Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 January 2 February >

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. Most "keep" opinions do not address the WP:SYN problems of this article, and cannot therefore be taken into account when assessing consensus.  Sandstein  07:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One-Above-All[edit]

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

As it has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 43#Minor neutral clean-up help needed, this article is not really about a defined character (as Superman or Batman) as it may seem to be on first sight. It is a group of in-universe references to God (such as people praying, or comments about God's omnipotence in order to dismiss the importance of some character's superpower), grouped toguether as if they were meant to be about a specific and tangible comic book character. Even more, all those references are always given in vague and cryptic terms, the idea that they were meant to be about a fictional character is completely original research. MBelgrano (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's still a real character. Seems notable considering his importance in the Marvel Universe, the most powerful being in the entire multiverse. That alone seems to make an article on him notable. ScienceApe (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "real". It has never been clearly defined that all those circunstancial mentions were about a same character, rather than just metafictional comments to make the narrative closer to the reader. The comic books mentioned are distant in years and even decades each other. In fact, none of the times this "character" was actually used kept the same aspect. First he resembles Jack Kirby, then a glowing man in white robes, then a homeless... What's preventing us from considering that they are simply unrelated works from different authors? Has he said "yes, I'm the one the Fantastic Four met, and the one who commands Eternity and the Living Tribunal" or something like that?
As for power, that's an in-universe thing, and won't define notability. George W. Bush was also a very powerful figure in the militarized structure of the Ultimate Marvel universe, or the regular one after Civil War, but his appearences were just cameos and we can't talk about a "George Bush marvel character" either MBelgrano (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how much do you yourself know about Marvel Comics, and its characters and hierarchy yourself? Are you qualified enough to give a valid statement about something you know little about? To compare this comic book entity with a former U.S. President is itself an irrelevant and perhaps even biased statement. Please, I am not willing to devote my time here arguing over this, and I understand that you seem to be upset, but I personally think this discussion has little point. There is an ultimate "Supreme Being" character in Marvel; I think DC has a similar character called the Presence, and though this character may appear in different forms, that does not make this being non-notable. How many more articles are you planning to nominate after this, then? Aidoflight (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that in-universe characteristics make a character notable is incorrect. Notability is based on real-world discussion through tertiary sources; it's not based on in-universe qualities or primary sources. That is a flaw with many character articles, but usually some can be saved by the addition of those sources. If you can find a reliable tertiary source that discusses One-Above-All (and specifically One-Above-All, not other depictions of an omnipotent deity that are "probably" the same thing) then that would help demonstrate notability.Luminum (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, I know very well about this topic. I prefer to work with other topics were my help is more needed (there are just three or four other users around working with topics related to Argentina and most articles are undeveloped or even stubs, while there is a good number of users working with comics and most articles are as developed as they should be without too much work left), but I know very well about this topic. For instance, I have the whole Lee-Kirby run on the Fantastic Four, including the issue mentioned. It did not sound at all as a hint about an unseen character, it was rather a metafitional reference to God as I described. Even more, they used this references to God from time to time, now I can recall the fight against Dr. Doom with the powers of Silver Surfer, at the scene when the Watcher watches the fight in his machines but does not get involved. And even more, I may also say that their narrative is very lineal, and when they temporaly conceal something from the reader they make it explicit (such as asking "guess the identity of our mistery villain!"); so I they really intended to create a "God" character, they would have done so directly.
As for Bush, I was setting an analogy, to clarify the difference between a character and a cameo of a real-world individual, event or concept. The "One-above-all", if developed as such, would be a fictional character. God (and don't mix atheism in the equation) is not. MBelgrano (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sad to see that the article hasn't improved its major problem: It's a stitched together application of OR trying to link several instances of an omnipotent God character into one. There's no evidence here that the character 'exists' besides its sparse appearances when it is named as the One-Above-All. The rest listed are instances of what are also representations of an omnipotent deity using OR to infer that they are the same individual when there's no creative/development backup to indicate that that was indeed the intent. Unless the article can cut out all the pseudo-appearances and distill those appearances that are legitimately intended to refer to that character specifically, then the article lacks sufficient justification of an actual character who was used for more than a few minor appearances. A character who appears--briefly--that is used three or four times isn't notable. I also disagree with the treatment of Presence (DC Comics) as a comic book 'character'. The article is similar to this article in that it strings together different writer's depictions of a Judeo-Christian omnipotent diety. The difference between that article and this one is that the body of the article reads as an out of universe description of different author's use of a Judeo-Christian deity in the DC Universe and distinguishes between the different instances. I don't know why that page is even titled "Presence" since it makes it clear that Presence is just one of many instances that that idea has been introduced. In fact, that article should probably be titled "Depictions of Judeo-Christianity in DC Comics".

