctive trait/issue, and the suicide, or just the reasoning for the suicide, or outcome of the suicide which makes them notable) which makes them notable, some may be even less 'notable'. We have List of suicides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suicides_due_to_cyber-bullying, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_committed_suicide_in_prison_custody, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religious_people_who_committed_suicide, List_of_drug-related_deaths, etc. -- note I am placing lists here.. you can go through the individual ones. Surely at least a man who writes a 1900 pg (okay, lets take that with a grain of salt since in many cases the formatting makes it so long) -- but even a 400 or 500 page book would probably be the longest manifesto left as a statement upon ones suicide. Is he really any less notable than someone who commits suicide because of reason x,y, or z? Several of these people seem to be only notable because of the way their families reacted to the suicide after the fact, and/or for the circumstances related to the suicide. Centerone (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would have some weight if you could find in that list someone who's sole claim to notability is the suicide. Pichpich (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all the students are like: 'they led a regular life, committed suicide, the reaction to the suicide was dealt with in the news' with Leah Betts the opening statement to the article is: "Leah Sarah Betts (1 November 1977[1] – 16 November 1995) was a schoolgirl from Latchingdon in Essex, England. She is notable for the extensive media coverage and moral panic that followed her death several days after her 18th birthday." David Kennedy's entry seems to be explained by: 'he was related to famous people, he led a relatively uneventful/average life, got addicted to drugs and died early.' There are plenty of others. Centerone (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK maybe my vote isn't that important since I'm just a casual user, not someone deeply involved in Wikipedia like most of the people on here seem to be. However, I will say that this Wikipedia page served it's function for me: I heard the name "Mitchell Heisman" and immediately searched Wikipedia and found what I was looking for. I hate coming here and not finding something; even a tiny "stub" is often very useful. Unless server space is a massive issue, I don't see the harm in keeping this small article to help others who, like me, surfed in from the Web looking for exactly what this article provides. 141.154.114.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC). — 141.154.114.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The issue is not server space (all the text on Wikipedia is tiny compared to the images) but maintenance effort and verifiability. If a page discusses a topic that has little coverage by reliable sources and little interest by Wikipedia editors, then nobody will bother to fix even obvious vandalism, and it becomes difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, so subtle vandalism becomes impossible to fix. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am amazed and truly entertained by the policies and procedures of this forum. I wonder if this cold calculating process isn't in some way similar to Mitch's process itself. Cold calculation, like that of a panicked bureaucrat, that brought him to his death. He was my friend, and I am one of three primary sources for most of the articles sited, but I'm not here for that reason. I'm here to say that whether or not you do delete it doesn't matter. If Wikipedia was truly striving to present accurate information on unique events, I think this articles inclusion is a "no brainer." However, Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information on things that the public has interest in, with any controversy either expunged or in constant conflict. Wikipedia is a positive force, I use it all the time and I thank you for your service. However it is limited by these factors. Why not unburden yourselves from this discussion and delete the article. Like your forefather, the Nelson television rating system, you can always reinstate the article at a future date when the real determining factor of popularity is more settled. After all, you do have a page for the Jonas Brothers don't you? Was that determined by merit or sheer popularity? I'm sure I wouldn't know. You can commence with my expulsion now. Cheers. 209.6.76.165 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)JLN — 209.6.76.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This must be incredibly difficult for you; I wish there was something I could say that would make a difference next to the enormity of what happened a week ago. Do you have an opinion about whether people will still be writing about what Mitch did and thought in 2020? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I partially wished this would all blow over. But I've read much of the book and much of the reaction and I think his work has enough heft and the events enough tragedy to become something mythic. It seems like this is happening, I guess its what he wanted. I do think his book and actions are notable, not because of suicide, but because of the apparently long planned process and scholastic endeavor that ended in suicide. Someone said that he thought himself to death. I think there is truth it in. I don't think Mitch will go away, but I don't think he's going to be embraced by the general public. I think he is a cautionary tale to all thinkers that I hope does not cause copy cat events. I also think that there is much more of this kind of writing to come. Many futurists are writing about the end of times, not referring to Religious references, but to the end of humanity, rise of machines or the rise of a uni-mind. I think his life and death is an important moment in that genre of discussion, not because he was the first to see this, but because as someone with Asperger's syndrome in a world where more an more of us are "empathetically handicapped" he is a canary in our coalmine.209.6.76.165 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)JLN[reply]
Thank you. I didn't realize he had Asperger's. I'm tempted to ask more questions but I don't think this is the place for it, and maybe not the time; if you want to discuss further, my email address is on my user page. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addressing Mitchell Heisman's notability I would like to cite the numerous journal publications and blogs written about him as a secondary or accessory reason. What primarily substantiates his biography notability is the guidelines of Wikipedia's own Deletion Policy. Mitchell Heisman is worthy of notice; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." His 1,095 page book has been published and it is unusual. It also holds the supremely relevant disclaimer at the initial start of the book: being wary of suppression. This is not all.
    A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
    • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
But interesting =/= notable.—Chris!c/t 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or move the article to "Mitchell Heisman Suicide" or "Suicide Note (book)" --Jkfp2004 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a memorial.—Chris!c/t 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename "Suicide Note (book)" Bhny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Much as I appreciate the NOTNEWS principle, this isn't routine reporting of news but reflects a very unusual manner of death with philosophical import. It's notable not so much for the length of the suicide note but for the intellectual effort to critique the Western view of life, culminating, apparently, in the author's taking of his own life as "an experiment in nihilism". Now it may be Heisman doesn't deserve notability, and if he had not pulled a stunt like publicly committing suicide his treatise would have gone unnoticed. But as you know, we don't decide here who deserves to be notable; rather we observe coverage in reliable sources. I only came to this article after first reading about Heisman in the Boston Globe, which portrays him as intelligent and having diligently worked on his strange project over five years. This article is, however, hard to classify: maybe it should be "Mitchell Heisman suicide". What's most notable - what attracted media coverage - seems to be the event and the context and meaning of it, as opposed to the man or the book alone.Fletcher (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting point. It does seem that a number of the people voting "delete" were doing so explicitly because they wish suicides were less notable and want to deny them coverage, despite current Wikipedia policy advocating against such activism. It's troublingly recursive, in that Wikipedia's principles fairly clearly require that Wikipedia provide publicity to this book that in a sense attacks the liberal, rationalistic values upon which those principles are based, and which will almost certainly result in copycat suicides — but "publishing this information will result in suicides" has been decided not to be a valid reason for deleting articles from Wikipedia.
Thank you very much for the link to the Boston Globe article; I hadn't read it before.
It seems that we're coming to a consensus on "keep" at this point, as more information about Heisman and his book are becoming available. Of the 13 votes cast so far since the beginning of the 26th of September, only two are "delete"; the other 11 are "keep", although one of those is presumably a joke, describing Wikipedia as a "blog". By contrast, the people who came to a conclusion during the first day of the discussion, the 25th, leaned strongly toward "delete": eight "delete"s and only four "keep"s. I think it's safe to assume that most of those early voters weren't particularly well-informed about the issue at the time; the article barely even qualified as a stub, the comprehensive Globe article hadn't yet come out, and some of them likely hadn't even read the news coverage linked as sources. It seems likely that if their conclusion had been more informed, most of them would have voted "keep". Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but all three examples you give involve more than death, as the deaths resulted in "moral panic" and drug prevention related campaigns and legislation, thus there is something of an impact of those deaths that goes beyond the initial news coverage. Here, the news cycle is very short, after the unusual "whoa, 1900 pages suicide note" initial reaction, there's nothing else to say. No one is going to start an suicide prevention campaign based on this event.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems almost certain at this point that there will be a lot more said about this book in the coming years, and it could turn out to be something more significant (for good or ill) than a suicide prevention campaign. Just look at the comments by the people who have read some or most of it. Heisman predicted that it would result in a moral panic that involved suppressing the work itself; I'm interested to see whether that comes to pass. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I already stated there are a significant number of similar entries with little or no reason for notability. As I stated, besides these, as just one example there is David Kennedy he lived a relatively uneventful life before he died early due to drug addiction. His sole claim to fame is that he was related to famous people. His death did not even result in a "moral panic"! Anyways, note that these articles are not titled for the "moral panic" or any campaigns or efforts that result due to their deaths -- which may (or may not) be notable, but rather are detailing individuals who have little to no notability of their own. They are notable solely due to their (accidental) death or (intentional) suicide and what it led to. As I also mentioned above, not only was his suicide being covered by the press before there was any knowledge of his book, but his book is a separate area of notability, and is being extensively discussed in many places. At very least his death is resulting in a "moral panic" and AfD discussion on Wikipedia! Oh my! :D Centerone (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Its worthy of something to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.252.58 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 in an unknown timezone (maybe Florida?)