Given the similar circumstance (that Marvel has taken no authoritative stance of "God" and has apparently instead allowed authors to insert their own named and unnamed depictions of a Judeo-Christian deity), rather than erroneously string these together as a single character with a name, the article should be renamed to "Depictions of Judeo-Christianity in Marvel Comics". There isn't enough, I suspect, to substantiate an article about One-Above-All, and being under that article would allow a section containing the present content of various depictions of a Judeo-Christian deity while avoiding the OR of saying that these are intended to be the same "character" by different writers.Luminum (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would delete this article, and every other comic article about a portrayal of God, just because someone chose to place a tag on this page? Believe it or not, I, too, suggested once that the article be deleted, but I have since reconsidered my position. And many other wikis have versions of this character, in various languages, as well. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of a fixed Supreme Being, for power levels themselves are very complex in comics, and yet, are you sure you do not support this article's deletion out of your own personal bias? I don't want to get into a heated argument over something like this, but would you next nominate the other language versions as well? The supreme God concept has been referred to various times, and to erase all these edits would almost be to imply there is nothing at all of a Creator/Supreme Being suggested or shown in Marvel, and that would be inaccurate as well... Aidoflight (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has nothing to do with atheism. One-Above-All and God are different things. And if Marvel avoided the creation of a fixed God character, we shouldn't "fill the void" ourselves. MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the One- Above- All is not a fan-term either, as I once thought, but the official name of the Supreme Being, which you might not have known, and I am not talking about atheism at all, merely that this article is essential because it provides a sense of the exact scale and structure of Marvel's cosmology and hierarchy; some cosmic entities only have had a single appearance, and yet, while many of you do not seem to care, or even know, for that matter, of them, and yet you focus on this. That in itself lends certain weight to the notability of this article. Aidoflight (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about atheism either. I'm saying that the One Above All character is a name applied to ONE writer's take of a supreme being and there is NO evidence to believe that other writers' depiction of a supreme being was intended to be this One Above All character. The current article posits that all unnamed depictions of an omnipotent being in the Marvel U are intended depictions of One Above All, which is an application of OR. There is no evidence that the writer of the Aunt May storyline where an old all-knowing man appears intended that to be "One Above All" rather than him just injecting his depiction of a supreme all-knowing being. That is the problem with this article. If this article stuck only to Marvel Universe depictions of One Above All when it is identified as One Above All, then it would only be an issue of notability. Currently, the problem is that in ADDITION to the fact that the article strings together various depictions of a supreme being to populate an account of One Above All, it cite nothing that substantiates its notability. Again, I've outlined what wills ave this article. The critique of the OR is an issue that makes the article problematic in general. Currently, the article demonstrates no tertiary sources that demonstrate notability (which in some circles is reason enough to delete.) But, if you add those tertiary sources (assuming they exist) then this article should be kept. If notability is fulfilled, then a bunch of these accounts that are attributed to One Above All need to be removed, because there is nothing to indicate that they are actually intended to represent One Above All rather than each author's personal attempt to assert a similar entity. The analogy would be one author introducing Storm and then another author writing that another weather controlling mutant (off panel) had some role to play in a story. There is no direct evidence to say that this second depiction was Storm, when it could just as well have been an author just writing in an anonymous and separate weather-controlling mutant. To attribute the later to the former would be OR. That's the issue here. You have the creation of One Above All, who is supposed to be the supreme being of the Marvel U. But independently, you have various other authors writing in one-time appearances of a "supreme being". Then you have someone writing this article and assuming that those depictions were supposed to reference One Above All, when that may not be the case (and as I suspect, wasn't the case at all.) That is what's wrong with this article. If you want to save it, you'll need to demonstrate notability and THEN cut all that other stuff out. I suspect that if you do, it won't be enough content to substantiate a full page, which is why it's better suited to an out of universe article that groups depictions of a supreme being or a Judeo Christian being (if that's what One Above All and these other depictions are meant to apply, albeit independently).Luminum (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again, if you look at what constitutes notability per WP:N, nothing you've mentioned gives this article notability. Notability is DEFINED as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This article cites nothing of that kind. Your argument is the exact opposite--that because of sources DEPENDENT of the subject (that it's important because it establishes the hierarchy of the Marvel Universe), it therefore satisfies notability, and that is incorrect. The only thing One Above All warrants without independent sources is being mentioned when discussing the hierarchy, citing the primary source as evidence that it exists. That doesn't warrant it having its own page. We all understand that One Above All is the official name of a being introduced into the Marvel U. The problem is that as far as we can tell, no independent source has mentioned One Above All, which would make it notable. The other problem is that the article attributes appearances similar to One Above All to One Above All, when there's no evidence to support those claims. If you wanted to discuss the hierarchy, then whenever discussing the hierarchy, it would be "essential" to mention One Above All as a canonical supreme being, but is is not essential for One Above All to have its own page to fulfill that purpose. One Above All must fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines in order to justify a page. I could write an article about the character "God" in Family Guy because it's "crucial to demonstrating the hierarchy and religions apparent in the Family Guy universe", but how notable is that really? Only its appearance in independent sources meets the WP:N criteria. So if you're really keen on keeping it, the burden is on you to find those sources and add them. If not, then it means that the article wasn't notable in a real-world way to begin with as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and should be deleted.Luminum (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN if not WP:OR, there is no source stating that all the appearances listed are that of the same character or group. The entire article is based on a erroneous premise, therefore unfixable by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After the discussion at the wikiproject, I suggested to merge the article to Portrayals of God in popular media, in a section about comic books, and open a topic in the talk page about the ongoing discusson and the proposal. I did not even suggest deletion by then. Both tags were simply removed, after just adding a pair more of those mentions, and my comments were deleted. Even more, the merge tag was removed with an edit summary that said "fixing minor errors (spelling and grammar)", and the removal of my comments was immediately followed by an improvised rant. More clearly, they were clear attemps to conceal these removals. Not to mention that I received some requests of "watching somewhere else" and let this pass as if there was no problem. In short, there have been previous requests to fix the article, they have gone nowhere, and they will not be adressed. MBelgrano (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 Have you checked the link to Marvel Universe wiki? Content has been deleted a month ago. Not even Marvel itself endorses this "character". Note that it says that it was a duplicated entry, but that's because there is already another different and unrelated Marvel character that uses this name, the One Above All. MBelgrano (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Half of what you say is not relevant with this discussion, at all. The Marvel Universe site is not edited by employees, but by volunteers, which includes administrators. The deletion itself could well be an accident. Seriously, I'm sorry, but what is with you? Some people may have had issues with the article, but no one except you, after all these years have nominated it for deletion. That is why I have so little respect for people like you: You think just by adding a tag to an article, you suddenly have the right to delete it. Say we do delete it: That would make you so proud, so satisfied, the first person ever to nominate and delete the article? Besides, this is hardly the first time you have nominated an article you disliked, nor would it be through first time others have rejected your proposal. Do you know how many people have worked on it? It is not just the product of many users, but a community. And I ask again:.What of the other versions of this article? Deleting this article will in no way at all help Wikipedia, or any of us, at all. Aidoflight (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Let this page stay. He's an important character in the Marvel Universe. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This page has been here since 2006, and, as can be seen from its logs, hundreds have edited it for years, and hundreds view it every day. All its deletion would do would be to create its own void, and cause confusion and further uncertainty. At least answer this: Why hasn't a single user chosen to nominate the article for deletion after all this time? This article has also been set in templates and linked to many other pages; how exactly would its deletion benefit the editing community at all? Why choose now, of all times, to attempt to delete it, because you feel personally slighted in some way? I do not at all consider its deletion necessary or beneficial. Aidoflight (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fallacy in this logic is in assuming that these are all the same character. The article synthesizes a number of different primary sources with no connection (not even the use of the same name) to present the idea that they are one. In fact in Thor #84, the so-called God to gods is not single entity but group of entities called Those Who Sit Above in Shadow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet by that same argument, Galactus could be thus considered, if only because he is "higher" than the Asgardians, but no one, out of sheer common sense, would, for he is neither supreme nor a Creator being. This would imply that there is no such being at all ever featured in Marvel, which would not be accurate as well. To whom do you suggest, then, Odin sent Olson's spirit to? Celestial beings that feed off of his pantheon's life force? Also, by your own logic, why not delete all the cosmic entity articles and place them together in one huge list, if you care so much about in-universe? I'm really sorry, but I just honestly see little point to this discussion... Aidoflight (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents the position that there is a single supreme god in the marvel universe, I am merely stating that we don't know if that is the case. We don't know who Odin refers to as Him or if Him is the same as One-Above-All. Saying that they are the same is conjecture and therefore WP:OR. The entire article is made up of these kind of assumptions and if we were to separate them, notability goes out the window. Based on that the article can not be saved by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, yet the One-Above-All is equivalent with the concept of a supreme "God", for many times it has been both stated and shown that the Tribunal, mightiest power of all, is inferior to this entity. Nor can "God" in Marvel be simply ignored and this article wiped away because some have personally never heard of this character. For instance, the Heart of the Universe, strong enough to defeat the Tribunal, could thus logically only be from one source only: the One-Above-All. Thanos himself, along with Eternity and Warlock, in half the issues of that series, spoke of the "Lord Almighty", and of a "Him" - should this, too, be disregarded? TriiipleThreat, you know that you would not be demanding this article's deletion had this user not chosen to one day suddenly nominate this. A single user, causing five years worth of editing to be erased, and over time forgotten? Not many users have participated in this discussion, but do you really think that most of us would actually demand for this article to be permanently removed? I think it was almost selfish for a single user to drag it this far, when he could have simply let it pass or considered other options; if the majority of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians saw a huge issue, they would have mentioned it. I myself suggested that this article be removed once, but now, I realize that such would gain us all nothing and take away so very much. You allow articles of characters such as Numinus to stay, even though the character has appeared but once, and you think it is right to delete this article? Aidoflight (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By stating, "thus logically only be from one source only: the One-Above-All" you are drawing a conclusion which is the essence of WP:SYN. What you say could very well be true but we as wikipedia editors can not draw such lines. We cannot think for ourselves, make our own interpretations of the source material nor add our opinions. We have to rely on WP:RSs to do those things for us. You are correct the AfD is what drew me here, but that does not negate my argument. As far as other stuff is concerned, we are not dealing with them in this dissusion, only this particular article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The thing here is that Marvel have never created a certain character and say, clearly and directly, "This is god", as other fictional universes have done. If they have never done that, we can not "fill the void" and attempt to act as if they have. That's the key of the out-of-universe perspective. The out-of-universe view of this mess is that Marvel never adressed any character as God, and that within that limit there are many random things here and there (the Tribunal's unseen master, the Infinity Gaunlet origin, the Fulcrum, the Beyonder, the one-time characters mentioned in the article, etc.) that may be understood as references to God, if read in isolation at their specific stories. Of course, it's complicated in regards to continuity, as they can't all of them be God because God must by definition be only one. But don't forget that continuity is not a condition, it's a consequence, it's an artificial narrative construct built over different stories, implying that all of them are portions of a same whole. Sometimes this can be achieved, sometimes not. The day Marvel finally clarifies all this, makes a God character and explain how does it fit in the Marvel Universe, that day we will be able to talk about a "One-above-all" character or whichever name they use for it. So far, we only have independent stories that can't be linked ones to others without a great deal of creative interpretation MBelgrano (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who are we of all people to conclude that these beings are not all "God"? There is only one supreme God in Marvel, for all intents and purposes, but does such an entity have to appear in exactly the same form for you to consider it acceptable? Only the very obvious references to a Creator/Supreme Being were added; I myself, for instance, do not think the Beyonder was One-Above-All, and unless I am very much mistaken, I doubt many of us do. For instance, when was Beyonder ever called Him? The Fulcrum is also viable but controversial, as I myself noted. Only the very direct, if somewhat sporadic, references to an omnipotent supreme being/Creator were included in the article, and great care was taken to minimize detail and to state these instances neutrally as much as possible. After all, while the in-universe and original research policies are indeed important, surely they are also open to interpretation, and even to some extent subjective? Please, I understand and agree you have both made very true points, but I still do not think that it is absolutely necessary for this article to be deleted. Aidoflight (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you seem to imply that other comic companies, such as DC, have a fixed supreme God, but go look at its article: The Hand, the Voice, the Source and others are listed on its page. Has a definite connection been confirmed between all these characters, or is that speculation as well? But personally, no offense, I would not that, or this, so much as original research than as common sense. We may be working on computers, but we ourselves should be capable of basic reasoning; without that, even with all the policies and guidelines, Wikipedia would fall apart. And, again, what will happen to the other language versions of this article? Would they have to go too? Aidoflight (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can not concluse that they are all the same character, unless it's stated so. Of course, it's not needed that a character keeps always an uniform aspect (I can recall, for example, the Q Continuum), but then it must established as a character trait that he changes it. Even more, I can also play the game of "what about this comic" and let this card castle fall, with a simple continuity error. Yes, it may be hard to make continuity errors with God, but yes, there is one. Do you know where does the power of the Infinity Gaunlet (which provides all the powers of God) comes from? It was explained at "The Thanos Quest". He said that it comes from an omnipotent being who was all there exists, and nothing else existed besides him. The comparison with pre-Big-Bang God would be obvious. And although Thanos did not name him "God", he said that we may name him God, that who would discuss that, but that he didn't thought such a being had a name or a use for it. This being, this "God", commited suicide and the Infinity Gems are small remains of his power. For an out-of-universe perspective, none of this is a problem: we simply point that this storyline says this, and that for others God would still be an active force in the universe. For an in-universe explanation, I would like to see how do you attempt to mix both things toguether (have in mind that there can't be one God and then another God, or two Gods at the same time)
As for other fictional universes, I was not thinking in DC, I was thinking in Futurama. MBelgrano (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aidoflight, you seem particularly alarmed that deleting this article means that it will be deleted forever. Nothing is permanent and that deletion of an article does not prohibit it from ever being added again. The article hasn't demonstrated notability per WP:N. Either find those sources that will or don't. But if you or some other editor doesn't, then you can't ignore it and argue that it should stay. If an article is going to be on here, it is supposed to fit that criterion. If it doesn't, it will always run the risk of eventually being proposed for deletion. Every instance of it remaining despite failing that criterion just means that it slipped through the cracks, and that goes for any article on Wikipedia. The only thing that might keep an article up is if it's obvious that the subject has independent sources out there and it just hasn't been added yet. That would be the case if someone created an article on Superman or Senator John McCain. One Above All is obviously going to be more obscure and is less certain to hav those independent sources. That's why I keep stating that you should try to find those sources. If you do that and add them in, then this whole AfD becomes moot. But if you can't find any, then it means this article fails notability and should be removed. If at some future point in time, an independent source is found or is created, then the justification for recreating the article exists. All the other discussion about the synthesis and OR is to point out that even if the article meets notability and stays, it needs a MAJOR overhaul and weeding. Also, please remember to be civil.Luminum (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major WP:SYN issues, and the AfD comments of people in-the-know suggest that it cannot be fixed through careful editing. Plus, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N issues that are actually the main reason why this article cannot stick around in its current form. – sgeureka t•c 08:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with One Above All, see One Above All (disambiguation) at Marvel.com first link the Celestial, second link our problem. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep: There is definitely some original research that has been falsely attributed to this character, but he is indeed a character that has actually been used a few times in the comics. Maybe if all of the original research is removed then the article would be fine to leave and not delete. Spidey104 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that here, limiting the fictional character biography to only those listed in the publication history. But this also raises some concerns, me being unfamiliar with these sources I am cautioned by the use of "apparently appears" in regards to Fantastic Four, #511 and the term One-Above-All is not used The Sensational Spider-Man, #40 only "God" and "He". Can someone confirm that these are in fact appearances of One-Above-All without any synthesis? Still I am not sure if even three appearances in comics meets notability guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe the lack of content on the article was what prompted some to find more in the first place. And you can't justify maybe keeping only three references and erasing the rest just because they were the first ones some random user decided to place here. The being in the Spiderman issue was indeed portrayed as the supreme God, as strongly hinted by his and Peter's dialogue; additionally, the issue summary itself called this entity "God". In DC, very rarely is the Presence openly called "God", but it is painfully obvious that even someone who has never read a single DC comic would see the character as such. Nemesis, the being who committed suicide, was a female cosmic entity, and, unlike the Tribunal or his master, is certainly not Multiversal, as the Gems themselves have been shown to have countless other versions, and in a recent Fantastic Four issue, the Gauntlet has been shown powerless beyond its native reality. The One-Above-All has been stated to be "the entity apparently responsible for the existence of all life in the multiverse, and possibly beyond", and is clearly meant to be at the top of the Marvel hierarchy and cosmology. Besides, you can't pretend that I was the only contributor to the page, though I do admit that I tried to add more to it some time ago; why not check the editor logs and ask the dozens of other editors for their own opinion on this? Aidoflight (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the "God" character in The Sensational Spider-Man, #40 is never stated to be One-Above-All in the issue. Is there at least an easily recognizable physical resemblance to One-Above-All? If not, I don't think we can use it. Your argument is essentially if "A" clams to be God and "B" claims to be God then "A" must equal "B". That by definition is synthesis. The issue is even further complicated by that fact that there are multiple entities in MU who claim to be the supreme entity, like "Those Who Sit Above in Shadow", who I used in the example above. Onside note Aidoflight, do not take this AfD personal, its nothing against you nor the quality of your editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, and I thank you for acknowledging that. But it just does not at all make sense to compare the Supreme Being of a comic Multiverse with just any character like Batman. Even DC's Presence is not explicitly called thus in all of the character's appearances, nor has DC ever directly made a character state: "There's an entity called the Presence, which is, beyond all doubt, the Judeo-Christian God." Should the Presence article be deleted because of that also? Besides, Those Who Sit Above In Shadow have never been stated or implied to be supreme, merely parasitic if enigmatic higher entities to the Asgardians. Please, you've known the article for five years, and you never said a single objection; you really want to go this far just to delete it now? Aidoflight (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you demand this now? When an article is deleted, we do not at all delete all the images it uses. You are not deleting it because you think it will damage Wikipedia, but because you are personally not happy that not a single user supported your earlier proposal to merge the article. You fail to address most of the points I mention, and to say something like, "It would be crazy to have this article" has very little place on this discussion. Please, I still stand with my choice to support keeping this article. Aidoflight (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "demanding" anything, just reminding. Unused non-free images must be deleted, regardless of any other circumstances, that's an established policy. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria MBelgrano (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really does seem that that you have carefully thought this out to the end, haven't you, Belgrano? I am sure what if this article is indeed removed, you will ensure that no trace of this character is ever seen on Wikipedia again. But have you at all considered anything else, or the concerns and opinions of other users who do want it to be kept? Even administrators have made edits to this article in the past, and, no, for whatever reason they did not feel the need to delete the article; what do you say to the hundreds of users who have edited it over years? That we are all guilty of violating Wikipedia policy just because we contributed to this page? Aidoflight (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep: If the synthesis and original research concerns are addressed. If the synthesis and original research are not removed, then delete. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike my above vote. I had made one or two minor edits to this article about two months ago and was not aware until today that there was such controversy about it. I had thought that it might be possible to strip it down to stub status but after re-reading the comics that are cited, I no longer think that's an option. The whole thing is held together with too many "leaps of faith" i.e original research. Perhaps if there were secondary sources for this material but I'm not aware of any. Aidoflight feels pretty strongly about keeping this page and while I would really like to be supportive of his position, I'm afraid I have to say delete.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - How do you expect the original research and synthesis to be addressed? The current entire article is just that. It's removal would leave no article to be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as "Depictions of an omnipotent deity in Marvel Comics", "Representations of a supreme being in the Marvel Universe", or any other equivalent name, and rewrite to remove assumptions that these depictions are all of the same character. --Waldir talk 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The sourcing is all primary sources. So how does this help? -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the problem? Primary sources are not outright banned. Their usage on this article along the lines I suggest above are in accordance to both the letter and the spirit of the policy: "...primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (...) A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." --Waldir talk 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that a list of these depictions all drawn from a primary source with no indication from other sources to indicate such a topic would be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, ok. I thought your concern was OR. I see now it is notability. Well, all I have to say in that regard is that (with the full disclaimer that I tend to be an inclusionist) in this case I believe IAR+UCS apply, in that it seems justifiable imo (useful and informative) to have an article on this entity, if reformed in the way I suggested or in similar veins. Of course, this is merely my opinion, and as such I have no intention to argue it further. --Waldir talk 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep Comic book characters qualify for articles so long as they have made significant appearances in numerous or noteworthy stories. If this character has made said appearances, then he qualifies for an article by way of notability. An important question may be whether he has appeared or referred to specifically as One-Above-All, or if the references in the article are vague, in the vein of Odin's comment, "There is a power far greater than mine - and it is to Him I commend thy spirit now." If there are sufficient appearances or mentions of him that can be clearly concluded to be the same character, then the article should remain. Otherwise, I would push not for deletion, but for what Jclemens mentioned on February 2, which was to merge or rename into an article along the lines of "Representations of a Supreme Being in the Marvel Universe". As far as the issue of primary sources is concerned, like it or not, a lot, perhaps most articles on comics characters give only primary sources for them, as that is largely what's available for them. Not every notable character has had entire books or articles written about them, like Batman or Superman. But's hardly a valid rationale for deletion. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's the whole point in discussion here: that the references are simply unrelated references to God, said in cryptic terms, and this article attempts to pick them toguether as if they were about a fictional character. If you want to see by yourself, check Reference 2 and 4 http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fnewnames%2F300%2F5%2F2%2F8%2F1%2F5281236.jpg]%2Ccontinueonerror[true]&scale=size[450x2000]%2Coptions[limit]&source=url[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]&sink=preservemd[true] (copy this whole URL into a new browser tab to see the image). MBelgrano (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links you have posted are not even on the article, merely drawn from citation sites you found on the article. Which is kind of more original research, so...you yourself mentioned that there can only be one Supreme Being, so wouldn't it really make sense that all references to a Supreme Being refer to the same character? I'm sorry, but aside from the endless accusations you make about original research, many of your own points seem almost contradictory. Belgrano, please, even you did not always think that this article should be deleted. Is all this truly worth your time and ours? Aidoflight (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some controversy about whether he's a "real character" or not. Well my understanding is, most marvel comic fans know who he is, and what his name is. In any discussion over the most powerful characters in Marvel, he always tops the list. If he always, time and time again, tops the list of the most powerful characters in Marvel comics, doesn't that make him notable in real world discussion? I'm not a huge Marvel comics fan, but even I have heard of this guy. He may not be as popular as Spider-Man, or Captain America, but he's still notable. ScienceApe 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability only coverage by reliable third-party sources determines notability. The problem we are having is that without these sources we cannot even attribute all the appearances listed to the same character, so we don't know if were dealing with one or a dozen different characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are valid, I agree; and, yet, the Supreme Being cannot be a "dozen" characters; the name "One-Above-All" is in itself simply the name "God" in the context of Marvel Comics. I cannot understand why you must think that there are a dozen "God" characters in Marvel; one could even make an argument, I suppose, that Odin or Thor is "God", but, like, come on, that is truly a poor, even if possible, argument to make. But, TriipleThreat, please, do you really, beyond all doubt, think this deletion is truly necessary, or at all beneficial to any editor here? As it has been here since five years ago, surely you yourself must have known of it, and yet you were evidently not wholly convinced that it doubtless merits deletion. With all respect, I ask you to reconsider. And, like, come on, look at the Presence article, which even mentions the "God" of Vertigo, which has also not been explicitly "confirmed" to be the same as the Presence; though Belgrano has avoided addressing the points I made concerning this, if we delete this article, by his own principle, I fear he will have to spend quite some more time deleting many others here. Only I am not so sure if the editors of the Presence will be as eager to support its deletion as many here are. I tried once to have the One-Above-All deleted here years ago in my own childish personal displeasure, and not a single person did so or even responded; to this day, the only replies there have been my own. That says a lot, actually, and, in truth, just as Wikipedia's own policies can change, so can its editors' views. For I no longer at all support the deletion of this article.
I will address your legitimate issues, of course, as best as I can. No, the entity that appeared to Spider-Man did not tap him on the back and say something like, "Oh, hey, Peter, just to let you know, I'm the One-Above-All, the Supreme Being and Creator of the Marvel Universe—you know, the unseen master who the cosmic entity known as the Living Tribunal has sometimes mentioned in passing." No, he did not explicitly say this, but by that same standard, if someone said something like, "The World-Devourer of the Cosmos, Ashta, comes to decimate our planet! The end is nigh!", I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of us would indeed think this entity is Galactus, even though he was not explictly mentioned by name, and very few of of us would argue this. The fact that beings such as Uatu, Odin, Eternity, and the Living Tribunal have made mention to a Supreme Being simply cannot be ignored, as such is essential to the Marvel hierarchy and cosmology itself. In addition, Marvel has officially acknowleged the existence of this character, and they, at least, have deemed this worthy of inclusion in three of their character profiles: [1] [2][3]If Marvel has noted the One-Above-All, what gives us the right to delete this article and essentially say that this character does not exist in Marvel? Aidoflight (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying he doesn't exist. What is being said is that this article draws a lot of conclusions based on synthesis of primary sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was kind of the message I got from the many responses here; sorry if I was wrong, but I truly thought that was indeed what certain users here were getting at, though of course among many other things. I myself thought the One-Above-All was a fan term. But if this character does indeed exist, to delete the article solely on basis of WP:NOR is, to me, going a bit too far with this. But that is simply my own input. Aidoflight (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have in mind that, when we talk about fictional universe, logic does not work as it "should", but as the fictional work states. After all, even more than super heros, fictional characters like Galactus, Eternity or the Living Tribunal are simply beyond any logic to begin with. Divine simplicity does not apply unless it is stated it applies; we can't describe the role of God in the Marvel Universe or how does he fit in it unless some comic book finally does so. Comic book continuity is a consequence, not a condition; similar but unrelated plot elements are unrelated until someone comes up with a plot relating them. MBelgrano (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character, though the article is in poor condition. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' - Can you provide reliable sources that show this is a significant character? -- Whpq (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he means significant in the "in Marvel Universe" respect. As for "is he significant in the real world?", probably not. I understand that wikipedia recognizes notability from 3rd party sources, which suffice to say probably isn't much if any at all, but I still think this article should remain. My reason is because of how central this character is to the multiverse. He is significant to the Marvel multiverse because according to the Marvel mythology, he created it. I would say that's pretty significant. But yeah, I"m sure everyone will concede, he's not talked about a lot outside of Marvel lore aside from forum discussions and such. ScienceApe (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no secondary sources, clear padding and WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any original research in the article (at least not anymore). The fictional biography details all of his appearances which are properly cited. ScienceApe (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's Original Research precisely because it details all of his appearances. There are no independent, reliable secondary sources which analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 05:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet, separate sources are not banned here, and almost all the comic articles use sources from a collected list of various comic book issues. Are you saying that, like, someone actually has to write and publish some kind of article about the character, to be considered a valid source? Besides, many sources were removed by other users for reasons of their own. If we take the issue of secondary sources as completely mandatory, well, we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles here. Not that some here would not attempt to do so, but, still...take the Celestial of the similar name. What exact policy gives it the right to remain, if the apparent lack of secondary sources is such an essential criteria? I still honestly think it may be more because of the subject matter more than anything that makes people uncomfortable about keeping the article... Aidoflight (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many people feel that "we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles" on Wikipedia. The only reason they are not deleted is a vocal fan base that votes heavily in AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Smaldone[edit]

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

Nothing in the article show that this person fulfils the requirements of WP:PROF; in particular, being a member of a local council does not confer notability. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question WP:Prof includes this This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Isn't his notability via WP:Author clear? (Msrasnw (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xylos[edit]

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

Does not have significant coverage in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. A one-paragraph mention as a "band to watch" is not multiple and is barely non-trivial, and the lack of any actual produced music at this point would suggest that they do not meet WP:MUSIC. Might be a case of WP:CRYSTAL, as their album is due out April 5, allegedly, which contradicts the one source given. The tour claim actually appears to be one-time and/or a couple of regional performances with the bands listed (i.e., the run with Efterklang was, per [4], "a short little run around the Northeast"), and also not all of that information can be sourced to WP:RS. Note: this article was previously deleted via AfD, but that was over five years ago, and WP:CSD#G4 likely does not apply. Kinu t/c 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of the Roman Republic[edit]

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

I'm proposing the deletion of this article because It's impossible to verify its factual accuracy as it lacks any sources whatsoever. The historical development described is this article is unverifiable (one cannot verify if what is written here is true or not). Every person (and institution) mentioned in this article has a proper article (with verifiable sources) making this article (in its present state) simply superfluous. Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Our AfD policy at WP:BEFORE describes the steps to take before nominating an article for deletion. Among these is to look for reliable sources. My search shows that this topic is discussed widely in academic sources and in university courses under this exact terminology. Add the best of those sources and improve the article through normal editing. That's always preferable to deleting an article about a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally unsourced and unreliable. Our policy, and the number one rule on Wikipedia is that the information has to be backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Insistence on quality has taken Wikipedia from being considered a joke, to being the number one place that people turn to for quick info. Even in the "anything goes" days of 2006, there was never an excuse for an unsourced article. If a person can't source a single statement, how do we know whether all of it, or any of it, is true? There's no need for the nominator to do someone else's homework for them. Certainly, anyone who thinks that this is worthy of rescue is welcome to do the "look for reliable sources" and then "add the best of these sources" themselves. But it's not 2006 anymore, and deleting an article is preferable to keeping something that nobody cares about enough to report accurately. The days of "take my word for it" are long gone. This has no business being included with the many excellent articles that we do have about the Roman Republic. Thank you, nominator, for identifying this piece of garbage that has been on here far too long. Mandsford 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate or keep - what an ugly mess. I'll try to add external sources for now. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand Mandford's frustration, but I think this can be rescued. I found 194,000 Ghits, including many textbooks and course syllabii on the topic. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unsourced and questionable WP:CFORK of Roman Republic, claiming a 3 century-long 'crisis' (over half of the republic's history). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I appreciate that Bearian posted a viewable link (page from a history professor at Washington State) and some bibliography, pending more of a rescue. I agree with Hrafn that the article creator's opinion is questionable. The first sentence is "The Crisis of the Roman Republic began in the late 3rd century BC", and then it skips about 80 years or so to the election of Gracchus in 133 BC, which is when other histories identify as the date of beginning of a crisis (The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, for instance). Rather than reinventing the wheel, perhaps the better approach is to discuss spinning out the section of History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic#From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC) whose authors believed in things like footnotes-- I estimate about 35 of them. Until there is a spinout, then the phrase "Crisis of the Roman Republic" should be a redirect there. Mandsford 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've being very bold now. I removed the whole nonsense about the 4th century B.C.E. and Hannibal, as unverifiable and opinion. However, I think the rest of the article can be a perfectly good content fork from Roman Republic. recall that not all forks are bad; the main article is ghetting too long. I've asked my sister, who actually teaches this material, for assistance. I am also going to read a hard copy of Flower's treatise that I'm borrowing from my library (already noted in the article). Bearian (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong soliloquize 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Withholding judgment until Bearian's modifications are complete. I would suggest moving the article to a better name if sources cannot be located which actually describe this phenomenon as the "Crisis of the Roman Republic". I see there is one book whose title is Crisis of the Roman Republic: Studies in political and social history, but unless this is a standard term for this period in Roman history (i.e. if this book is the only source which calls it by this name), a rename may still be required. Note that I haven't actually looked at any sources yet, so it could very well be that this is the common term for it. SnottyWong communicate 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a very disjointed article, focusing on a few short periods. "Crisis" may be a good title for a book or academic article, but I would have thought that "End of ..." or "collapse of ..." would be better. If retained, this article needs to become a "main" article to a section of an article on the history of the Roman Republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Bearian has addressed the problems that I had with this article. As with everyone else here, he was under no obligation to fix it, but anytime someone does it rather than talking about it, that's to be encouraged. I disagree with Mr. Kingiron on the title, since the end and the collapse didn't come until more than a century later. I'm not too thrilled about the concept of a 100+ year long "crisis" either, although Homeland Security went back and forth between "yellow" and "orange" threat levels for years before someone figured out that the other five colors weren't likely to ever be used. If it's good enough for Cambridge U., however, I guess it's good enough for me. Mandsford 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on the Google book search at the top of the AFD. It has over a thousand results. A lot of books call it this, so it must be an official name. [5] Anyone have an actual history book where it was called this? Dream Focus 11:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article that is a needless fork from the Roman Empire and POV attempts to describe a major chunk of it as a crisis. While the term has been used in multiple texts, its use is inconsistent and in no way always refers to how it's being applied on this page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep open debate -- I asked my sister, a Roman Empire expert, about this. She replied that (1) most modern scholars don't use the term anymore to include such a long time period, and (2) the article as written has a reactionary POV because it implies that expanding the franchise of citizenship caused the Republic its troubles, while the people, publica, was its essence, its res. She promised to get me some additional resources to use, but also advised deleting it and starting from scratch. In the meanwhile, I ask my fellow admins to keep open the debate while we try to fix it. I don't want you to close the debate before the controversy is decided clearly. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we consider "spinning out the section of History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic#From the Gracchi to Caesar (133–49 BC) whose authors believed in things like footnotes" as Mandsford suggested, or redirect/smerge at this point? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm currently a delete vote, I also would support keeping the debate open to give your sister time. There certainly does seem to be potential that she'll be able to help to clear everything up and answer lots of questions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bearian deserves an extra stripe on his medals for his work on the article. I suggest that the history of the term is itself of interest; evidence of growing lack of favor among historians would itself be a useful addition to the article, rather than a reason for deletion. Should historians be using different terms now, a new title may be difficult to choose and citations for it may be difficult to establish, especially if they use a variety of terms (I refer specifically to B's sister's reservations, rather than the choice of 'crisis', for which 'end of', or 'collapse of', are perfectly reasonable synonyms). If scholarship on this topic is in a period of transition, then WP should wait to remake. Keeping the old name may be preferable for now. Anarchangel (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian T[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, no reliable sources Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhosadi[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition and is unlikely ever to be anything else. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) E. Fokker (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Freddy[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable band. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:Band. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I don't agree with keeping it, WP:BAND says that a musical group is notable if it "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (Criteria 6). If the article is correct, then every member of the band is independently notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because the musicians are indisputably notable, this ensemble is also presumed to be notable under our guideline WP:MUSICBIO as mentioned by Guerillero. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite what Dolovis says, this group is discussed in many reliable sources. An example is the Salem-News of February 14, 2008. They also appeared on national TV, on the Craig Kilborn show May 21, 2004. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, a biography on Allmusic. If kept, I will work on updating the article (when I have the time). HrZ (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wheaton_College_(Illinois)#List_of_campus_buildings. Jujutacular talk 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheaton Science Center[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fairly new building (opened in 2010) on one of thousands of college campus' that hasn't built up any history to establish notability.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Now show us the WP:N coverage in WP:RS (independent i.e. not the student newspaper or school house organ). EEng (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belton Baker[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for The Next Step Realty, a non-notable company.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article fails to establish notability, and it does appear, as the nominators says, to be a thinly disguised advert. I'd suggest that this article could be speedy deleted under the A7 criterion. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if his company was notable, that doesn't make him notable. The sources are about his company, not him and thus he is not notable at all. Toddst1 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strictly self-promo by COI SPA. Sources are all puff pieces, and not notable even if all statements are true. EEng (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EEng. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nova 6[edit]

Nova 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched for "Nova Gas", and all I get are Call of Duty gameplay guides. I think this may be a hoax. In any event, if "the last trace of the weapon was destroyed", how does the creator know about it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - blatant hoax. Chemical weapons were not used by the Nazis, or anybody else in Europe, during World War Two - I would say "at all" but I vaguely recall the Japanese having used some in China? Either way, this is a wholly unfactual article that needs to be put in the round file in a hurry. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that I cannot slap a CSD G3 tag on it immediately because it isn't blatant misinformation, even though I was positive it was false. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find numerous sources in both English and German referring to late-WW2 German plans to weaponize Tabun nerve gas; it would probably be good to add something about that to that article, or point to where else it is discussed. But I can't find anything on a Nova 6 or Nowa 6 chemical weapons project, so I suspect this is a garbled version of the Tabun program. Unless of course the creator finds and includes sources. There were indeed both rumored and real secret projects. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: completely unreferenced, likely a hoax or joke from someone who has played too much Call of Duty. There would be some sort of record of this program existing if it were true, not to mention the five previous iterations (it is named "6" after all). Additionally, "nova" is a Latin astronomical word that wasn't introduced to the German language until 1970, so it seems rather unlikely that a Nazi weapons program (typically not named for astronomy terms) would name it after an Italian word in the 1940s. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax JDDJS (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is likely a hoax. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable and lacks "significant independent coverage". As such it fails the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does look like a hoax article consisting of joke information and deserves to go on Uncyclopedia. Minimac (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant hoax. --RoyalFool (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An IP has just added even more obviously hoax content to the article. Can an admin please snow close this AFD now that it has been established that the article is a hoax? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even more IP misinformation has been added (with other removed...). I wonder if salting might be in order. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that they are IPs, I don't think we have to worry about that. If it crops up again, we can get it speedied as a recreation and then salt it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dark Souls[edit]

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure of my own bad faith nomination)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD. Game is noted as a "spiritual" sequel, yet it is in development, so it fails WP:GNG at this time. Also see WP:FUTURE.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a major title from a major developer which has already received plenty of coverage. Development status has nothing to do with the general notability guideline, and crystalballery is an aside since it wouldn't matter if development stopped halfway through, there'd still be coverage. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion. Someoneanother 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Someoneanother, why is this being nominated for deletion? I don't see how it fails WP:GNG at all. 1) "Significant Coverage" is satisfied because the game is the main topic of each source provided, there is no need for original research to extract the content, nor is it a trivial mention. 2) "Reliable" is covered because I know that at least the first three sources are well known legitimate gaming news sites, I've seen them used in other gaming articles and I don't think it can get much more reliable than that. 3) Each of the sources are secondary sources, and we have multiple secondary sources for this article. 4) "Independent of the subject" does not apply here since none of the sources provided are directly affiliated with the subject or I think in this case the game's publisher. Demon's Souls was a very well known video game, from a very well known developer and publisher, I think we can presume that as more information on this game is released, more sources will become available as more gaming news sites post articles on the game and it's development, which I think fulfills the last bullet on the notability guidelines. 71.112.84.244 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 06:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major news revealed today (day of the nom) in a major Japanese gaming magazine, repropigated by Western news sources. Previous news of the game (by its old name, Project Dark was also covered. While I don't think there was a rush to create this article, there's certainly no need to delete it. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the IP's great respose. Skullbird11 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even having read a new editor's post on another page, the simple fact is that this business fails WP:CORP badly. RS's are not RS's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Step Realty[edit]

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

The article appears to be advertising. The article is about a company that is not notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I think at first blush, the sources seem to satisfy WP:CORP. However if you actually look at the sources, it's pretty clear that they are puff pieces placed/arranged by a good PR firm. The company has done nothing notable since their media-blitz around launch, and the article should be deleted, by common sense if not explicitly by policy.
I've edited it down significantly from the full-blown WP:ADVERT and WP:LINKFARM that it used to be. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Note that I am not Toddy1 who nominated this, although our names are similar.[reply]
  • Delete Closest to a RS on this startup is the Palm Beach paper (forget which one), which had a piece written by the paper's fashion editor! Imagine the indepth probing of the company's business plan! EEng (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A newcomer (Hockeyguy676) has expressed opposition to the article on The Next Step Realty being deleted on an admin's talk page (see link). He has been advised that the discussion here is his opportunity to explain why the article should not be deleted. Please can no decision be made for another 48 hours to give this newcomer a chance to express his/her views in the correct place.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would " a bunch of faggots" like us want to do that? :) I wouldn't object to extending the close - not that there would be anything wrong with that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PIGSSAI[edit]

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

A non notable marial art organisation without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been added to verify notability. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel Eskrima[edit]

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

A non notable marial art without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely a notable art.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source that shows this art is notable? Astudent0 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does 7 work?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does for me. Astudent0 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Mike's efforts. Astudent0 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with Astudent0 Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references that were just added may not, individually, be "significant coverage", but they're enough to convince me the article is worth keeping. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Scientific Arnis[edit]

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

A non notable marial art without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 30 Rock characters. Jujutacular talk 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 30 Rock cast members[edit]