I've slightly revised the markup in the above comment to leave the page easier to read. I don't yet know who wrote it. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I've added a signature aping SineBot's. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that large numbers of random people such as yourselves are reading and debating about Mitchell Heisman in-itself proves his noteworthiness, and memorability beyond the news, and beyond this mortal coil RIP... If you need a technical argument for a keep vote try this on for size-- WP:PERP. Since "Suicide has historically been treated as a criminal matter in many parts of the world" (see Suicide legislation), and point 3 of WP:PERP outlines that a crime is notable if "3. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event", the article should be kept. NB. please do not construe from this argument that I believe suicide is a crime, which I don't. It's just an argument to save this article from deletion. It was the first potentially valid argument I could find while going down the page Wikipedia:PEOPLE from the top. Ancient Infant (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it his work suicide not is a good read and may be important to keep around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.30.143 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly revised the markup in the above; I think it should be read as "Keep it. His work, Suicide Note, is a good read, and may be important to keep around." In passing I would like to note that we are not discussing whether to delete Suicide Note but rather an encyclopedia article about it. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a very tangential reason for this recommendation: the person and his story are a contribution to philosophy and quite simply, a proof that philosophy is not dead, and that the quest for the meaning of life is not just a Woody Allen joke. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How are other events, even as important as the Holocaust, different in the discussion whether this article would encourage copycats (which as far as I can see would be the only real objection)? Should the Holocaust article be deleted because someone might decide to repeat or carry on those events? The problem lies in whether his thoughts are of any value, other than just understanding what goes threw the mind of someone trying to commit suicide, and that can only be evaluated in time ie once reviews and critical analysis have had time to disseminate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciuchy (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the article should be kept, I think there are some significant differences from your Holocaust example. There are stronger countervailing forces to genocide than there are to suicide, ranging from simple compassion to the fear of a violent response. It has been convincingly shown that copycat suicides are in fact fairly common. I know of no such evidence about genocides. And, while I agree that some of the people voting "Delete" seem to be motivated purely by a desire to deny Heisman publicity because of the manner in which he became notable, and that those votes should therefore be disregarded, others legitimately assert that his work simply is not notable, which is a higher bar than merely "any value".
The evidence we currently have (the opinions of the few dozen people who have already read the book, and the news articles) strongly suggests that his work will have lasting notability. But if it suggested, rather, that Heisman would be reduced to a trivia question in short order, then we ought to delete the article, even if his thoughts did have some value other than just understanding the cause of his suicide. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are many news reports of the event of Heisman's death and many discussions of his opus. The laziest of Google searches will demonstrate that this article possesses notability, and it would be prudent to assume much of the opposition to its presence is likely due to the circumstances surrounding its notability. We can be sure that there will be literary and film follow-ups to this event as well analysis of the text of his suicide note in the near future. Let's not forget that there's an accepted and useful article for Christine Chubbuck, who published nothing yet is noteworthy only for the public nature of her suicide and the news and discussion surrounding it -- yet, there's no question of its validity as an article. TeamZissou (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The primary grounds for deletion seem to be based on notability. Authoring a book and the latter suicide are plainly two separate events. Furthermore there's very clear interest outside the normal news cycles into the contents of Mr. Heisman's writings. At first glance his work is easily on the level Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto. Xtraeme (talk) 23:07, 1 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. Nom withdrew. Notability beyond doubt. Keep! Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four boxes of liberty[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. I can find no reliable sources. I have read it online elsewhere, but that does not make it notable. As an aside, the article previously had a blogpersonal webpage as a source (going against WP:SPS). There is a possible COI as well. Evil saltine (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn per new sources added. Evil saltine (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Striking my vote, the article has had much improvement, and looks good to keep. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is clearly notable, but, it needs a reference. BlueRobe (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I challenge you to present some in support of your argument, then. I went looking, and I discovered that whoever the Dan Skinner who is supposed to have said this is, it isn't Daniel Skinner. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I moved it from the (now) disambiguation page Four boxes to Four boxes of democracy and added some sources. Possibly "Four boxes of liberty" would be a better title. It seems to be a fairly widely used concept in the pro-gun lobby (search results), even though there are no books or scholarly articles on the subject. Note that the link to this article from the article on the originator of the meme, Ed Howdershelt, also recently nominated for deleted, was removed just before the nomination. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references added are reliable sources. They are all blogs, message boards, or self-published websites (Howdershelt refers to Abintra Press as "my website" [20]). These sources don't establish notability. Evil saltine (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The refs show a wide variety of independent sources which seem sufficient to establish notability. Possibly the concept is mentioned in some newspaper articles. I am inclined to give it the benefit of doubt. Seems harmless, probably useful to readers, not SYNTH. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the general notability guideline, notability is established by reliable sources. Multiple questionable sources don't add up to a reliable source. The article has existed since December 2008 without reliable sources being added; this suggests it is unlikely to happen in the future. We can always recreate the article if the phrase gains notability that can be reliably sourced. Evil saltine (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources that may be considered reliable: Anti-Defamation League, American Journal of Political Science and Time Magazine. They do not support the concept, but report its use. I suspect there are many more reliable reports on usage of the meme buried in the mountain of sites that quote it. The self-published sources, advocacy sites etc. would not be considered reliable sources for a discussion of the concept, but are valid sources to illustrate its use. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete rationales of Xanderliptak, Aymatth, Libstar, and even Evil saltine, are clearly pertinent. One statement remains in closing this as delete, "After six years, if this is all that is present, it shows there is no notability." I'm playing to the gallery, but what the heck. Well said Xanderliptak. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Howdershelt[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. This article was previously deleted in 2004 for a similar reason and then recreated in 2008. I think it is better to put it through AFD once more than to speedy delete it, since WP policy has obviously changed quite a bit since 2004, and the article has existed for a couple years (a few more days won't do much harm). Evil saltine (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After six years, if this is all that is present, it shows there is no notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP . According to the guideline on Notability, the article requires verifiable evidence.
Ed Howdershelt has been a best-selling author in a number of online bookstores during the last few years, including FictionWise (a Barnes and Nobles company) and MobiPocket (Independent e-book store with a proprietary e-book software), and during the last decade has been appearing more and more in the web as an author worthy of note. An internet search generates a large number of hits from independent e-book websites, and I propose that more are not present simply because he does not do much promotion besides “word of mouth” by his readers or his participation in different conferences and events. As a former intelligence operative, Mr. Howdershelt is limited in the information he can divulge, and has been trained to avoid public notoriety, yet this does not detract from his effect on the science fiction genre, as more and more readers (and authors) take note of his style and ideas.
Mr. Howdershelt counts with over a dozen volunteer proof-readers (six of which are very active, even reviewing published texts for typo’s and other inconsistencies). If you need a list of these volunteers for validation purposes, you may start with me, Mr. Manuel F. Perez, MPA, CAMS, (New York City). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manperez (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC) — Manperez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reliable sources are required to support these claims. Also, Wikipedia does not publish original research, meaning that personal knowledge of a subject is not acceptable as a source. Evil saltine (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Vegetable Center[edit]