List of 30 Rock cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a direct mirror of List of 30 Rock characters. Provides no real new information beyond what is in that original list other than maybe the undefined/sourced claims about when someone was a "recurring/guest" and when they were a "Star" (which could be added easily to that list anyways). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find articles (charts is probably a better word) like this very useful, which is why I created it. The character list is missing many of the characters listed here, and does not specify exactly when a character appeared (it is also missing a lot of information on that), which actually adds a lot of information that was previously not included in any article. Anyway, I think that the information organized in a chart format is a simple way to get a good overview of the series. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things like seasons appeared could easily be added with almost no work. And why does the chart (which is about 99% of this article) need it's own page? Why can't it just be on the character page? And where is the sourcing for it? Things like listing Dreyfuss as a guest appearance version of Liz is a pretty misleading way of putting it. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chart doesn't necessarily have to have it's own page, it could easily be merged to the character list, if that's what is decided. I don't think it really needs sourcing, but I can do that too if necessary. And yes, I was hesitant about adding Dreyfus to the list (going to change that right now). Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it can be added to the other page in the near future. It is a novel navigation device, not an article. Very well done. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That kind of info can easily be summarized in half a sentence for each character in List of 30 Rock characters, no need for a separate article. Its only purpose seems to be to provide timeline statistics for actors playing characters, and besides the apparant crufityness, we have WP:NOT#STATS discouraging it. – sgeureka t•c 16:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Everyone keeps saying that the information in the table can be added onto each character's description on the character list. I would have done that in the first place, except that in order to get a comparison (which is what I'd like to do on things like this), the reader would have to scroll through an entire lengthy article and search for material, which would get extremely tedious and frustrating. How about a simple merge to the character list? Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to List of 30 Rock characters. The table is great, not OR, and NOT#STATS doesn't apply to things like this which lack the level of trivial detail envisioned there. Having said that, there's no particular reason for two separate articles, so the more traditional name ("... characters") can contain both its current content and this presentation. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of 30 Rock characters per Jclemens. Statements that the info could be "summarized in half a sentence for each character" miss the whole point of the table, which is to present all of this info together and in a visual format that presents it more clearly than mere text could. We should have more visual representations of info like this on Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WE ALREADY HAVE THIS LIST it's called List of 30 Rock characters.... I doubt RICHARD ARTHUR NORTON will prove my point more succinctly: "It is a novel navigation device, not an article. Very well done." WOW. Somebody has very different ideas about the notability criteria than everyone else, [outside of the ARS... put on explicit display]. That's all you need to know. Shadowjams (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that it contains the same information as the character list has already been addressed above, and at most merging the table to that list is the appropriate remedy, not outright deletion. You've also simultaneously suggested that this cast list is redundant to an existing list and also somehow fails notability, which doesn't make any sense. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Tyson[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher who is currently pitching in indy ball. His affiliated minor league record is 11-12 with a 4.24 ERA--nothign stupendous. He last pitched in 2010, where he had a 6.75 ERA in affiliated ball. Alex (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorority Row Part 2[edit]

Sorority Row Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources that this movie even exists. One of the actors "thinks" that it is being written. It certainly does not pass WP:NFF. Nymf hideliho! 18:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Waaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. It was in February 2009 that Briana Evigan stated "I think Sorority Row 2 is in the midst of writing right now,"[6] and there has been no news since that time. The content of the article is pure speculation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ontiveros[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ARTIST and nobody has done anything with it in three years now Banaticus (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - See WP:NOTINHERITED EEng (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - inherited does not mean it MUST be deleted, read the guideline. And, from the top of that guideline: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My delete is based on the usual reasons, in this case specifically because nothing in the article would make him notable even assuming it's all true, plus no ghits including no gbooks hits. I mentioned NOTINHERITED only to explain to the prior poster why his logic doesn't work; for that purpose, referring to the essay is quite enough. Meanwhile, you haven't given any argument at all for keep -- I least I gave a link to the essay! EEng (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul's "keep" reasoning is supported by WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i wish he'd said that. However, which work M.O. contributed to is "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"? I'm not saying it;s not so, I just don't know kids' literature very well. EEng (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Phil, could you hop over to D'Jais and see if you can find some notability sources? If you can't, nobody can.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel drift[edit]

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

Synthesis. Only one of the sources uses the term "channel drift". Nothing but an arbitrary list of channels that have changed focus. Inappropriate tone (we should have a bot that blocks "ironically" from article space). Most of the sourced content is from opinion pieces. And there should be no reason to link to TV Tropes except in its own article. Previously, inexplicably, kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network decay in 2009. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't appear to be an established name for it, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be an article, as many articles have descriptive titles (including several featured articles). Original research and synthesis is a possible problem in articles such as this, and there is probably some in the article, but 3 of the 4 inline sources provide examples, and use of opinion pieces isn't inappropriate, if the opinions are notable enough. Peter E. James (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a particular type of rebranding and so the worst case is that we'd merge into that article or some article about TV. The distribution of TV is still evolving rapidly and it's not clear what will happen to networks and channels when everything is available on demand. Because of such change, topics such as cable network are poor and it's best for us to keep these various imperfect attempts and merge them together as and when the technology settles down and we have some historical perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The use of Channel Drift is a reoccurring problem in media, giving it certain social notoriety; several channels have lived and died in the past due to this ... effect ... this ('whatever the opposite is of 'back by popular demand'). Especially as new "google TV"-style services come of age, this will have a certain utility. A look at past cases would be helpful to those who want to understand where this had gone so wrong previously. This information, at least, is important; 'Those who don't learn from history are due to repeat it.' Sim (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, though I do not think there is an agreed term for the phenomena.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This issue has gotten murkier instead of clearer during the time it has been listed at AFD. I suggest that discussion about what exactly is the subject of the article continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dakoha Sadaat[edit]

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

An article that contains an unreferenced lineage back to Adam immediately arouses ones suspicions. Distinct shortage of reliable sources. Does it pass muster as a tribe article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RHaworth,
I am assuming that you reside in a western nation, which is why you wouldn’t understand how lineage information is kept in eastern countries. Books have been written about the Sadaats. I am going to tell you the same thing, which I told you on your page. Let me know for which thing you need a reference and I’ll be more than happy to fulfill your wish. Just because something is not of interest to you, that doesn’t mean that it won’t be of interest to anyone else.
Thank You --70.19.112.239 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — 70.19.112.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:V. This doesn't pass muster as a tribe. It is about a particular family. Tracing one's lineage back to Adam isn't a criteria for notability. If thats the case theoretically every individual can have an article.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sodabottle,
This article is not about their lineage; lineage is a part of the article not the main point of the article. So I would truly appreciate it, if your guys don’t delete this article based on linage issue. If you want, I can even refer to a book which contains their lineage. The article’s main idea is the history of the Sadaats and how they formed, why they formed, and how they claim themselves to be a part of a Sadaat. This information may not be important to you (like many other things), but it may be important for someone else that is interested in anthropology. --Salman A Shah (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Salman A Shah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am thinking about striking the Delete vote per work done on the article by Thor Dockweiler. Currently the article has been transformed into an article on a town. But it still looks like an article on a particular "family" and not a community/clan/tribe. If it is a town it is notable per our geographic location notability standards. But if it is about a group of people, i dont see how this meets our notability criteria. (Being useful for some people, is unfortunately not our notability threshold). So please work this out - is it an article about the town or the family?--Sodabottle (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an article about a community in India. It is a question of wording. The original author's extensive input in creating the article should be appreciated. The article has been revised at the beginning to correct notability problems. The author is encouraged to continue making the article about the community as a whole, including the notable part of the Sadaat portion within it as part of the history of that community. I trust that ethnic jabbing was not the original intent of the deletion proposer, but it is a possible interpretation. Deletions should be on items truly worthy of deletion; otherwise put a little effort in fixing articles. It would take less time than the wasted energy by many people making comments. Deletions especially to newer editors are perceived as callous and cause them to drop out on contributions to Wikipedia, both in articles and in potential monetary contributions. Wikipedia needs more conscious editors. Thank you "Salman A Shah" for making the world a little richer place in the realm of knowledge. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we have any sources to verify the current lead sentence (which now identifies Dakoha Sadaat as the name of a town)? At present, Googling "Dakoha Sadaat" is turning up nothing in reliable sources to show that a town by this name exists. Of course, this doesn't mean that it definitely doesn't exist: the "Google test" could be inadequate here for several reasons. I know many non-Euro/American entities just lack English-language coverage online, and perhaps there's another way of transliterating the name into Roman characters that I should be searching for.
Alternatively, perhaps we're mischaracterizing the subject in English. Is the term "Dakoha Sadaat" better understood as "the Sadaat community/clan (originally) of the town of Dakoha"? The article's section on Partition seems to indicate that this is a better interpretation of the term, since it notes that the Sadaats left the Indian Punjab at Partition and eventually settled in Lahore, Pakistan. If that's the case, the lead sentence's claim that there is a town called Dakoha Sadaat in Jalandhar does not seem to be correct, and we're back to assessing the notability of a branch of the Sadaat family clan historically associated with, but not currently resident in, the Punjabi town of Dakoha. I can verify the existence of a town named Dakoha, but I am drawing a blank on reliable sources discussing an entity named Dakoha Sadaat. On those grounds I'm leaning delete, but I'm holding off on !voting to see if anyone has a response to these questions about the current lead formulation. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gonzonoir,
Dakoha Sadaat is not a name of a town; However, Dakoha is (it is located in Jalandhar). Dakoha Sadaat merely refers to the Sayeds that resided in Dakoha before the partition of 1947. There are many topics in this world, on which information on the internet can’t be searched, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t write the article about it. Distribution of knowledge has to start from somewhere. The information regarding Dakoha Sadaat can be found in many books, but they are written in Hindi, Urdu, Farsi, and Punjabi. This article on Wikipedia, is literally the first English article about the Dakoha Sadaat. --Salman A Shah (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further information, Salman A Shah. In light of this, here's what I'd advocate for this article:
  • Keep the article, but rename/move it to the title Dakoha.
  • Refocus it as a general article about the town in Jalandhar (which I presume is automatically notable as a populated place).
  • Include in the new Dakoha article a "History of Dakoha" section in which the presence of the Sayed community in the town prior to Partition is discussed, with sources: non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, but we do need to have references provided so that the contents can be verified (by people who can read the languages concerned at least). Salman A Shah, are you able to supply these? If we can't find sources, I think the material should be excluded. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gonzonoir,
Thank you for your understanding and yes I can supply the sources/references.--Salman A Shah (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have made initial edits to refocus the article on the Jalandhar village in light of earlier discussion; feel free to revert me if you disagree. To work as a useful article about the settlement I believe the article would need significant expansion to cover other aspects of the village than the history of one of its communities. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Edwyn Wren Hoskyns, 17th Baronet[edit]

Sir Edwyn Wren Hoskyns, 17th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page apparently primarily created because this person a member of a notable family. On such basis alone not notable alone as notability is non inherited. After being tagged, the article author has added some further claims of notability, such as that he is "regularly cited and acknowledged by other published researchers in the field of childhood diseases". However neither does Google turn up much beyond directories and genealogy related pages nor does a Google book search turn up much.
Also NB the the title "Sir" is based upon the article authors perceptions of style and is not a title bestowed, nor is this person listed as "Sir" in any non-genealogy related sourced. Travelbird (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Travelbird has seemingly no concept of the style (manner of address) used for a Baronet, which is "Sir", and has not researched it or the statement above would not have been made. While we're at it, let's search for the man using his professional name and field of work (medical, paediatrics, etc), noting that there were several other people and previous family members using that name.
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So, I think that he is notable, including being notable among the other notable people in his notable family, so I hastened to add the material that I knew was out there in order to (hopefully) substantiate the notability of this person and the entry.- Peter Ellis - Talk 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am aware of British style, however I do have to note that none of the sources you gave actually lists hims as "Sir". So it remains highly questionable whether assertion that he should be referred to as such is even shared by the person in question.
Being a member of a notable family is not sufficient for inclusion. Notability is not contagious nor is it inherited. Just because you are the son/father/wife/friend of a notable person does not mean that you yourself are notable.
At the moment the only thing that could possibly get him past WP:ACADEMIC is criteria #3 ("Fellow of a major scholarly society"), which the article claims he is ("Fellow (FRCP) of the Royal College of Physicians"). However for that to stand we would need a) a reliable reference that this is actually the case (the current link to a genealogy site is not a reliable ref) and b) establish "that is a highly selective honor". Travelbird (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied per user request.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Blömke[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - going over his record, I cannot find any indication that he has appeared in the main draw of a major event, or won any Challenger event. He has won some Futures events but that is not sufficient to meet WP:TENNIS. I did find this article about him but I don;t see that he passes the general notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Article's creator has requested userfication here. - Station1 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now with no prejudice towards recreation as a redirect to Orlady's under-construction article when it is ready for mainspace. If you would like a copy of this for reference I'd be happy to do that for you. (I'm a product of Montessori education myself. Not sure if that is an endorsement or a cautionary tale...) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Montessori Academy[edit]

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

nn grade school, tagged for two years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sante Kimes[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of and by request of Bryan Johnson, attorney of Sante Kimes, see OTRS ticket#2011013010006192. The reason given was because the article is irreconcilably biased against Mr. Kimes. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Any improperly sourced information can be fixed by editing the article. I and others have in fact already put quite a bit of effort towards rewriting it and improving the sourcing. I already suspected that persons with a conflict of interest were editing this article, and the sudden arrival of a lawyer would seem to verify that suspicion. The article is well referenced due to the efforts of the past days. Its hard to write something positive about someone who is notable for being convicted of murder, robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, violation of anti-slavery laws, forgery and eavesdropping. That's not bias, it is properly verified fact. Find some sources that say something positive about her and we'll happily include that to. Good luck finding them. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tough crap if it's "biased" - she's a convicted murderer. Do a "Google" for Sante Kimes to see if she's notable.[7] Lawyer or no, this article should stay. Doc talk 12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. The possibility that we take personal offence at someone is still no reason for bias. (However claiming bias isn't the same as an article being biased.) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, that's why "biased" was in "scare quotes". Of course her lawyer would think it's biased. All WP policies apply to all articles... Doc talk 12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTCENSORED and we will of course be meeting our policies of WP:NPOV with WP:V through WP:RS. It probably is "irreconcilable" with an attorney's wishes, but that doesn't mean what they're implying it means, nor can "irreconcilable" even be applied in conjunction with a bias. Perhaps they meant irredeemably? Of course that's simply not true for an editable medium. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Who cares what the lawyer of a convicted murderer thinks about the article.--Dmol (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article appears to be sourced, the subject seems notable, and User:Beeblebrox has done a good job of cleaning it up. I see what the lawyer means, in that the article, no matter how neutrally it reports the available information about Kimes, is bound to give most people a rather negative view of her, but I don't see that as a reason to delete the article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per SNOWBALL-I know who she is without reading the article, she's notable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy removal The 'lead' information is repetitious. Many neutral POVs tones could be made on the article, however, they are not, and that does not appear to be changing. Inaccurate information is listed within the contents of "Life section", "Murders section" and "Trial section". The article also includes misquoting. All of which is being listed to appear as fact. Edits to correct these issues are being removed or altered. Only biased information is being used from the references listed on the article. Removing the article is probably the only way to ensure that it doesn't contain misinformation or a biased POV.--Sktruth (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) — Sktruth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Sante Kimes is notable enough that this article would just get re-created again anyway. Sorry, but try working on the article's purported WP:NPOV issues rather than deleting it... Doc talk 13:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is being worked on to add more sources. Sante Kimes is very notable. There is no justifying the removal of this article. I agree with what Beeblebrox says above. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are any reliable sources saying she was kind to animals and always bought her mother flowers, we could perhaps add those to balance it a little? But seriously, as it stands now it looks pretty factual and well sourced - a murderer is a murderer, and there's no nice way to say that. Of course, if there are any specific claims that have undue weight or are not well sourced, they can be changed or removed - but there are no valid grounds for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beeblebrox - but shouldn't the nomination say "Mrs Kimes"? Or is the lawyer on behalf of the son? Peridon (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interesting article, and appears sufficiently notable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use stylistic improvements, but it's verifiable information about someone who was actually convicted of murder, and the published book alone puts this case far over the bar for notability. A neutral presentation of the fact of that murder conviction will of course include the negative information that Sante Kimes is a convicted murderer. In the meantime, specific complaints with specific proposed remedies could be brought up on the article's talk page without any need for the article to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No policy based case for deleting this article is presented. The subject's crimes are notorious enough that books have been written about them. The article is well enough referenced within the context of the living person policy. There just isn't any way that any conceivable article about this notable person is going to make her or any of her accomplices look good. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannis Melanitis[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shit Hop[edit]

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

A google search reveals no news sources use this term. Only non-notable music artists are alleged to use this term to describe their music. —Ute in DC (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP. I was just PRODing this when you took it to AfD. I can't find anything approaching a reliable source for this and there are significant NPOV concerns with phrases like "which in turn caused the outcome of the songs, combined with the questionable talent of the rappers, to be quite shit."
  • Delete "Significant NPOV concerns"-- oh, ya think? But not bad as WP:NOTMADEUP transgressions go, I have to admit. Is there a gallery for MADEUP somewhere on WP? This really should be preserved somewhere. Yakushima (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was bugging me so I went back and removed the most blatant NPOV concerns from the "origins" section. AfD participants looking to evaluate this article in all its glory are welcome to consult the history, though the phrase I quoted above gives a general sense. Zachlipton (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the author has a sense of humor (and this could easily be integrated in to a movie like Naked Gun). Obviously there are lots of hits on Google but the general gist appears to be that what has been described as a genre is just terminology used to describe poor quality Hip Hop in a derogatory way. It is possible that a genre has blossomed out of this derogatory terminology but is there anybody out there who is prepared to admit that is their genre (and back it up).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -Cntras (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nipsonanomhmata but possibly pickle it somewhere. Reminded me of a former colleague (a skinhead bovver boy who was into classical and baroque chamber music) who one day asked why the C was always silent in 'rap'. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously a clear WP:NOTMADEUP candidate. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alawar Entertainment[edit]

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

Non-notable "casual" game developer. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Are we reading the same article? There are multiple references at the bottom. Several write ups in magazines, interviews with staff, etc. What is missing is inline citations. We also need to get rid of all the walkthrough links. They don't belong there. However, those are all problems for cleanup, not deletion. I believe the interpretation of "casual" in the statement above is the problem. They are developers that make games for casual players (people who only have 15 mins or so to play at a time). Heck, I have 4 of their games on my shelf at home (and that is just off the top of my head). How many redlinks will we cause by deleting a major game developer company page? This proposal makes no sense. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (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) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above comment, I also have a few of their games on my desk. Skullbird11 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBTs[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. What BBT is, God knows. The author can't tell us what the "T" stands for, but I fear the worst. If anyone feels the need to mark this as a hoax or as vandalism (there are racist undertones here), they have my blessing. In the meantime I'm stretching the limits of AGF: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Drmies (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saxon#Etymology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sassenach[edit]

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

This is a very nice dictionary article. By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jaque Hammer (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A concept, not just a word, and could be expanded further DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Important use replete with meaning V. Joe (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as it exists is just a long-form dictionary entry, and I'm not convinced it can ever be more than that. Most of our "articles about words" are articles about naughty or derogatory words, but that doesn't mean that every insult needs a Wikipedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most insults seem to survive as blue links - even deletionist. Why should this one be a red link?
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is little more than a poorly formatted dictionary entry with a small foray into similar words in other languages and an "in popular culture"-type section stuck on the end. An article may be writable about the the use of the term, but I'm not sure and in any case this wont help with that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dictionary definition plus a few examples that the word has been used is not a good basis for an encyclopedia article. We have Wiktionary for this sort of thing. --Michig (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Scottish language or Scottish national identity or both. Anarchangel (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   -- Lear's Fool 16:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Kids' Style[edit]

Pro Wrestling Kids' Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book, which the writer originally paid notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to print, then self-published it when it bombed there. Fails every possible criterion under WP:BK. Also WP:AUTO, WP: COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:SPA violations, relating to the subject's vanity attempts to advertise himself throughout Wikipedia [8] Qworty (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Despite the very obvious opinion of Qworty (talk, I am finding this book available at hundreds of libraries all across the country by doing a simple database search in WorldCat [9] which certainly gives it merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.174.67 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is nothing here to satisfy WP:BK. Anybody with a pulse can pay AuthorHouse to print a book, then donate the book to libraries, then come to Wikipedia as a WP:SPA to create WP:SPAM articles to promote oneself. That is not how notability is established. And then, of course, it's no surprise that the only voice to defend the WP:SPAM should come from an anonymous ISP in the guy's hometown. Qworty (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The search phrase "Pro Wrestling Kids Style" has 273,000 results on google, this author obviously does not need Wikipedia to self promote anything. True anybody can use Authorhouse, but but not everybody can be distributed via Baker and Taylor, one of the largest book distributors. The question here is does the subject have credible notability and despite the opinions of a few, that answer is undoubtedly yes. The fact that Qworty (talk) continues to show passion for deletion concludes his personal vendetta against the subject matter. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Those arguing keep need to point to the multiple, reliable, nontrivial, independent sources specified by WP:BOOK. EEng (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just took 10 minutes surfing the web and came up with several independent notable sources and reviews. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] I could have went on and kept adding more, but I think this is enough to prove the point. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but blogs and message boards do not constitute WP:RS in terms of satisfying WP:BK. Since the book was first vanity published, and then self-published, it is by definition ineligible for review in any of the industry publications that are required by WP:BK. Furthermore, you do not make a book notable, per WP guidelines, by paying to have it published yourself, getting other people to post about it on blogs and message boards, and then coming to Wikipedia in an attempt to use these bogus credentials to write articles about yourself. It is a violation of WP policies for you to attempt to do so. Since WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:SPAM are at work here, you should recuse yourself from further comment, including all attempts to try to build up false notability for yourself. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct about the various sources not being RS, but I'm afraid we must continue to assume good faith on the part of this IP, despite well-founded suspicioums based on the geolocation. [bolding later to highlight phrase referenced in my later comment, below] Anyway, perceived COI may lead to a user being blocked, and to heightened scrutiny of that user's actions, but if that user brings evidence to the notabilty discussion, it is evidence nonetheless. However, in this case, as you've correctly said, the evidence this IP has brought is worthless. EEng (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it is almost entertaining that Qworty (talk) makes the automatic assumption that I am the author in all of this just because I am located in the Midwest. I was merely trying to point out other third party sources I found to show that others did take the time to review and write about this book online. None of those links were message boards, some were blogs, but most were dedicated websites that do book reviews. While I feel this subject is worth debating, I also find it very suspiciously interesting in how passionate Qworty (talk) has become in his attempt to remove this article, as if he has a personal vendetta in all of this. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict -- Quorty's and EEng's responses where submitted simultaneously
You just don't know when to cut your losses, do you? (As Linciln is said to have put it, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.") You're not merely, as you say, "located in the Midwest," but specifically [18] in Schofield, Wisconsin, which (surprise!) is the location [19] of Crossen & Flink Services ("publisher" of Crossen's book); the dateline[20] of press releases from NWF Films, distributor of Crossen's film (and itself headed by Crossen); and, according to Crossen's own press release, [21] home of Mr. Crossen himself. So forget my admonition to Qworty earlier -- please just cut the crap, Mr. Crossen Mr. or Ms. IP 97.83.174.67, whoever you might be. Do you think you are dealing with fools?
EEng (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. Schofield, Wisconsin has a population of 2,117. According to the Crossen article, his self-publishing company is located in Schofield, Wisconsin [22] Hmm, your IP geolocates to . . . Schofield, Wisconsin [23] Those are some pretty huge coincidences for such a tiny town. But what is even more laughable is your assertion that Schofield, Wisconsin constitutes the entire Midwest. But you're right about one thing: I have a "personal vendetta" against WP:SPA accounts whose sole purpose is to create self-promotional WP:SPAM in a series of WP:WG articles that stink of demonstrable WP:COI and WP:AUTO. I and many others firmly believe that all of the relevant policies should be followed, and that such articles and their self-promoting creators should be scrubbed permanently off the project. We're just funny that way about policy
Qworty (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, is all I can say. You know, as much emphasis as all you so called "editors" put on following the rules of wikipedia as far as making sure that sources are notable and reliable for accuracy purposes, you should really start practicing what you preach when it comes to drawing conclusions to a person's identity on the internet. Not that I have to disclose this, but for the record, I am a local reporter from Weston, Wisconsin to be exact, not Schofield, Wisconsin. And a few years back, I ran a feature story on Mr. Crossen where I reviewed both his book and documentary. I followed his projects over the years watching how they took shape. Years ago, there was more mainstream media coverage on him, but those online links have since expired. I never used wikipedia before but thought I would try to make a contribution of what I thought was some very justifiable information. I've heard of all the horror stories with the controversy of the submission process, but I thought, I'll give it a try anyway. Never again. I'm done with this. Now I see what I was warned about. And the sad part is, I wasn't submitting this to do a favor to Mr. Crossen for publicity reasons, he doesn't need that, his products are plastered all over the net and can be found immediately with a google search. I submitted this because I thought it had merit and was useful information for wikipedia purposes. Like I said, never again. And if you consider yourself any kind of journalist or "editor", next time don't make the assumption over somebodies identity unless you know for certain you are correct, so unprofessional. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've bold-ed bits of my earlier comments (above) as a reminder that I clung as long as I could to the assumption of good faith. I did allow myself, not without reason I might add, to finally slip into the assumption that you were Crossen himself, and I do regret that, but only somewhat. And here's why.
This incident vividly illustrates how powerful is personal acquaintance as a contaminator of the ability to write neutrally about someone. You have met Crossen and admire him; you feel what he did ought to be memorialized here. That's natural, and the fact that it's natural is the fundamental reason that Wikipedia asks people with personal involvement with subjects to stay away from articles on that subject or, if they really feel they have something unique to contribute, to proceed with extreme caution, to be thorough in understanding applicable policies and guidelines and, especially, to defer to the views of other editors who are viewing the subject with a fresh eye.
You did none of that. Wikipedia guidelines are indeed complex -- for example, many sources usable in general for writing an article are not usable in establishing the notability of an article's subject for deletion purposes. That's unfortunate because it causes a lot of argument and grief, but there are very good reasons for it, and I certainly think that you, a newspaper reporter, are capable of understanding. Here's an exchange between you and me (in the related AfD, that on the article on Crossen himself [24]):
97.83.174.67: [T]his is the kind of person I feel should be remembered for what he did... not for his recent endeavors, but for what he did back in time. Honestly, isn't that the purpose for Wikipedia in the first place? For those of you wanting to "Delete", are you basing this on Crossen's actual accomplishments and contributions he made historically? Or is it all about how much you can find 25 years later surfing the web? This is certainly a question worth asking, but please, know his story before answering, otherwise you're just judging a book by its cover.
Me: Sorry, but it doesn't matter what he did, only what people (other than he i.e. his own book and movie don't count) said about it 25 years later. If no one's written anything about it, it's not notable for Wikipedia purposes.
That sums up the situation entirely. Yet despite repeated references to policy and guidelines, you continued to press the same inapplicable arguments, and cite the same unusable sources. That your final, coy statement that you are "in the Midwest" -- as if Weston, where you actually are, isn't just 4 miles from Schofield -- pushed us over the edge to the mistaken belief that you probably are Schofield himself, is unimportant. What is important is that it turns out to be true, as originally thought, that your support for the article was in part personally motivated. You walked like a duck and talked like a duck, so we thought you were probably a duck.
Tempers often run high at AfD, and it's unfortunate that this has been your introduction to WP. I urge you to stick around, read up on policies (starting with WP:FIVEPILLARS), and do some editing on articles concerning subjects from which you're more detached. Perhaps you'll come to see why things are the way they are, and forgive us for any harshness we may have shown you.
EEng (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well: Like I said, the problem with Wikipedia as I see it is that there is too much scrutiny. They say that too many cooks spoil the kitchen, and that is kind of the case here. What I mean by that is everyone strums up their own opinions on the facts, and in some cases, are strayed by their own personal taste despite the facts, and that is where the bigger problem is. The contributions that Mr. Crossen made to professional wrestling during the time frame he did them are simply a matter of public record, he is, whether you accept it or not, a part of its history. Some would even argue that Mr. Crossen was tied to the evolution of "Backyard Wrestling". But in any event, he made contributions that are definitely fabricated into the history of professional wrestling. And when narrow-minded users such as Qworty (talk) simply claim Crossen is using Wikipedia to promote his material is pretty laughable when you go to google and search the words "kids pro wrestling" and links related to Crossen come up 6 out of the 8 on the first page alone. Crossen does not need wikipedia to promote this stuff. And I will conclude that it is a real shame that biased editors such as Qworty (talk) make all the false accusations to try to defend their rediculous point of view when all the evidence for what Crossen accomplished is all in the public record. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty gets a bit excited but he's not wrong. While you turn out (you say, and I believe you) not to be Crossen, there is no doubt that Crossen himself or someone acting directly for him created earlier versions of this article, previously deleted. For example, copyright release for the photo of the teenage Crossen was given to Wikipedia via the confidential OTRS system [25] -- the only person who could have given such authorization would be Crossen himself, so he has definitely been involved in the development of these articles. You might find it laughable that someone would see being in Wikipedia as a commercial advantage, but it's absolutely true -- people fight very hard to keep their "vanity" articles from being deleted, people including who you think would be above such crass ways of attracting clients or increasing prestige, such as doctors and lawyers. It's very much an ego thing, too.
You still don't seem to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria. Crossen may very well ahve done all the things you say. But they have to be covered in certain types of sources, at a certain level of depth, for WP just isn't interested. Many things that are "true" will never be in WP because there's no way to verify them and/or they're not notable. You say what Crossen did is public record, but where? Someone (IP 96.60... below) points to the Dove Foundation review, but I'm afraid that's no help. Why? They're not a reliable source. Why? Because a RS must, for one thing, be intellectially independent of the subject. Reading the Dove review, it's obvious that they got their facts just by reading Crossen's book, and did no research or investigation of their own. Without reliable sources, independe of Crossen and each other, covering him or his book/movie in significant depth, he/his book/his movie is or are not notable for WP purposes.
EEng (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Crossen was the man who paid notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to print this book, then tried to use it to come to Wikipedia to write three separate articles about himself that were nothing more than WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. He is a WP:SPA. A short time ago, Shawn Crossen, the article he wrote about himself, was deleted at AfD [26] Since Shawn Crossen is himself not notable, and since Shawn Crossen was the only person to have defended his vanity-press book in this AfD, it would follow that the vanity-press book is non-notable as well. Of course, we have already demonstrated through WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK that the book is not notable, so even if Crossen had somehow survived his own AfD, his book would still be non-notable. But since the three self-promotional articles are WP:WG and WP:SPAM, I think it's relevant to consensus to note what other editors are doing about them. Qworty (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty (talk) loves to keep bringing up the fact that Mr. Crossen first published his book through what he labels "vanity press" AuthorHouse, as if there is something wrong with that. What I can tell you from my interview with Mr. Crossen that I conducted, he went to Authorhouse first because they were offered the service to publish his book and like many others, Crossen did not know of any other alternatives. He certainly wasn't the first to go this route, nor will he be the last. Once he realized the details, he was the one who canceled his contract with Autherhouse and went on to self-publish his book instead. Crossen said the decision was based on financial reasons where his self-published hardback book costs for publishing were three times less than what Authorhouse was charging for printing up the paperback. Thing to remember in all of this is Mr. Crossen is not an established author, but he had a story to tell, so he tried to use the best path he could manage to do so. I see nothing wrong with that approach. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep? [<--tag added for clarity by another editor]I would like to comment on Pro Wrestling Kids Style.My qestion is the person disputing the submission claims there is no notable information on line about the book, does this person feel the Dove Foundation is notable. They endorsed the book as well as the documentary along with the Kids First. I would think that both organizations must have standards. I would encourage you to review both organizations and there current standards along with other books and movies they have endorsed. I suppose you think Mr. Crossen paid for that as well. I would encourage all with doubt of the documentary or book to do your own investigating before judging because of one member. The book and documentry should be on this site after all the documentry has won over 15 National and International awards as well as being distributed Internationally. The documentry alone was in the january 2006 issue of Navarre center stage video buying guide, research Navarre and see if they are credible, I also would recomend you rent the documentry on Netflix,I am sure you have heard of Netflix. Now the book was featured in the School Library Journal May 2006 issue on page 73. By the way this is the largest Libary directory in the Nation, I wonder if they are credible.You also can purchase or order the book at most retail stores maybe try Barnes and Noble for starters. Look I could go on and on about why this has merit, but if you qestion then just google and you can see for yourself. [Preceding comment by 96.60.131.138, 14:52, February 2, 2011]
Self (or even vanity) publication isn't itself a bad thing, but the opposite -- being published by a reputable publisher -- is a point towards notability; self- or vanity-published books are books which apparently no reputable publisher wanted its name on, and that suggests the book might not be so good. In particular, reputable publishers pay the author for the privilege of publlishing his book; vanity publishers get paid by authors to publish books no one else want to bother publishing. Self-publication is essentially the same, except cutting out the middleman publisher -- the authro still pays for his book to see light of day.
No one's suggesting that Crossen paid the Dove foundation for their endorsement; the problem there is that being endorsed by Dove isn't the same as being reviewed in the New York Times or Atlantic Monthly. Video buying guides are specifically excluded from contributing to notability because there's nothing to explain how they select certain films to feature.
Query Could you please list the 15 awards for the film, with weblinks? The weblinks should explain what the award is, and confirm that the film won it. I'll transfer that info to the AfD for the film. (While Crossen and his book are almost certainly not notable, I think the film might be, and this would helpo.)
EEng (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update While I have not spoken to him in years, after all this debate here, I decided to contact Mr. Crossen and explain what I did on wikipedia. I did not want him to find out about all this without knowing how it all happened, I figured I owed him that much. When he learned that I attempted to contribute articles on his material to wikipedia...he chuckled. I asked him why? He told me that years ago when he first released his book and DVD, he made an effort to do the same. He said "back then I was trying to find every avenue possible in hopes that other kids would learn my story, and wikipedia seemed like the perfect place to do so." He went on to explain how the articles were deleted. I told him that others have defended him as well as myself, but there are a small number of other editors that feel his sources just aren't notable enough. At this point, he really laughed. He said he appreciates the efforts, but he really could careless what a handful of "wiki" editors thinks about him or his products compared to the thousands of emails he has received over the years from kids all around the world that have been inspired and motivated by his story. He summed it up by saying... "most all of those wiki listings are just more or less a "vanity recognition" thing, but the emails I received from all these kids are absolutely priceless. If I could choose between the two, I would take the later." Wow, what a class act. I am half tempted to do another feature on him as a followup. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My grampa had a kind heart, said wise things, and was kind to animals. But he still wasn't notable. by WP standards.
You seem to be the only person here who didn't know that Crossen had tried to use WP to promote his book/movie before. WP is not a web host offereing to be "the perfect place "spread the word" even about commendable projects, so it was deleted. That's a big reason we thought that you were him again.
Strange that Crossen thinks most WP articles "are vanity things" -- I guess that's why he thought it was OK for him to add one of his own. [Clarification: I am referring to earlier, deleted versions of these articles (i.e. the articles we're discussing are recreations of those already deleted once). There's no doubt that those earlier articles were personally created by Crossen.]
EEng (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a cynic, but are we really supposed to believe that these are quotes from a phone call with Shawn and not, say, Shawn just posting what he thinks under the guise of a weirdly admiring journalist...?--KorruskiTalk 12:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I will call you a cynic, but Korruski, you are located in London. How do we know that you are not Luke Thomas, an editor and coulimst known for hating Professional Wrestling. Now am I being cynic? And While EENG's grandfather was a nice man and loved animals, I am also a nice man who loves animals. But EENG's grandfather did not do what Crossen did in history, and neither did I. That's the difference. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't, and if I happened to create a series of articles which he had previously tried to create, displayed a clear bias in support of him, and then started posting his statements in the form of 'quotes' based on a private conversation, then you might be inclined to be suspicious.--KorruskiTalk 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who EENG is but feel they have breached the community trust by directly commenting on Mr. Crossen and his character. If EENG is involved with Wikpedia then I would encourage him or her to follow the guidlines and hear say is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk)