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

Seriously promotional article written by two accounts affiliated with the organization that needs a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Even the refs are questionable at this point. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Completely unsourced material. About a half-dozen external links, but not citations. Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and sources provided. Recommendation changed to 'keep.' Mtiffany71 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Plenty of citations, now...ResMar 03:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References have been added, though they weren't that hard to find at all. Just click the Google News or Google Books links at the top. Bam. Presto. SilverserenC 04:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of the person adding information to WP to provide sources and citations at the time they are adding it, no one else's. Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true, it is also the responsibility of the nominator of an AfD to make an attempt at finding proper sourcing for an article, per WP:BEFORE #9. SilverserenC 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'd love it if there's a policy that enforces that any and each comment by an iVoter in an AfD should necessarily be supported by a link to a policy/guideline/relevant deletion discussion archive. I find many of the comments philosophical (Chris, for example, writes "population has nothing to do with baseball" so delete; but later, refines it with a reference to Synthesis). Considering the improvement in the article post nomination, and considering that established editors like Secret, Blanchard and others have given their views pertinently, there is no consensus for delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball teams by population[edit]

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

This page is list cruft. It's also original research, what with the non-MLB cities included. Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Population has nothing to do with baseball.—Chris!c/t 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete City population indeed has nothing to do whatsoever with a baseball team. Article is entirely original research and includes population statistics for cities that do not have a team. None of the sources even specifically mention baseball. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this important? Or notable for that matter? (And why not use metro areas?) Matchups 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote due to changes in article. 01:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think I even understand this list. Why is Edmonton, AB on it? Weird. Wknight94 talk 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Abstain per Brian Halvorsen's changes. Wknight94 talk 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cities that geographically and demographically qualify for a hypothetical Major League Baseball team are also included for comparison purposes. Who has decided that Quebec City should be included and not Montreal? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep. Concerns have been addressed by a complete rewrite of the article. I suggest expanding to include all metro areas that ever had teams in any league considered major, that is, any league listed under America-Major or America-Defunct-Major on this template. And yes, I'd include Altoona. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not clear why this information is significant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am withdrawing my recommendation because the article has changed since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I am confused about the article as well, I do have to say, market size is something in baseball that receives quite a bit of coverage. Being from Portland, Oregon, I can tell you how I always hear that we're a bigger metro area than other towns that have teams, so I can kind of see where the editor was going with this. But that being said, this article isn't about market size. Including towns that don't house major league franchises makes the list very confusing and the article offers very little encyclopedic value. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content analyzing baseball teams and market size might be interesting - and may already exist somewhere. But this list thing is not the way to go. Wknight94 talk 12:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's definitely been done, ad nauseum. However, when it is done, it is typically done using the much more indicative metropolitan area than just by the size of the city itself. -Dewelar (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think that's the (most) odd part about the list. The metropolitan areas of the teams are the reason for having the teams in that market. Here's an interesting list that is more clear, thorough, and incorporates metro areas. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, populations don't have anything to do with baseball, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Populations don't have anything to do with any sport as a matter of fact. – Michael (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course they do. They're not putting a professional sports franchise in Birkenfeld, Oregon any time soon because it would never draw a crowd. That's not the argument we should be making. The argument should be that there are better ways of covering population of the towns that house major league franchises. I personally think it's better to just cover it in the team's article rather than list form. We should cover how the population of the metro area (not the city alone) factored into the franchise being created in that area. And last but not least, leave out areas that don't house major league franchises, unless they did at one time. --Brian Halvorsen (talk)
  • Delete Entirely WP:OR. Even if it wasn't, size of city means little. Size of metro area -- or perhaps size of broadcast area -- might be a better method, and certainly a method for which sources would be much more readily available. Simply sourcing the city size provides nothing encyclopedic. -Dewelar (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Abstain pending a potential relisting. -Dewelar (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Metro populations, not city political borders, determine team locations. And including non-baseball cities is WP:OR at its worst.oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Holy crow, that's the best turn around for an article I've ever seen! oknazevad (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I re-created the list, removing the non-MLB cities and added metro areas, MLB population ranks and U.S. ranks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Halvorsen brian changes, now it shows a link between baseball and population, books like the Bill James Baseball Alamac describes the change between population and metro areas, it's not WP:OR and most of the delete voters doesn't give any policy based reasoning. It can easily be a WP:FL or even an WP:FA if you write about the changing demographics on baseball. Secret account 02:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per self changes. Agreed with Secret, the connection between baseball and population is now clear. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after noticing the changes. I think that Halvorsen brian did an amazing job in making my list more encyclopedic. It looks better than ever now and the look of the article is more professional now. GVnayR (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I'm not changing my vote (there's still no context for the list, and I'm not sure what pages would link to it besides), I'd suggest that it might be best to withdraw the nomination given the wholesale change in the article's focus. As it stands, people who have already !voted may not have revisited it since voting, and should have the opportunity to view it afresh. -Dewelar (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still don't see the point of the article - it just rehashes the US metro table with only the cities for baseball teams (and throws in Toronto) - the original creator clearly doesn't get the point - he just added a section on player demographics, which obviously has nothing to do with the article (and I just removed). Maybe if it could be expanded further, based on how MLB defines is teams' markets (via TV/radio markets) - since team primary fan bases in almost all cases go well beyond their metro area - although that may be heading into WP:OR, depending on what info is out there. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not changing my vote even after the rewrite. Right now this list is still an intersection of two essentially unrelated features. This violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Also there is no need for this article to exist. If one is interested, they can just go to the MLB city articles to look up the population. To say this can easily become a WP:FL is an overstatement.—Chris!c/t 04:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SYN is about combining sources to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The list in no way does that. It is a fact that the Phoenix metropolitan area houses the Diamondbacks and it is also a fact that the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of the said metro area is 4,364,094. The two are connected because market size is essential to where Major League Baseball teams are located. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the population and the team's locations are sourced individually. And then the list uses the sources to imply there is a connection between the two essentially unrelated features. To indicate this connection exists, you need a source that explicitly shows this. Please explain how that doesn't violate WP:SYN.—Chris!c/t 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what it states. Combining sources in not a violation. If I have a source saying the Washington Senators play in Washington, D.C. and another saying the metro population of Washington is 5,476,241 than I can conclude that the Washington Nationals play in a Washington, D.C. which has a metro population of 5,476,241. But if I had a source saying that the Cubs and White Sox play in Chicago and another that states there is a high rate of crime in the area, I can't state that "Since there is a high crime rate in Chicago, some of it takes place at Cubs and White Sox games." Although probably fact, it is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" per WP:SYN. The case we have now is a source that locates teams to their home town and another source that states the population of those towns. All of it is stated in the sources, none of of it is an "advance [of] a new position". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but that's the catch. If you're implying a connection, then it violates WP:SYN unless there's a source that describes the connection. If you're not implying a connection, then why is it notable? -Dewelar (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is baseball-almanac a reliable source? It certainly doesn't look reliable to me. As of now my vote still stands unless I can be convinced that such connection exists and it is covered by independent secondary sources.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't convince myself that this is useful. But since most of my concerns are addressed. Thus, I am switching to abstain.—Chris!c/t 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That pretty much echoes my feeling. -Dewelar (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to request that the deletion discussion either be re-listed or kept open for longer than usual since the product is different and the vast majority of concerns by users has been addressed. We have identified Baseball Almanac as a reliable source, debunked the WP:SYNTHESIS concern, connected population to teams (if that is not clear, the population of the are defines the market size), and removed all original research. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be kept open longer. I still think delete, but I'm uncertain at this moment. Yeah the more I think about this, the more I think it's unnecessary per Blahblah32blahblah --Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful data for further reference whenever the subject of "big market" and "small market" baseball teams comes up (and it does come up, frequently, in discussions about baseball and other sports). Whichever user said "Population has nothing to do with baseball" is 180 degrees off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Market size isn't defined by the teams immediate metro area... This would then create something that is very misleading. A team's home market goes well beyond just 1 metro area per team in almost every case. Take for example the Red Sox. Would you say their market is confined to just Greater Boston (which isn't even an official metro designation)? That leaves out Maine... New Hampshire... Vermont... Rhode Island...Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly there is going to be some percentage of each game's attendance comprised of vacationers or fans who made a special trip. But unlike football, which is only played once a week, baseball is played every day; and the regular attendees are likely to come from the immediate metro area. Without its regular attendees, a team won't last long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: The rewriting of the page has completely altered the discussion, so it is beneficial to keep it open longer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an entirely different article, and a much better one. One of the failings of the original list (which looked like this when it was nominated) was that it operated under the assumption that the fan base was confined to the people residing within the city limits. The use of the metropolitan population info and the addition of context (by Brian Halvorsen), and the mentioning of areas without teams as a sentence rather than as part of the list, are all marked improvements. He and User:GVnayR have responded to the objections presented by the original article. Mandsford 15:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Brian. Amending my statement to give credit where credit was due. Mandsford 02:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as the info here is not relevant enough to be anything else than a footnote on Current Major League Baseball franchises. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has undergone a large revamp since original nomination, removing any notion that it is nothing more than cruft. Well-sourced, noteworthy article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs) 07:12, September 24, 2010
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to do with baseball. As for market analysis, that is for advertisers, not encyclopedias. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated before, you're thinking of television and radio markets. This pertains to the people who attend the game. That has nothing to do with advertising. And even if it did, there is nothing against covering a business strategy. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People that attend the game? There are 19 million people that attend the Mets? I did not realize how large these stadiums really were, they appear to be much smaller in person. It looked to me this was a lsit that showed the population of the cities the teams were located in. So what? There is a list of cities by population already, there is no need for a list of cities with just baseball teams, a person can cross refernce that information easily, if they ever needed it, which is not likely. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has EVERYTHING to do with baseball, or professional baseball anyway. There are plenty of sources that talk about the issues faced by smaller-market teams, so this list is not "synthesis", it's merely a quantifying of established information. Baseball is entertainment, and it's all about money. The constant quest is to bring more people into the stadiums. And that's harder to do if your market is smaller. As Bill Veeck once said, "If you had to depend on the 'true fan' for your revenue, you'd be out of business by Mother's Day." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is nice and all, but this article is just a list of cities by population which happens to have a baseball team. It does not cover anything, no theories, no analysis of markets or 'true fan' versus passing interest attendance. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My opinion has not changed - maybe if the article had a new title I'd be able to rethink things. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we going to keep relisting this until enough people come along and say "delete" or can we just close this as no consensus already?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs) 17:39, September 25, 2010
  • I agree, I didn't see the need to keep it open. But I think the keeps have it by a comfortable margin (one user voted delete twice and another is now semi-retired). Also, no one on the delete side has made a valid argument in my opinion. Population is directly related to baseball, we have proven that with the sources cited in the article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By two is not a comfortable margin, and that is only after so many deletes have struck there vote. It is no consensus. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of votes is not what counts in an AfD. Just saying "I don't like it", which many users have, is not a valid argument. Population is directly related to baseball. That is why there are two teams in the most populous cities in America. It is about who attends the game. Not all 19 million will attend a game, but you have a better chance of pulling some of those 19 million. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not just at the major league level. Minor league classifications, and sizes of ballparks, are a function of realistic attendance goals, which are based in no small part on the size of the cities. Which is why Buffalo is Triple-A, and Peoria is single-A, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think a wonderful example of WP:V and the importance of WP:RS proving notability. It's not about what is true (if, in the first place, it is true) with respect to proving notability but about what is verifiable and can be supported by reliable sources to prove notability. Without verifiability of reliable sources supporting either GNG or proof of notability, I have to consider Mbonline's arguments lower than Pburka, Mtiffany and the others. With regret, Delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southbeach notation[edit]