Unflattering comments are a wellknown risk of using Wikipedia for self-promotions. See WP:AUTOBIO. Hearsay is one word, and this is not court. EEng (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following text is moved from the top, where it had been placed out of order with other comments, and in such a way as to break the header.--KorruskiTalk 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern or "Quary" A request was made about web sites and awards of the NWF kids Pro Wrestling "The Untold Story" The following is what you have requested.
  1. AEGIS Video and Film Production Awards, 2006 Finalist under documentry. www.aegisawards.com/winners_list.html.
  2. The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival "2005 Best sports Documentry" The film screening took place at the Village East Cinima New York City. Ironically The New York International Independent Film and video Festival is on the Wikipedia site. You can also google www.nyfilmvideo.com.
  3. The New york International Independent film and video festival Los Angeles 2006 the documentry won the Screen Craft award. www.nyfilmvideo.com.
  4. Accolade Compatition "2006 Honorable mention award". www.accoladecompetition.org
  5. The Videographer awards "2006 award of distinction" www.videoawards.com
  6. DV Awards "2006 Finalist". www.dvawards.com
  7. Telly Awards The 27th annual "2006 Silver Winner Sports Documentry award". www.tellyawards.com
  8. Cannes Film Festival May 17-26/2006. notable the largest film festival in the world. ITN Distribution represented the documentry at the Cannes.ITN Distribution is located at 505 E. Windmill Ln Suite 1b-102 Las Vegas, NV. www.itndistribution.com
  9. IFQ Independent Film Qourterly "Cannes Special Edition Issue #11 may 2006 on page #48 features the Untold Story. www.itndistribution.com
  10. Navarre Center Stage January/Febuary 2006 edition Pg.7 featured the Untold Story. www.navarre.com
  11. State Of Minnesota Governor Tim Plenty recognized both the book and documentry and excepted it on behalf of the State January 17th, 2006.
  • The Book "Pro Wrestling Kids Style" was reviewed by Donna Rolfe on 1/1/2009 from the Dove Foundation it recieved 3 out of 5 doves. The dove foundation has endorsed the book and the book recieved Dove family Approved recognition seal. www.dove.org
  • The book "Pro wrestling kids Style recieved a 5 out of 5 stars Review from Amazon.com search www.amazon.com/pro-wrestling-kids-sty...
  • PWinsider reviewed NWF book 2/4/2005. PWInsider.com
  • School Library Journal book review may, 2006 pg.73.www.slj.com

I am in hopes this will shed some light on both the book and documentry and why it should be part of Wikipedia. It is in my opinion that the information submitted clearly demonstrates verifiable and reliable resources.I also would encourage you to do a Bio page on both the founders and creaters "Chuck Luxury Lane and Shawn Crusher Crossen"of this unique league back in the 80's. A league that to this day has never been duplicated. A league that was produced by kids that reached a national audience with sold out arenas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk • contribs)

I've looked through these awards have have come the the following conclusions:

  1. The AEGIS Video and Film Production Awards do not represent a significant reward. I can't find significant coverage about the award in reliable sources. In fact, the entire award appears to be geared towards manufacturing awards to slap on press releases complete with an area for press release generation.
  2. The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival is a bit lax in its submission criteria and is not a notable festival.
  3. See above
  4. The Accolade competition does not represent a significant award. I can't find significant coverage about the award in reliable sources. As with AEGIS, this award looks to be designed to allow people to pad out the awards list in a press release.
  5. The videoawards.com site spends all of its time extolling the virtues of displaying a fancy clapboard award. Again, another non-notable award designed for apdding out press releases and resumes.
  6. DV Awards. I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again. Another pad the press release award.
  7. The Telly Awards has no fixed number of winners, and not surprisingly has lots of winners. Not an indication of notability.
  8. Having a distributor for a film does not indicate notability. Nor does the fact that the distributor went to Cannes to try and sell it. If the film were exhibited at the festival itself, then we can have a discussion. And of course, it isn't an award.
  9. Not an award although coverage in press can contribute notability
  10. Not an award and not a reliable source
  11. Not really an ward and not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it's abundantly clear from everything that's been posted over the past ten days that everybody is in favor of this thing being deleted, except for Shawn Crossen himself. His assertion is ridiculous--that he's just a journalist interviewing Crossen. No journalist in the world would bother with a has-been wrestling coach from the 80s, posting endless WP promo articles about him, and then becoming the only person to defend those articles at AfD. That is not the way journalists operate. And then, even after his own Shawn Crossen article has been deleted, Crossen continues to defend his remaining self-promotional articles. It's obvious that the only person who cares about constructing false notability for Shawn Crossen is Shawn Crossen himself. Perhaps he thinks he can stir up some Internet attention for his failed coaching career, his failed book, and his failed video by posting endlessly about himself in these AfD pages, but he is sadly mistaken if he thinks that will work. The only thing he has accomplished, through his solitary, self-adulating voice, is to needlessly draw out an AfD that should have been closed long ago. He needs to abide by WP:DEADHORSE. I think it's time for this charade to end, and for an admin to close this debate and delete this and the one remaining Crossen article per WP:SNOW. And then salt the red remnants, and block Crossen's IPs for all time. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a minute here, will comment more later, but I'm compelled to take time to say this at least. Qworty, you are out of bounds now. I like your enthusiasm but you sometimes go overboard, and this is one time. (If that's a bit unsubtle please blame it on my hurry just now.) There is no reason to believe that Mr. 96.60.131.138 isn't who he says he is i.e. a local reporter. I've been exasperated at times by his seeming refusal to get the point, and I did make the mistake of letting myself conclude he was Crossen (which I've retracted and apologized for), but there's no call for what you say above. It's speculative and attacking. How can you be sure it's Crossen and not, say, an admiring neighbor (or admiring local reporter, for that matter)? How would we be able to tell the difference via his written words where? Short of a direct admission, we can't. And it doesn't matter anyway. He's someone who firmly believes that the article doesn't qualify for deletion. He has his reasons which we may or may not think are very good. We need to deal with him on that basis, and forget about who he might be in real life.

I only ran into you a few days ago so you don't know me well, but please try to think of this as well-meant criticism from a caring friend. You really should apologize. I mean it. EEng (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. If he's not Crossen, then I certainly do apologize to anyone it might be. He claims to be a journalist, yet there is no way that a journalist would make all of the grammatical and spelling errors that this contributor makes. So I think it's safe to say that whoever he is, his claim to be a journalist is false. However, if in fact he somehow is a journalist who cannot write grammatically, then I do apologize to him, and he has my sympathies. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Look guys, I enjoyed the debates here, and these past few days have really been more about the principle of it for me more so then my admiration of Mr. Crossen. But I think it's fair to say that we can agree to disagree, and that is really what it is. I enjoyed the conversation for the most part, less the mud slinging from Qworty. But I think there is really not much more to say. Having spoke with Mr. Crossen the other day, he really doesn't care about wikipedia, so I don't see the point anymore other then his story having a lot of historical value. But then you have Qworty making comments of how Crossen was a "failed wrestling coach" and that just shows ignorance in the highest degree as Crossen never failed as a wrestling coach, because he was never a wrestling coach to begin with. So if he cannot even get his story right, then how can you measure anything else he says with any kind of accuracy? And one last thing, thank you EEng for your last comment, that was very respectable for what you did. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So you expect people to believe that you're a journalist when you've just posted "Having spoke with Mr. Crossen"? You've made dozens of the crudest grammatical errors throughout these discussions, and yet you continue to claim that you are a professional journalist. Also, if Crossen "really doesn't care about Wikipedia," then how do you explain this? [27] And this? [28] So were you using Crossen's name when you started posting here four years ago "as a journalist"? Or was that Crossen "himself"? Either way, you've already admitted that your only purpose here is to promote Crossen, which is a direct violation of our WP:SPAM policy. And yes, vanity-press "publication" IS a matter to consider under WP:BK. You act like WP policies are things that others are just making up, instead of actual policies that you are violating. The larger problem with vanity-press "publications," of course, is that they are a fraud upon the reading public, because nowhere on the cover or on the spine or inside the book does it state that the only reason the book exists is because the author paid to have it printed. You claim to be a journalist who is very interested in promoting a vanity-press book, but if you actually believe that there are any real journalists out there in the world who care anything about promoting vanity-press books, then you haven't looked too closely at the proffered sources in the very article you're defending--not one single article by a professional journalist!--which means not even one by YOU. Are we to believe that a professional journalist who is interested in promoting this book would promote it only on Wikipedia, and nowhere else in the world? None of this adds up, and I don't buy any of it. Qworty (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, you know I'm no COI or SPA, and I'm telling you you're way out of line. Even if your speculations are true, they don't help anything. Stop these rants. They serve no purpose. EEng (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is less than 100 words long. Because of the activities of one IP, the debate is thousands of words long. NONE of this has served any purpose. The article should have been deleted days ago instead of relisted for further comment. I think an admin should speedy close this with a deletion per WP:SNOW. I'd like to know what you think. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the evidence there's ever going to be re deletion is already here somewhere, and we should all just shut up and allow an admin to come along and close in due course. Mr. IP, I apologize again for Qworty -- his heart's in the right place but he gets too excited.' EEng (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qworty, you know the funny thing about you is that you make a lot of assumptions. Perhaps you are just gullible that way, I'm really not sure. But let us look at the facts... I never said I was a "newspaper reporter" or a "journalist", you did. That's right, you. I said I was a local reporter and that is true, but you were the one that made the assumption that it was in journalism. The fact of the matter is that I work in television production and produce features within our local community. While I apologize for my grammar, my segments are quite different, and I like to think I do a pretty darn good job. So again, you have made an assumption without knowing the facts. Do you see how dangerous and misleading this can be? Our maybe, " how misconstruing" would be a better way to phrase it with you. And as for the "vanity-author" label you put on Mr. Crossen, the fact that he spent the first 6 months doing that, and the past 7 years "self-publishing", I think it be more appropriate that you just label him for what he is, and that is a "self-published" author. Qworty says "The larger problem with vanity-press "publications," of course, is that they are a fraud upon the reading public, because nowhere on the cover or on the spine or inside the book does it state that the only reason the book exists is because the author paid to have it printed." - So are you saying that the works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin are a fraud upon the general public? Because they too, were "self-publishers". I have pretty much lost all credibility in Qworty. He is the kind of person that reads the first sentence of a paragraph and seems to know the rest without reading. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not saying that the self-published "works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin are a fraud upon the general public." I am saying that to equate the self-published work of Shawn Crossen to the works of people like Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, and Benjamin Franklin is a fraud upon the general public. Qworty (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said that it is a "fraud to the reading public" when the author pays to have their work printed. But now, you are being selective in that very same statement. Where it is a fraud for Mr. Crossen, but not a problem for Twain, Franklin and the rest? Interesting. I knew you were naive and ignorant to some of the facts, but I never thought you would be discriminating as well? This is the kind of thing I would expect to hear coming from some dictator in a third world country.
LOL. You know full well that Twain, Franklin and Crane never paid for publication through a vanity press. And you also know that none of them was ever a mid-level manager at a grocery store. Qworty (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO. No, like Crossen, they all used self-publishing, and that is the bottom line. For someone who believes so strongly in excluding the use of sources that are not notable, you sure seem to have a funny habit of using such sources when it's convenient for yourself. Hypocritical are we? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one is for Korruski... Since you are in London, perhaps you could verify a full page review of both the book and DVD in Fighting Spirit Magazine in the 06/07/2006 issue on Page 74. With those arguing that there is no notability in all the reviews, then one must wonder how come there is such a vast worldwide reach of reviews out there on the products in question. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have to send away to London for it? You say you're a local TV reporter (even though there are no TV stations in your town) and you say you live just a few minutes from the guy. Why don't you just ask him for a copy of the magazine the next time he's bagging your groceries? Qworty (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL You think he bags groceries? As a Grocery Operations Category Manager for Roundys, Mr. Crossen travels between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Once again, you have proven time and time again to just make assumptions. I guess the four television stations we have here in this area just magically exist. As inaccurate as you are with all of this, I wonder just how accurate your subbmissions are here on wikipedia? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since Qworty has demonstrated on this and other related discussions, it is apparent he is in violations of WP:NICE, WP:PA and WP:HA. Since he is so big on following the rules of wikipedia, perhaps he should start with these three just to name a few. If he acts like this all the time, perhaps a WP:CDB is in order. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool it!" Qworty, and 97.83.174.67. This is a discussion on whether "Pro Wrestling Kids' Style" should be kept. Anything else is irrelevant. Let's stay on topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment has been moved from the top of the page where someone has placed it out of order and in such a way that it breaks the header.--KorruskiTalk 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) KEEP... It is my opinion that this "Qworty" has a personal issue with Crossen, I mean he even knows where he works or maybe that is made up as well.I am in hopes that "Qworty" is not a person wikipedia relies on for decision's. I do feel as though the book has merit and deserves it's place here, as well as the documentry. I mean I researched the documentry on IMDB the internet movie database. www.imdb.com and there is review's on there.The documentry is also listed as a rental with Netflix. The book can be ordered or purchased at most retail stores this can be veryfied by calling a book store and ordering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.131.138 (talk • contribs) — 96.60.131.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • None of that satisfies anything in WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:A7. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Seconds[edit]