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

This "visual modeling language" does not appear to be notable. It is mentioned in passing in one book. Aside from that, I was unable to find mention of it in anything at all other than primary sources, and vanishingly few of them, despite searching in Google Scholar, Google Books, the web, and the news archive. Bongomatic 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No coverage in news or academic sources, apart from books published by the inventors. Probable WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Mbonline, a WP:SPA, whose name is suspiciously similar to M. Burnett, one of the authors of the referenced books. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See reasons below: (should all these have been listed on the main page? That didn't seem appropriate but if listing some would avoid confusion and the need to go through this process in future, please identify which ones, or is there some process in wikipedia that means once this is settled its settled and that is recorded somewhere?
    • The Foresight group within the Department for Business Innovation & Skills in their blog state one of their four workstreams during 2009 to be "Deploying SouthBeach notation to support collaborative futures work" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Mbonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • trizonline, a reputable online German magazine focussing on the well known TRIZ innovation method lists Southbeachinc as one of 8 software providers supporting the method. Southbeachinc provides a free software tool for drawing TRIZ and Southbeach Notation diagrams, Southbeach Notation being a superset of TRIZ useful/harmful cause/effect models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Mbonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The specification for Southbeach Notation was published by BPTrends, a highly respected, academically oriented organisation that would not publish such a specification unless they believed it was significant. The announcement of the spec by BPTrends is here. The spec itself can be downloaded, from the BPTrends site; this is work by the authors of Southbeach, the specification of the notation - which BPTrends, a well respected academic organisation believes to be sufficiently notable to make it available directly to all their readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.30.150 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Mbonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Yes, by all means, please visit the BPTrends site and check out their advisors. Since one Howard Smith is on the advisory board of a company which published an article he wrote I'd say conflict of interest is a relevant issue. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Southbeach Notation is in use in various places and is recognised alongside various other notations and techniques in various places. The list below shows sites that either contain a reference to or recommend use of Southbeach Notation in different circumstances.
    • Various invitations to present Southbeach Notation at prestigious events, listed here including to the following:
      • GE Research Whitney Symposium
      • BPM Europe conference 2009
      • BPM Europe conference 2008
      • Shared Insights conference, Boston, Nov. 2006
      • Innovate Europe 2005
      • UK Gov 'Foresight' Program - Future Analysts Networking Community
    • Some of these references are independent consultants, some of them are independent authorities on visualisation, mindmapping or problem solving techniques. The fact that these people are referring to Southbeach Notation means it must be notable to them. The fact that these people have become either authorities or consultants means that what they say must be notable to others. So it would seem that Southbeach is notable, even by only looking at internet search.
    • Some of them are articles specifically about Southbeach Notation, others list Southbeach Notation as one of a number of techniques alongside other techniques; in other words, the author is effectively giving Southbeach Notation a similar level of credence to the other techniques in the list.
      • For example the answers.com page lists Southbeach Notation alongside Jackson Structured Programming and IDEF. Now, most people will not have even heard of those either, but these are technical techniques that are well known to people who work in the related field. Surely wikipedia is for everyone and should contain as much knowledge as possible as long as it is impartial and accurate.
      • The Stroud consulting paper lists Southbeach Notation alongside the GROW model, TRIZ, and Pareto analysis; the presence of such articles indicates that Southbeach Notation is recognised by some as a technique that is relevant to their field of endeavour, and in this case, in a way that they believe adds credibility to their own
    • The article does not attempt to advertise or lay any great claims, but rather objectively describes what Southbeach Notation is and the way it is used. If there is any language in there that seems biased, surely the best service to sharing of knowledge about what is out there in the world is to revise the article to make it more impartial... not delete it. If anyone thinks the article is biased or promotional in any way then please do say so here so that can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non web, but verifiable, references:
      • Southbeach Solutions has a partnership with ShapingTomorrow, wherein ShapingTomorrow have adopted the notation to illustrate futures trends and scenarios, and also Southbeach Modeller is integrated with the portal in various ways.
      • Known companies using Southbeach include CSC (some evidence here), BearingPoint UK (some evidence here), Intel and ShapingTomorrow, as well as a raft of individual users at many large and small companies.
    • BPTrends references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • BPTrends - highly respected academic and research site related to BPM notations and trends, published the specification here
      • BPTrends also published an article announcing the first reference implementation of the Southbeach Notation, by Southbeach Solutions, here.
      • BPTrends published a series of article that led to the development of Southbeach which are collated here with links back to the BPTrends source here.
        • They confirm it is actively downloaded and referred to by many of their readers
        • BP Trends have offered to help publish Books on Southbeach going forward and to bring their editorial resources to bear
    • Southbeach Solutions
      • Southbeach Solutions is the first company to implement the Southbeach Notation here
      • The wikipedia page describes the notation, not specific software implementations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mbonline (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC) — Mbonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete No coverage in news or academic sources, a couple of self-published sources and some trivial mentions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I visited this page to refer a link to a colleague and was surprised to see it recommended for deletion. The references above certainly show the noteworthiness of Southbeach Notation. As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage, but this is certainly an innovation in the process of innovation and will grow way beyond the companies mentioned above and individuals looking for a tool to implement TRIZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any innovation in its early stage, there may be little mass media coverage - which is an argument for deleting it, not keeping it - we aren't a publisher of original thought. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a publisher of original thought? Southbeach Notation has been covered many times, just not by Mass Media, e.g., NYT, WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.ashcroft (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I (Roger Burlton) am an original founder of the BPM field and have taught process improvement classes since 1991 and am President of Process Renewal Consulting Group a company that teaches process methdodologies. I am the author of "Business Process Management: Profiting from Process" published by Sams Publishing a division of Pearson Education. We use TRIZ and Southbeach Notation in our consulting practice worldwide. The approach and notation have been taught to over fifty companies including Samsung in Korea, Export Development Corporation in Canada, Bureau of Labour Statistics in Australia and Mars Inc. in the US. In addition it has been taught in numerous seminars and conferences around the world for three years with great acceptance. Our clients have found it to be a well formed standard that is based on a sound framework. We urge you to keep the listing of the notation as it is rapidly becoming a tool of choice for Innovation and process improvement projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.55.153 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC) — 81.156.55.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment So what? That you use it does not make it notable. That you claim that the EDC of Canada, the BoLS of Australia and Mars, Inc. are using Southbeach Notation also does not make it notable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My understanding is that evidence of something being used and talked about in the world is a good measure of notability and inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you understand wrong. Notability depends on verifiable references to the subject at hand made by disinterested third parties, which you are not. Don't care to take my word for it? Then don't Wikipedia:Notability. Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, great, it appears to be a subset of UML. Fantastic. So what? A couple of big name, notable companies are purportedly using it. Again, so what? Big notable companies may be using it, but notability is not inherited, nor contagious, in this specific instance. What's the novelty of this particular brand of UML diagramming that's so breathtakingly revolutionary and more to the point who's reported on it? What tech-oriented blogs/magazines/niche compu-geek tv programs/cable channels have covered it? Also, two of the articles cited are little more than marketing press releases sent out from the company behind Southbeach Notation and "published" by BPTrends.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not sure why UML was raised. Southbeach Notation is not a subset of UML. It is not related to UML in any way. It is a perspective based notation for situational improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Mtiffany71 seems to have misread the article, which does not say that Southbeach is a subset of UML but rather contrasts UML to Southbeach Notation because UML diagrams represent an objective model of a system whereas Southbeach Notation diagrams represent a subjective model of a system - that is to say, elements of the system are each categorised as useful or harmful according to what people's opinions are rather than acording to what the facts are - as whether something is useful or harmful can only be judged from a certain perspective of what you want to use that thing for or how it affects your solution, job or life. (This is clearly evident in humanity's history - its why we vote, argue, debate, have wikipedia processes for determining the notability of things, ...) It is the collection of multiple models from different perspectives that is one of the features that makes this different to methods like UML. The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! Once you can see that people with different values or beliefs, or people in roles with different goals, view the same thing differently - one thinking it is harmful and the other thinking it is useful, then you can use decomposition within Southbeach to understand WHAT about it they see as different - thus breaking the system down into smaller and smaller parts until agreement is reached... e.g. a car is useful for travel but it also creates pollution and hence damages the environment, so is undoubtedly also harmful... once the different aspects of a car are broken down within a Southbeach model, clarity is created about HOW and WHERE to improve the system - rather than arguing about whether we should have cars at all we can discuss how to minimise their pollution, noise, etc. This comment also addresses a point above questioning what is different about this technique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Southbeach provides a mechanism to get concensus between people who disagree about something... perhaps we should create a Southbeach Notation model for whether to keep this page! There is more chance of me sucking off a pit-pony. We work this out according to policy and wikipedia guidelines - currently the article doesn't have a single reliable source that is not by one of the creators. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wiki, not a reliable source. If you have any links that meet the guidelines, or any policy- / guideline-based arguments, please air them.
I think this is borderline and a matter of interpretation. The list of references is not insignificant. Argey (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the references at the wiki you cited—they are by the author of the system, and hence not independent. Bongomatic 06:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki entry referenced is nothing to do with the authors and if you look in the history page for that article you can see it was created by a sysop at that site. Mbonline (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the wiki is not a reliable source—period. That article (which itself fails to demonstrate notability at all) cites two references. Those references are not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to establish notability. Bongomatic 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Not sure why UML was raised. Southbeach Notation is not a subset of UML. It is not related to UML in any way. It is a perspective based notation for situational improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) — Smithh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. It appears that many of the editors who have opined here are closely related to the subject.
Their comments appear to reflect conflicts of interest or at least lack of independence from the subject and should be discounted accordingly. Bongomatic 10:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bongomatic appears to have so much fun trying to guess people's names, even when they openly state them here and in profiles on the Web, I wonder if Bongomatic could openly say who he/she is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is little fun in trying to figure who all these editors are--who all appear to be saying the exact same thing, who have all been working on similar topics, etc. Asking Bongo to reveal their identity is a silly remark. Either way, the closing administrator will, no doubt, see these different, or not so different, votes and voters for what they're worth. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked and this again and cut it back to the sources used - and frankly they are rubbishI've been asked to clarify this statements - 'Rubbish' in terms of helping determining notability as we consider it rather than any statement about the individual merits of the works as documents --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC) - every single one is by Howard Smith, one of the inventors of article subject. There is not a single RS in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that the article needs to be revised to make it less like a manual however you have also removed much of the text that explains how this topic relates to other topics, and in what ways it is similar and different. Rather than getting into a debate about that, it seems more pertinent to close the discussion on whether there should be an article at all, which presumably is why you cut the text down. (Is that standard procedure? Should that not have been something that was discussed in this page? I have for now added a single additional reference in which is an example of how Southbeach Notation has been used in the world, citing a news article published by a number of independent members of another organisation working in another field. The PDF in the citation is a report they produced on ways in which the Australian Water crisis could be addressed, summarised as a Southbeach Notation diagram showing the useful and harmful factors at play in Australia's Murray-Darling basin and the potential interventions they could make to reduce the impact of the crisis. The challenge they have there is that people are using water from the basin in ways that they consider useful as it nourishes their crops, but the long term effect is actually harmful as the water that once stretched to the sea does not even reach now and is drying up, resulting in crops failing due to people taking water out of the ecosystem faster than it can be replenished. The reason Southbeach Notation is so relevant there is that it provides a way of combining different points of view to help gain concensus on solutions that could help everyone - e.g. many of the solutions were to do with how to water farms more efficiently, or prevent evaporation of water from the soil around crops rather than simply preventing farming. Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? Mbonline (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional viewpoint from the same article that provides a more balanced view, stating that critics of situational modelling techniques believe that actions are more important than abstract models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this citation is the kind of material people are asking for here? no it's trivial and while it has a diagram, it says absolutely nothing about the system or provides any sort of notability. We need reliable sources of the sort described at WP:RS not more... puff. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is how I regard the 'debate' taking place here. The carefully prepared and substantive content, with references, citations and notability has been reduced and modified by 'Wikipedians' to the extent that it no longer represents an accurate and sufficient description of Southbeach Notation. If left here, it will be perpetuated through license and distort the good reputation of Southbeach Notation. Entirely calm, neutral and unemotional attempts to enter into a debate with 'Wikipedians' about the content, who seek to delete the page, have led to little more than:
    • 1) Inappropriate language directed at individuals well intentions points, including direct insults and vulgar language - contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and verging on libel/slander
    • 2) Inaccurate conclusions drawn about calm and reasoned contributions to the content
    • 3) Irrelevant statements against third party experts trying to contribute to the debate
    • 4) failure by 'Wikipedians' to abide by their own rules of conduct despite setting out reasoned comments and trying to enter into the spirit of Wikipedia
    • Therefore, I no longer have the time or patience to be insulted here or for colleagues to be insulted, and will not be contributing further. I fear more insults and a resource-intensive never ending process. Smithh (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Smithh (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is getting a bit out of hand. MTiffany, there is no need to yell at the opposition. Opposition, flooding the AfD with non-reliable references and marshaling what appear to be accounts related to the creators of the topic, that always gives off a bad smell. And please don't throw around terms like "libel"--this is not the place for that. As for policy: if "mass media" like the NYT haven't reported on it (as one of you said), that's a pretty good indication of lack of notability. Given that the only sources for the article (and I am disregarding the many, many non-notable or unreliable sources provided above) are closely connected to the creator of the subject or are not reliable (the "Circle of Blue" document), we have no choice but to conclude--based on policy!--that the topic is not notable by our standards. That doesn't mean that the topic isn't great, or won't be great, of course. But it fails Wikipedia's standards, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AYFKM? Yelling at the opposition? Please... First, 'the Intertoobz is serious bizness.' Second, I raised a perfectly valid point that the sources cited for Southbeach notation appeared to be press releases written by the makers of Southbeach notation. That's not notability, that's self-promotion. Rather than refuting that point, Smithh starts whinging about 'libel/slander' (and for the record, Smithh, slander is spoken), and how unfair (and I love the scare-quotes) 'Wikipedians' are being because some of us don't think his new invention is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Mtiffany71 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to put on record in the history: The original attackers of this article used Web searches to find associations between people who were trying professionally to add content to substantiate the claims, as requested by Wikipedians. They then used these implied associations to cast aspersions on people's professional integrity. When we suggested the 'editors' should be equally open about their identity, I was threatened with removal of my account from Wikipedia. 'Editors' then had comments I made deleted. so, its one rule for 'them' and another for 'us'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithh (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searches with wiki mirrors eliminated produce almost entirely sites that are trying to promote Southbeach. If it takes off in the future, and gets proper independent coverage, the article can always be recreated. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Commenters above have adequately shown, IMO, that the topic lacks sufficient real-world coverage. The article seems to be puffed up with business-ese that doesn't say much concrete. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not say much now. But it did. Look at history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.203 (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope—even in the 36k version, the lede is pretty much the same, and the lede is what I was referring to. "Innovation" this, "inventive" that, it just sounds like business speak to me. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah yes, business and innovation, I think that was what created Wikipedia :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.204 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty. Keep comments (and delete comments) have consensus'd (have I invented a new word here?) on merge. Deletion would negate information. Keep votes (some which say article is 'good') also mention that merge is an option. Established editors like JClemens concur. Thus, merge! Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern empires' loss of European territory[edit]