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

Selfless promotion of nonnotable website (see here, 49 visitors a day), need I say more? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironholds (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stephen Lampert[edit]

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

Prod removed. Perhaps a well-loved teacher, but no reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an individual on Wikipedia. Minor writing, minor award, otherwise much love of a teacher. tedder (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any unreasonable negative comments by tedder that would offend WP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's comments about tedder that DonaldET3 is talking about. I'm certainly offensive, and my utility and credibility are questionable. tedder (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget "morally obese". — Satori Son 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. No evidence this person has yet been the subject of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” — Satori Son 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed two things: why is tedder doing nothing questionable if he said he was, and why is tedder smiling? DonaldET3 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the state of the article as I found it, I was expecting this to be a delete, but then I found profiles of him in USA Today [29] and Science [30]. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. I added those two sources and removed a lot of fluff from the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is 2 refs enough for GNG? For researchers we usually require many hundred of cites for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The cites we use to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 are generally of much lower quality. I think two obituaries published in journals would be enough for a researcher. Similarly, I think two stories directly about the subject in major national-level media are enough in this case. There were also quite a few more articles about him in local newspapers that I didn't think worth mentioning. It's not really reasonable to expect high school teachers to meet standards that are written in terms of things that professors do and high school teachers generally don't do. It's rare to be notable non-locally as a high school teacher, but it does happen, and I think we should recognize the cases when it does. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree. Part of the reason obituaries are significant is that it means that the person's achievements are still memorable many years (presumably)after that person's retirement, indicating lasting significance. USA Today profiles etc. are nothing like that. Furthermore, the awards are nothing like those described in WP:ACAD. Even trying to interpret his "field' as high school science teaching, I see no "significant impact' etc as called for by WP:ACAD. Meanwhile, GNG wants sources to cover the subject "in detail." These are thin in-the-classroom pieces with little in the way of background, issues, personal life, etc. EEng (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work researching and cleaning up the article. tedder (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive, David Eppstein appears to be an excelent researcher. Is this an exotic internet browser, or a refined searching technique, or am I just missing something? And another thing, WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE DEBATERS COMING FROM!? DonaldET3 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I remember, I simply searched for the combination of his last name and the name of his high school in Google news archive. Also, I'm here from the academic deletion sorting page linked above, but there are some editors who go through large numbers of deletion discussions from the list of all such discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A dedicated article in USA Today and a dedicated announcement in Science are first-class sources. This case is one of those "success stories" where the pressure applied by an AfD has led to a materially improved an article. Bravo. Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - USA Today and Science bolstered by local sources all covering the subject establish that Lampert meets the general notability criteria. There is no need to consider his notability as an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say the USA Today piece alone shows he meets the general criteria. The removal of the fluff and the additional sources all make this an article worth keeping. WormTT 09:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadsy Demo[edit]

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

Nonnotable speculation, previously deleted for "Demos are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources, per WP:MUSIC. None provided, none found" ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likok Pulo[edit]

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

No notability, no sources. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably Keep If some information can be provided about this dance it should be notable enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is exactly why I nominate it: I couldn't find any information. I just said that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had waited a few minutes between the WP:PROD tag being contested and nominating this here you would have seen that someone else could find an entry in a print encyclopedia for this subject, proving that it is regarded by the outside world as an encyclopedic topic. Why this constant hurry to disrupt others' efforts to build this encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We now have a reference from an Indonesian encyclopedia. A Google search shows many photos, videos and discussions of this dance. I feel certain that an editor fluent in Indonesian languages could expand and reference the article. I wonder how Ten Pound Hammer could find nothing, when information about this dance gushed out of my smart phone in seconds? Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The encyclopedia entry would indicate that there is liekly more non-english sources to be had. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Career Key[edit]

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

Article was pretty much a vehicle for promotion, with claims of scientific usefulness and completeness referenced to the website itself and/or articles by the author (see the history). During cleanup I started looking for sources--the one I found that could be called meaningful and from a reliable source I've added to the article, but this is pretty much all I found. Delete for lack of notability, per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A couple of sentences in the Chicago-Sun Times seems to be about it. Not enough to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Best to Avoid Dying[edit]

How Best to Avoid Dying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BK. Non-notable short-story collection from non-notable Austin, Texas writer, printed by a non-notable Austin micro-press. WP:COI, as article was written by the same WP:SPA that wrote the WP:AUTO Owen Egerton, which is up for deletion as an example of non-notable self-promotional WP:SPAM. Another article involving Egerton which is up for deletion is The Sinus Show. All of these related self-adverts must be removed from the project. Qworty (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Systems[edit]

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

Article claims that this company is one of the largest Trade Finance and Payments system vendors in the world," but no source I can find suppots that proposition. There is another company based in China that is also called China Systems which might or might not be the same company, and has virtually identical Web site — and also doesn't show real notability. Web site has not been updated for 5-6 years. No Chinese Wikipedia article. All of these suggest either hoax or self-promotion of non-notable company. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced, non-notable. Taiwantaffy (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Egerton[edit]

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

Self-promotional article, WP:AUTO, by non-notable local writer from Austin, Texas, who first created it on his user space. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. He paid for publication of his first book through notorious vanity press iUniverse, and his other two books are non-notables from an Austin micro-press. His movie script is unproduced, thus WP:CRYSTAL applies. This vanity WP:SPAM is related to the self-promotional articles How Best to Avoid Dying and The Sinus Show, which I am also listing for deletion. WP:COI and WP:SPA also apply here. Literary notability is not achieved by somebody opening a checkbook, paying for publication, and then coming here to spam the project with self-promotional articles.Qworty (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida breweries[edit]

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

List of two items, both of them redlinks. Author indicates he is planning on writing a list of every brewery in every state in the country. I requested that he please not do that till he's written articles about the breweries first so that we can see that they meet WP:CORP and have reliable sources. Lists of redlinks are deprecated per WP:LISTS: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Articles first, lists later. I hope the editor is not discouraged by this, but that's the way it's supposed to work here. BTW, the threshold in WP:CORP is such that many breweries (a lot of them are small companies) may not pass: notability needs to be established per WP's standards; a link to the company website is not enough, of course. The editor is encouraged to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies; wait until enough prove notable for articles. Don't put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - someone should notify WP:Beer of this discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree about lists of redlinks, lists of no links, I believe, are a way of encyclopediatically including things that would not be notable enough for stand-alone articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and this sort of list is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should happily feature. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I cannot disagree more. How about List of bands that never released an album? That would be the kind of thing Wikipedia should feature, since it would be as unlikely to provide reliable sources as would this list being discussed. Corvus cornixtalk 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources are not automatically unreliable sources. If the existiance of a brewery can be verified, even if only via a primary source, there's no reason why it shouldn't be included in a list of breweries. And your hypothetical "Lobtnraa"? That is also the kind of thing that there's no reason it shouldn't be here if it can be verified. People are losing sight of the unique qualities of Wikipedia, and are using WP:N (among others) to try and bludgeon it into being "the online Encyclopedia Britannica that anyone can edit as long as it's on an approved subject". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Existence is not notability. Want to start List of garage bands? All you need is their myspace pages to verify that they exist. You might want to peruse WP:CORP as well. Corvus cornixtalk 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never argued that existence = notability. However, I do know that a list can cover subjects that are not notable enough for their own articles, and I also know that "Notability" has become a club instead of a tool, which saddens me greatly. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you'll note that I said verified using reliable sources. Myspace isn't a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I'll take the word of the AfD nominator over the word of anyone who thinks "encyclopediatically" is a word in any dictionarifiable sense. Yakushima (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen "encyclopediatic" used multiple times, I'm sorry if posting when in need of caffination with resultant bad spelling makes my comments somehow grounds to delete an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search of both companies listed means they fail WP:CORP Ibluffsocall (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be a good reason for them not to have their own articles. But why not as part of a list? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. Corvus cornixtalk 05:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodion Azarkhin[edit]

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

Completely unsourced BLP - although this person may well be notable there is nothing to verify the claims made in the article. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The claims made in the article are by no means defamatory, which is the only case when BLP concerns are a problem for us. A quick search shows the person is notable; there is an entry about him in the Musical Encyclopedia, which also cites a couple offline sources. The article needs a lot of work, but definitely not deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 18:01 (UTC)
CommentI would encourage you - especially as a sysop - to re-read the BLP guidelines. It states that all contentious claims - which in this case does not mean defamatory but instead claims which demand proof (such as being a pupil of so many great men). This does not satisfy WP:V either which demands evidence of all noteworthy claims. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious claims is precisely why I bothered to throw in a ref. On the other hand, the whole point of the BLP guidelines is to safeguard the foundation from legal trouble. Declaring someone to be a pupil of so many great men may be "contentious", but hardly a cause for alarm. Tagging the passages you find dubious with "citation needed" is quite sufficient—what's the point of deleting it? If I knew more about this person (or at least had access to Russian libraries), I would have referenced this article in and out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 21:44 (UTC)
Comment - The point of deleting it, as I have stated in my above response - is that it fails WP:V and as such falls short of the standards we set for article's inclusion in the project. It's not punitive. If he is notable then fantastic! If we can verify the claims made in the article with multiple, reliable sources, then great! I will happily withdraw. But that doesn't mean that contentious in this respect can be interpreted in such a way as to save the article in its current state, nor does it mean that we can ignore WP:V when we feel like it. The standards exist for a reason and if we start ignoring them for one article we run the risk of ignoring them for the rest. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is why you keep saying that the article fails WP:V after I have supplied a source which verifies most of the claims you had a problem with in the first place? Notability concerns I can understand, but with a source in place, the verifiability is indisputable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are found, and I'm leaning towards speedy delete. My search shows no sources from Google, and to be honest I'm having trouble even spotting an assertion of importance, let alone proof of notability. As for 'The Musical Encyclopaedia', the mirror entry you linked to has no sources listed that I can see (offline or online), and the Music Encyclopaedia itself doesn't have an entry on him at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the ref I have supplied? There's plenty more where that came from...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 21:44 (UTC)
Could you supply some more, so we have multiple reliable ones, and can forgo the AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That, unfortunately, is the problem. I can find several sources which are basically rip-offs of reliable sources, but are not themselves reliable (here's an example). It shows rather well that reliable sources exist, but getting to them requires either someone more knowledgeable about the subject matter, or someone who with access to good Russian libraries. I myself do not fall into either of these groups.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thought I'd do a search for Greek and Turkish articles just in case that might help. His name has also been spelt Radion Azarkin (probably incorrectly but the "h" would automatically be dropped from his surname in any Greek translation). This alternative spelling appears in a number of articles. Including this English language article where a Turkish conductor lists him amongst notable musicians that he has worked with:
http://www.orionproduction.com/En/KlskBtDtl.aspx?ID=88 (and a Turkish language article also
http://www.bodrum.bel.tr/haberdetay.asp?id=1029 ).
Have added a couple of good references to the article to make it keep-worthy.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Gold Mining in Boundary County, Idaho[edit]

History of Gold Mining in Boundary County, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long article on the history of a county - almost certainly a copyvio of a book, if not then WP:OR Travelbird (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that this is anything more than a copy of someone else's work, although I can't prove that. However, my experience has been that writers with a rich vocabulary ("nestled in the arms", "slow journey to the sea", "so ends the story", etc.) also have a good grasp of basic punctuation and capitalization. The premise of Wikipedia is that people express themselves in their own words when adding to the sum of knowledge. Is the topic of gold mining in a particular county notable enough for it's own article? I don't think so. Mandsford 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:SPA editor who contributed the text claims it as his own. (See article talk page). If so, it's a WP:NOR violation. If the topic meets notability standards, it could be banged into a proper WP article, but only with a complete rewrite. Better to delete it and see if anybody (maybe the original editor?) puts together something more WP-appropriate on this topic. Yakushima (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A merger discussion can, and probably should, take place on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loser (band)[edit]

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

A band that had one clearly notable member, for sure — but never actually released the one album that it was supposed to release, released one track, and then disbanded. I don't see any notability independent of its notable member. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems interesting and notable to me. This was definitely covered in the press. 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The band's prolificness is irrelevent. It doesn't matter whether they produced 1 song or 100 songs. What does matter is that the band received significant coverage from multiple national-level third-party sources. The band is notable. -HeartSWild (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it notable independent of its one notable member? (I see no argument advanced that any of its other members are themselves notable.) If not, then the band itself should not be considered notable. If President Obama played on a semi-professional basketball team, even for one day, I'm sure that that basketball team will all of a sudden get lots, lots, and lots of coverage. That still would not make that team notable. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MTV and Allmusic coverage indicates notability. Should perhaps be trimmed and merged as a section into the John 5 article, but that can be discussed elsewhere.--Michig (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see "multiple" nontrivial coverage to establish notability per WP:Music, only one to speak of being mtv.com. Merge into John 5 (guitarist). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - Notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion on possible re-purposing of the article can and should continue on its talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's Church, Kombuthurai[edit]