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

The title is confusing and unclear. I have no idea what this page would be about without looking at its contents. It is unsourced, which raises issues about WP:OR and especially WP:SYN, not to mention WP:NPOV. The page makes no sense. The "modern empires" are predominantly European ones, so why is their loss of "European territory" a worthy topic for an article? The use of modern states as some sort of baseline is anachronistic. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not cite one single source. It is your accusation that is baseless. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that is unreferenced is a completely separate issue from WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. That being said, I see now there are some questionable entries in the table, such as WW I being an independence war for the Balkan nations and Dutch sovereignity set at 1815. Merging to the article clarityfiend named and deleting the redirect seems the best option. Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is more acceptable than the status quo, but even that article is, to me, of dubious value. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I looked for a list like that but could not find it, changing my vote accordingly. Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - about the sources - the article is compiled from information from the respective articles about the history of the states. If required particular entries should be corrected. It is also possible to merge into Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe (see this discussion). The article is part of the Decolonization series, but as Europe is a special case it was renamed, so it is possible to rename again to a more appropriate name. Alinor (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    extract from the merge discussion: This focuses on empires dissolution, not on all independence events. Maybe it could be merged into the predecessors list, if the predecessors list is expanded backwards in time (up to the last empire, if it doesn't go that far already) and the relevant events are marked somehow as such (with bright or other colors?), and a note about independence war/etc. is attached. But I don't know if such changes are appropriate for the predecessors list. Alinor (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - for background see the previous AfD discussion and the talk page. Alinor (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere I see two valid targets proposed above, and I am not a content expert in the topic area, so I trust those others to hash out where this should be merged on the appropriate talk pages. What I also see is several people asserting that this content is worthy for encyclopedic inclusion and should be included elsewhere, even as much as they decry the title as confusing and awkward. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the article throws together a bunch of different kinds of events and treats as if they were all of a kind. And it cites no sources, but relies instead on other Wikipedia articles. Croatia's separation from Austria–Hungary is treated as an event, but not its separation from Yugoslavia. What is the basis for this? The Soviet Socialist Republics are all shown as having separated from the "foreign power" called Russia. That's just not true. This whole article from top to bottom is misleading to the reader and provides the unsourced personal opinions of its author. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia was not an empire. USSR is successor state to the Russian Empire. That is the difference - it is described in the article itself. The article doesn't deal with all separation/independence/statehood/sovereignty/etc. events - it deals only with the dissolution of the Empires of the modern time (decolonization). The articles for the other continents are called 'Decolonization of Asia/Africa/etc.', but as 'Decolonization of Europe' and even 'Decolonization in Europe' do not reflect the speciality of the case (as most Empires had their origin/mainland in Europe) it was renamed, but maybe we should rename' to a different heading? (Timeline of dissolution of the Emires of the Modern Age on the European continent) Alinor (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, your answer greatly worries me and I am now considering changing to delete. The reason for this is that I now see the article is not a mistitled list with some bad entries as I originally thought, but an original research project started for the sake of completeness. If decolonization did not occur in Europe we do not need an article for it, period. Both "empire" and "modern age" are not properly defined terms and the list is highly subjective. For example, San Marino became independent in 301 AD, definitely not modern age. The Netherlands have never been called an empire, but the Belgium separation is included for some reason. Sorry Srnec, for not understanding this earlier and accusing you of not reading the article, while I failed to read it properly myself. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course San Marino got independence not in modern age - this is clearly stated in the article - gray entries (Belgium, etc.) are included only for historical context and it is clearly stated that they are not related. They could be even removed, but I'm not sure that this will be an improvement.
Read the Decolonization article - it covers Europe (Ottoman, Austia-Hungary, British, etc.) - so decolonization did occur in Europe, but not all-over-Europe as some/most of the Empires are european countries and vice versa.
For the other continents there are only a few "historical context" entries (1 in Africa, 8 in Asia), but in Europe there are more, that's why it has coloring/font changes and different article name. Alinor (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about decolonisation, why not call it that? Because of a previous deletion request, that's why. The problems with this article are too deep to be summarised succinctly. Europe was not colonised by the Ottomans, by the "Austro-Hungarians", by the British, or by the Russians. Why force all history to fit into one paradigm? (I'd have a problem speaking of the "decolonisation" of South America, and I cannot say I have heard the loss of Portuguese and Spanish sovereignty described as such.) And what makes the USSR more of an empire than Yugoslavia? And why isn' the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire covered? And why do we need historical context about events in the Middle Ages? I think almost every line in that table is misleading.
  • Keep or Merge The article is referenced and is clearly notable. That said, the information provided could be clearer, and it certainly needs a better title (I had no idea what to expect when I clicked on that article). BlueRobe (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, the article does not contain a single reference, those are footnotes. Yoenit (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Footnotes are references, as are endnotes and bibliographies. BlueRobe (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not referring to referencing style here, but to the footnotes which are actually detailed explanations of stuff in the table instead of links to external sources. Read some of the "references" in the article and you will understand. Yoenit (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is good written and important. --maxval (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to either title as probable WP:CFORK and by order of the Abysmal Title Redirection Cabal. JJB 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK formation is not a subject of this article. The gray entries (such as UK) are only for context. I think it is better to improve the description of the complicated cases (with some footnote or a link to appropriate article) or in the worst case delete the gray entries altogether, but the article is in no way covered in List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty - they describe different, albeit related events. Alinor (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - anything to get rid of it. I tried engaging in discussion over the article, but it kept coming back to the same thing. It is a list of what one particular editor wishes to list, and is entirely unsalvageable. Most of the entries are admitted not to be examples of what the page is stated to be about, but are still 'necessary' for context ('I made them a different color, so it doesn't matter if they are irrelevant'). The definition of what is an Empire is completely subjective and inconsistent, e.g. Yugoslavia is considered to be an Empire for the purposes of Macedonian independence, but not an Empire for Slovenian or Croatian independence, because those lands had earlier had brief independence after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This is another (counter-factual) criterion insisted upon by the editor - that no country can gain independence be listed more than once. The whole thing is one editor's pet list, the result of OR by SYN and not founded on anything other than that editor's strongly argued but arbitrary preferences, resulting in a list of whatever is in the list. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is based on the Decolonization definitions. It is a compilation from the "History of ..." articles. As described multiple times on the talk page - Yugoslavia is not considered Empire - neither for Macedonia, nor for Croatia. The empires are the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman. As the first independence of Macedonia is in 1991 it is listed as Ottoman->Serbia (as the territory of present Macedonia was acquired by Kingdom/Principality of Serbia from the Ottoman Empire). All this is described in the notes and Yugoslavia is not in the list at all. "Subjective and inconsistent" - if there are such issues they should be raised on the Decolonization talk page, where the definitions originate, not on individual continents lists. Alinor (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And we are right back to it again. The page is not a List of First Independence of European Countries, it is Modern empires' loss of European territory. To list Macedonian independence in 1991 as an example, you are thereby indicating that Macedonia was lost by a modern Empire (Serbia/Yugo). If this is an Empire, then it is likewise an Empire with regard to Slovenia and Croatia. This is not a European Decolonization page, it is Modern empires' loss of European territory, so the definitions on some other page about something else are irrelevant, and even were they relevant, their application is still subjective and inconsistent, as the above example shows. It is not appropriate to deal with this on the Decolonization page when the problem is here. Further, as we went through on the Talk page, it is not a question of your criteria vs. my criteria, that can be solved by negotiating 'our criteria'. The problem is that by basing this list on the criteria of editors rather than WP:RS, it is a WP:SYN independent of which editors judgement prevails or how consistently applied. Agricolae (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again. Macedonia is listed, not because it separated from Serbia/Yugo, but because its territory was part of the Ottoman empire and was "lost" by that empire. If you want to point out that Macedonia should be "gray"/"non-decolonization" (like Belgium for example) then I agree. And this can be easily fixed. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Alinor (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Macedonia is included because it represents a territory lost to the Ottoman Empire in 1918, why would you insist on listing it in 1991? Because that is when the Nation of Macedonia dates its independence - a further example of why the list is not what the title claims it to be. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, as others pointed out, the name is a complete disaster. "Loss of territory" is by no means the same this as "a new nation created from the territory of". If the title is "loss of territory", then every time in World War I that a single Italian trench was taken from the Austrian troops, that would be a loss of territory by an empire, if only a few square meters of it. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course minor territorial changes are not included and this is marked in the article. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but when you have to start an article by explaining that it is not really about what the name says it is, the article is misnamed. If you find yourself unable to describe what the article is about in a manner both coherent and consistent, then it is probably a bad article. This has a title that says it is one thing, a description that says it is something else, while the list matches neither title nor description. Agricolae (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title and content do match and are coherent. Of course there are examples of minor events of territorial loss (exchange). Do you propose that we should rename it to some extra-long-explanatory-name in order to reflect that? I think it is better to clarify this in the article itself, as it is currently. Alinor (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is Modern empires' loss of European territory, the description is of European nations created from the territory of Modern empires, not the same thing. The list is Chronological list of European nations arranged by their first or most recent foundation or independence date, and categorized based on whether or not they came from a former European empire or other nation-state that represents the successor state to a former European Empire. That a title like that is necessary to accurately portray the arrangement you insist the list must take is why (well, along with the other POV, OR and SYN issues, part of the reason why) we are having this discussion. Do I propose we rename the page with this ridiculous yet accurate name? No. I propose that we delete or merge the page, as recommended above, because a list needing such a title was ill-conceived from the start. Agricolae (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable. The information was admittedly taken from other WP pages (which are absolutely not reliable sources), which means there is no need to merge. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should delete information from one article only because it is utilized in another article too. Alinor (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, I don't feel confortable leaving this large but poorly sourced article in mainspace so I'm going to send it to the incubator. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Lovari Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari[edit]

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

Article on entertainer of dubious notability. Has been deleted several times at this title and as Lovari (entertainer). Asserts notability by "having received multiple awards". Whether these awards are really notable though, is for this AfD to decide. (Not a G4 repost because this is substantially expanded.) Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity page, it's time for the world to move on from the Lovari craze that has never swept the nation. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disagree: Lovari page should not be deleted.

After reviewing several online sources, I have come to the conclusion that all information is correct and viable. The following links will verify this informaiton:

http://www.billboard.com/#/album/lovari/the-statement/1222122

http://www.gaydata.com/gaynews2010/lovari.html

http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/fr/Lovari_The_Statement_CD_Review.htm

http://hintofmint.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/cd-review-lovaris-the-statement/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.111.136 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just a wee note: 1st link is just a track list. no one doubts the existence of this person's album. 2nd link is a reprint of the press release - it even includes the contact info of the hired promoter. 3rd link is a solicited review; the reviewer discloses that the album was received for promo purposes. 4th link is a blog. none of the links are actually "journalism." none of the awards received are notable in and of themselves. ViniTheHat (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Agatha Russell[edit]

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

Nobility is not (automatic) notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe she played a crucial role in raising Betram Russel. Maybe she should be merged to his article if additional information can be found? VASterling (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. His article indicates his grandmother (who doesn't appear to have an article), not his aunt, was important in his early life. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Then the article is misleading. His aunt and his grandmother (Countess Russell, known as Lady John Russell) helped raise him after the death of his parents: his aunt lived with his grandmother and she took an active part in his education, though whether that makes her notable is debatable. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable noble. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable. Article should be expanded and more references added. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BIO1E is perhaps a better reference than BLP1E (which should be used in general only for low profile individuals) given by one commentator. Kevin is clearly not a low-profile individual, unless JClemens redefines the term for Wikipedia. Consensus is for Delete!!!! Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin feng[edit]

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

Contestant from an MTV game show; did not win, no notability aside from that; WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BLP1E states that "...and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." However, Kevin is not trying to stay low-profile. He's going out, he's trying to become a notable PUA, has already been with some notable PUAs and already has bootcamps in the US. I've paid attention to WP:NPF. I added 4 secondary sources, at least 3 of them that go on to note what Kevin is working on in the future, i.e. his own pickup methods, working with notable pickup artists and so forth. He's got a lot of radio coverage too and I'm going to try to fish those out and include them in the article if they can be accepted. Please let me know what else needs to be done Kip 78 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability past being on a game show. Feng's intent to make himself higher profile does not satisfy notability. Many non-notable people seek to raise their profiles. Should he be successful at raising his profile and should material about his success be published in reliable secondary sources then by all means let him have an article. Until that happens, no. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Are You The Cow Of Pain?, this person doesn't appear to be notable—Chris!c/t 00:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. He's going out, he's trying to become a notable PUA - Wikipedia doesn't do wannabes. He can have an article when he's made it, and he hasn't made it yet. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You mentioned earlier that he is notable and that he is already working alongside other established and notable PUAs yet here you mention "he's trying to become...". So which is it? I believe more secondary sources could help--everything that discusses what Feng has been doing post game show. Let's see what Google can find... ~dee 19:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I suspect Ron could have 'kept' this even before relisting this debate. But the Ritzman cannot be wrong. And this close is a definite 'keep' as per all ivoters Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirate Signal[edit]

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

dubious notability Melaen (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the extent to which I despise rap, hip-hop, and related "music", I must concede that the subject is significantly covered in [22], which might be considered a reliable source. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the primary writer of the article. The subject, The Pirate Signal has reliable sources. A cover story in Westword, which is a Village Voice alt-weekly newspaper, and the Denver Post, an Associated Press newspaper and the biggest in Denver, Colorado. What else is needed? Quibian (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability and coverage are two separate things. Citing just newspapers articles from the home city of the subject usually fail, because it does not prove notability, but local and passing interest. And if we think of it this way, with the Denver Post issuing 365 newspapers a year, covering local festivals and music, this band was only of interest locally once. Even in Denver, where their fan base is likely strongest, the band could not pull together enough interest for a second article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the external coverage cited in the article. Specifically, these show notability: [23] [24] [25] [26].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – sgeureka t•c 07:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: The Experience[edit]

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

Almost all sources are primary. No secondary coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems like a case for better referencing, not deletion. Although the sources are primary, their trustworthiness is good and the claims they make are modest, so we're hardly into the scope of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary references". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A step or two closer to the promotional/commercial line than optimal, but the show is a big enough cultural phenomenon to make this inclusion-worthy, in my estimation. Sourcing needs to be improved, certainly, but it's safe to assume that there are stories extant dedicated to this — (what shall we call it, stage production?) — to satisfy WP General Notability Guidelines. —Carrite
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Show me it's notable, don't tell me. Can't you people get that through your skulls? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is notable. More references should be found and the article expanded. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't you people get that through your skulls? might be considered a breach of WP:CIVILITY. Yousou (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe the perpetrator can narc himself out to ANI instead of hauling me up there again for a third time... —Carrite], Sept. 25, 2010.
  • Delete. Notability is about significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and is not demonstrated. Guessing that there might be some around somewhere is not sufficient. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would save us all a lot of trouble if obviously sketchy challenges like this one weren't launched in the first place. But, if you insist, here is independent coverage from the largest newspaper in the state of Nevada. LINK. A terrible challenge, tons of google hits out there on this... —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
  • We don't have to guess. Just look at the head of this AFD where a link to Google Books is provided. This demonstrates that there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a guide book is not notability. But what is curious is that of the "numerous" sources (actually 8) only one appears to be talking about this travelling exhibition, and that is less than a paragraph, explicitly citing its website. As you say, we don't have to guess. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in guidebooks is certainly notability. We should not copy the style of a guidebook but such works are good evidence of notice and provide reliable sources for our own coverage. The The Unofficial Guide to Las Vegas 2011, for example, has a long multi-page entry which provides good detail to support our article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some forms of coverage may support notability, and some may not (not everything mentioned in a guidebook deserves its own article). The point remains that significant mention in reliable independent sources needs to be demonstrated, not merely assumed or guessed at. Glad to hear you've finally been able to find something, although I do wonder how a guide to Las Vegas supports an article about a travelling exhibition which does not even mention that city. Still, no doubt it will be clear in time. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The exhibit at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas seems to be permanent. See locations for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but this article is about a travelling exhibition "currently touring museums and science centers across the United States, Europe, and Asia". You seem to be amassing evidence for the notability of some other article? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are all versions of the exhibition which was first developed by Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that needs to be incorporated in the article with appropriate citations. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have better things to do, such as improving our important article Basic research which lacked citations of any sort until I added one just now. If you have some specific suggestions for this minor article then do please perform them yourself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is in bold at the start of this little discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I believe it has WP:POTENTIAL to become a better Article with a bit of time. Has steadily improved since its June 21, 2007 creation and we shouldn't be in a hurry. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of secondary coverage found. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_25&oldid=1142639555"