St. Stephen's Church, Kombuthurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, perfectly ordinary, village church. No sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The website of the diocese which includes Kombuthurai says that it is known that "a church" was built at Kombuthurai in 1544 (http://www.tuticorindiocese.com/kombuthurai.htm). However, extensive searching using several different search terms has produced only moderate amounts of coverage, mostly in unreliable sources. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if suitable sources can be found, but I can't find any. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and repurpose as an article on the village where the church is -- This article is much more about the village where the church is than about the church itself. If the whole village converted to Christianity as a result of St Francis Xavier's ministry, it is likely that it has remained Christian ever since. Accordingly there will have been a "church" in its original sense of the company of believers ever since, even if not in the same church building. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not address the issue of sourcing. Whatever name the article is given sources are needed to justify including the material. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A place of worship which dates back to the time of St Francis Xavier would have enough coverage to satisfy WP:N. I believe there is scope for improvement of the article. —Why so serious? Talk to me 17:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom, article doesn't provide any reliable source, whole article is based on just one website which couldn't be reliable. Bill william compton (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David D.A. Doman[edit]

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

PROD contested; article lacks WP:V, also clear conflict of interest. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi some more sources have been sited, is this good enough? Thank you. David D.A Doman (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one more, and it's not considered reliable. You need to cite trusted sources per the verifiability and source reliability policies, such as news items from well established sources (New York Times, The Guardian, that kind of stuff). See WP:42. [CharlieEchoTango] 07:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As of now, I don't see appropriate "Significant coverage", nor can I find any suitable reliable sources. If someone manages to add some, please give me a shout so I can revisit this.  Chzz  ►  14:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the concern. Newspapers do not publish production credits. Websites post production credits. There are no wikipedia production credits that are linked to major newspapers or magazines because they do not credit all producers for any given rap or r&b album or mixtape that has several producers on it. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. David D.A Doman (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also an ASCAP reference is (in terms of writing credit) the most reliable source for a musical composition if the producer or composer is a member of ASCAP. David D.A Doman (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made my case fairly above. If no one objects, could this please be taken off the potential deletion list? David D.A Doman (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Foote[edit]

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

WP:Notability Sources given are local, indicating notability only among a local community. Heavily edited either by the subject or somebody closely associated with the subject. Written in a very promotional and non neutral style. Safiel (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, I was not able to find any sources that would help support WP:N notability. Sourcing on the article consists of directory listings, e.g. at music festivals, not meeting the "independent" requirement. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newcastle United. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NUFC.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website. No coverage in reliable sources at all, so fails WP:WEB. The only mentions in newspapers (the Daily mail and a US local paper) were single lines and mistakes. Other than that the refs are to the site itself an web tracking sites. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • To second John Blackburne's comments, the mentions in the newspapers were later corrected to the offical NUFC website. The page serves no purpose other than to give the impression the website has authority due to a Wikipedia page, it only serves to boost the sites search engine rankings and advertising revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.59.51 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin Selvan (2012 film)[edit]

Ponniyin Selvan (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination of prod removed by IPs... Film for which all of the references point only to unverified future release Skier Dude (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very clear delete--WP:NFF is clear that except in very special circumstances, a forthcoming film cannot have a page unless 1) principal filming has started, and 2) the production itself is receiving notable press. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Model Search, Season 1[edit]

American Model Search, Season 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFD removed by IP with no explanation. No reliable sources given to establish notability. In fact, most google results are of the "is it legit?", "complaint", and "scam" variety. If there were any sources discussing the "scam" nature, it might be worth keeping for that reason. See also American Model Search and its AFD. tedder (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete One of many of a garden variety hoaxes involving false article editors/extreme fans of America's Next Top Model (which other ANTM fans blissfully ignore) foisting their crap imaginary Top Model-esque shows on here, and this is one of the same. Note that the article describes it as airing on Fox since 2008 (which it hasn't), and also having the same theme as Top Model (that can never happen for multiple reasons), nor has Gisele Bunchen ever hosted anything on American television. Finally, no serious television network show would host their site on Google Sites. Not only deletion, but a block of Amseditor for hoaxing. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Model Search[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP. No reliable sources given to establish notability. In fact, most google results are of the "is it legit?", "complaint", and "scam" variety. If there were any sources discussing the "scam" nature, it might be worth keeping for that reason. tedder (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete One of many of a garden variety hoaxes involving false article editors/extreme fans of America's Next Top Model (which other ANTM fans blissfully ignore) foisting their crap imaginary Top Model-esque shows on here, and this is one of the same. Note that the article describes it as airing on Fox since 2008 (which it hasn't), and also having the same theme as Top Model (that can never happen for multiple reasons), nor has Gisele Bunchen ever hosted anything on American television. Finally, no serious television network show would host their site on Google Sites. Not only deletion, but a block of Amseditor for hoaxing. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Damnit[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of an actor, or any other notability. News searches show there are other semi-notable Jeffrey Kleins in the world.

Having bit/walk-on parts doesn't meet WP:N, especially without reliable sources. tedder (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lindquist[edit]

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

Reads more like a CV than an article; a few media mentions, but I haven't found any examples of non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this. We have a) a declared COI, and b) from the biography on the gallery site many more mentions than the nom suggests that are accessible online. These are not linked to from the article, which they should be, & I'd like an assessment by someone more up on the local scene & sources than me. But there is now some evidence of notability at least. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just saw this page and went through and linked some of the supporting reviews, etc. I know Lindquist's work by his last shows-- I saw NY Mag critic Jerry Saltz with his wife NYT critic Roberta Smith at his last opening and Saltz seemed taken by his work. Re: COI: many artists' galleries or studio assistants construct wikipedia pages for them, look at Ryan McGinness's talk and see it's one person editing. -- 96.232.4.214 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)artworldlover[reply]
Of course they do, and that is very often mentioned here as an argument for deletion - see WP:COI. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The available info on Lindquist includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. His website lists many more relaible source coveages,[43] which could have been checked before listing the AfD. I also found info on All-Colorado ice hockey goalie Greg Lindquist and Buffalo, NY City economic development specialist Greg Lindquist, not to be confused with this artist. -- [[User:Uzma Gamal|Uzma Gamal] (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they were - the first one I looked at was a YouTube phone video of a shared gallery opening, which demonstrates nothing at all. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my original nomination. Of the links you provided, only one demonstrates significant coverage from a reliable source (a local weekly). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per available info provided by Uzma.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohnoitsjamie: What do you mean by reliable? The links provide credible sources, for example Art in America [44] and ARTnews [45], which are both major art publications. Blueprintmemory1 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Blueprintmemory[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypebeast[edit]

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

No indication that this fashion blog/website is notable. Stephen 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unsure how this article has been on Wikipedia since August 24, 2006 and still hasn't been improved to the stage of qualifying to the minimum of what a Wikipedia article should be written like. Not to mention that the article is written like an absolute advertisement it also fails to bring any sources. It states "It has been reviewed by various blogs as one of the most authoritative and user friendly sites of its kind.". So, in a sense, the verification piece is irrelevant to the format issue. (Knox387 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

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

The result was move and re-create as a disambiguation page. The moved article, now at Atmospheric temperature needs some work to make it fit into the scope of its new title. I've incorporated suggestions here into the new dab page but there are probably more that could be added. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature range[edit]

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

A near-tautological dictionary definition followed by an original syntheseis of instances of the phrase in unrelated fields. As pointed out elsewhere, putting "range" after a physical quantity does not make it a notable topic. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split. An article about climatological yearly temperature range is needed and intrinsically notable as this topic of temperature ranges is related to proximity to water, ie. continental subarctic regions will have high temperature ranges while tropical coastal regions will have lower temperature ranges. I suggest that the main article be about this topic, giving examples of annual average temperatures at selected locations for different biomes, and a disambiguation page pointing to the other aforementioned topics. Also, the article would benefit from an image showing temperature range map either for a specific continent or worldwide. An article about extraterrestrial temperature ranges on other planets would also be notable, being dependant on the presence or absence of an atmosphere and/or a strong greenhouse effect. Temperature range in meteorological terms is greatly affected by average atmospheric pressure, precipitation and the moderating effect of water, among other factors. One article should focus on one aspect of the term, in order to avoid dictionary-like definitions and syntheses. ~AH1(TCU) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better to redirect this to a section under "Climate", then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a useful encyclopaedia article; i.e. the kind of stuff normal people use an encyclopaedia to look up.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normal people? What were you looking to learn when you looked up "temperature range" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wtshymanski you had your say at the start of the discussion. Please allow other editors to have their say.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a useful answer. You may have noticed, Wikipedia is not paper. What is someone looking for when he or she types "temeprature range" in the search box? Can you tell me? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first few words of the lede say everything that can usefully said about "Temperature range". Everything else is just padding. Do normal people really need to look in an encyclopedia to learn that "Temperature range" means a range of temperatures??. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be usefully redirected to Diurnal temperature variation which for all we know is what the reader was looking for anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not what the creator of the article was looking for, as it was originally about variation over longer periods of time, such as seasonal temperature variations. The information that can be found in the climate article (and by following links to other articles) is more useful, so maybe temperature range should be a disambiguation page (if a useful "atmospheric temperature" or "temperature variation" page is created that can be added to the disambiguation). Peter E. James (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think modifying it into a disambiguation page is a good idea. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Temperature range" isn't really ambiguous, it means the same in many different contexts: weather, specifications of an oven, the operating temperature of a computer chip, climate prediction, the temperatures at which iron is liquid, the surface temperature of Mars. Many of these are worth including in appropriate articles, however it is close to impossible to guess what someone is thinking about if they search for "Temperature range". It's just too wide a term; I don't think we should use a disambiguation page to list all contexts in which a term can occur. That's why I voted for a simple Delete. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone searches for "temperature range" your solution is to have them not find anything versus finding a disambiguation page? Oddness, to say the least. -Atmoz (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is properly deleted, typing in "temperature range" will give a list of 2001 (currently) articles on Wikipedia that use this pair of words. Then, the confused reader can consider if he wants to read about the temperature range of Winnipeg in February, the temperature range for cooking an egg, the temperature range of the main-sequence stars, the temperature range for storing wine, or the temperature range of a pregnant gerbil. It's a meaningless search term by itself since it has thousands of possible applications. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying Wtshymanski is that it would be an extremely good idea to have either an article or a disambiguation page with the title of this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. A disambiguation page with 2001 entries is worthless. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what Wtshymanski is saying (or at least what I am saying) is that deleting the page will, if someone types this common phrase into the search box, allow the general search engine to return its list of results and that this is more likely to guide a user to what he is looking for than a disambiguation page will. And I do not find this odd. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a valid term, linked in several articles, most frequently referring to climate or diurnal temperature range. A disambiguation page would make it easier to find the correct article and is better than a red link - the topics suggested for disambiguation are currently 2nd, 3rd, 42nd, 51st and 89th in the search results and this clearly isn't a likely term for topics such as ETFE (4th) or List of marine aquarium fish species (5th). Peter E. James (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muay Thai in popular culture[edit]

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

Almost unsourced trivial mentions. Amounts to nothing more than "Work X said Muay Thai" without explaining how it's influenced popular culture. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that's simply an incorrect description; this is not a list of works that merely mention the term "Muay Thai". In every item I saw on the list, Muay Thai is a major element of the work described, so these are pop culture works about Muay Thai in a substantive way. postdlf (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this is significantly different from some of the trivia lists I've seen. I don't see any reasons why each of these things is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by that, but most of the pop culture works listed have their own articles, or the listed items are elements of such a work. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can someone explain to me the purpose of these "... in popular culture" articles? Like Astudent0, I'm not really seeing how this differs significantly from trivia lists. This just seems to be a list of places where the subject is used/mentioned/commented on and I'm not seeing the notability. I understand how the individual items can be notable, but don't see how these lists pass notability since they are no sources specifically talking about the lists. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navigational list, it's just couched in such a way to allow trivial information to be spooned in. Notability isn't the issue, it's whether the subject of the list is trivial or not and whether enough population exists to justify one. There shouldn't be any trivia, it should help anyone with an interest in 'X' find media related to that subject, which this list can do quite happily. Someoneanother 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing notable about this list. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is relocate from Muay Thai article and you can cleanup if you want and notable are same other popular culture article each section. --B20180 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Remerge to Muay Thai article. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep conclusion of "Merge to Muay Thai or Keep" I think it is better to keep so as not to overpopulate the content of the Muay Thai article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 05:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will develop information for everyone who interest Muaythai. --B20180 (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name is wrong (list of muay thai media, or something to that effect would be better), the content could use some work, the basic principle is sound - this is a list of media strongly associated with 'X'. Provided that 'X' is not too obscure then the only problems are laying out the information properly and getting rid of any loosely connected media, both of which are editing issues. Someoneanother 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Muay Thai.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bondage equipment. Most people support a merger, but the content is completely unsourced. Per WP:V, I am closing the discussion as a redirect. The content can be merged from the history if reliable sources are provided for it.  Sandstein  07:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hook[edit]

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

Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that -- the implication was that there should be a proper article on Bondage equipment. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When one is started I will support a merge, but until then there is no place for this text to go. AerobicFox (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of disruptive technologies[edit]

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

Pure POV. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is hasty and I can only speculate why such a rash response is contemplated.

To quote the rule name dropped by headbomb: "Achieving neutrality

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality

How is this list bias? Simply saying it is proves nothing.

Each listed technology demonstrably displaces, or would if/when completed displace, current centralized, top down controllable, systems. By definition that makes them disruptive technologies.

This list makes no value judgment of any kind. It is as neutral as a list of prime numbers. Innomen (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of this information is sourced, so the recommended remedy for fixing bias in sourced information is rather irrelevant. Can you provide reliable sources that establish this concept of "disruptive technologies" under the definition you've given? And can you provide reliable sources that in turn apply this concept to the listed "technologies"? I don't even see a coherent definition of "technologies" at work here given the disparate subjects that are listed. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All technologies are disruptive to varying extents. That makes it way too broad to be manageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. POV is fine as long as it's WP:NPOV. I've added a reference and a new item to the list. I believe the reference establishes the lists' notability, although the notability of the individual items may still be suspect. Why not help out and add some sources yourself? 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) Most of the entries here amount to predictions of the future. Had WP existed in 1960 I can well imagine an editor adding "Nuclear power: Hydro, coal, oil, and natural gas electric plants." As it is, most all of the claimed "disrupted" items are alive and well and show no sign of immediate demise. Even wired telephony continues to be important in the face of wireless services, particularly in businesses (but in the spirit of cooperation I'm going to go ahead and add that text to the new entry). "Disruption" can only be judged historically, and then only by referenced sources. Of course well-referenced candidates can be found, but the effort would be better directed to working on articles about those technologies. (Perhaps those articles should be put into a "Disruptive technologies" category.) (2) Disruptive Technologies was the title of one of the fad business books of the 90s. (Whether or not the concept was or is valid is beside the point; the book was nevertheless one of the fad business books.) As such this list has a high risk of collecting hundreds of lines of drive-by ("oh! I've got one!") unreferenced cruft, just like the dozen or so already here. That is not the sort of editing Wikipedia should be encouraging. (3) Finally, we already have the Disruptive technology article. It has a list of its own. The context exists in that article to describe the concept and properly referenced, historically validated items can be added there. In fact, as it is, many of the items there carry cn tags. There is no need to have this article, with yet another list of cn-tagged items (or items that should be cn-tagged), as well. Jeh (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's a baby/bathwater distinction issue going on here. The list on Disruptive technologies should probably be deleted outright-- it's breeding OR, it does too much, and it's awkwardly placed. This list is also currently trying to do too much too, but it can be fixed without being deleted. The underlying list itself is demonstrably notable. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: I fail to see why the list that only includes technologies that quite arguably really have disrupted older tech "should be deleted outright" while this one, which is so far about 95% speculative, "can be fixed." I would also like to see its notability "demonstrated" and a reason why that does not apply to both lists. Jeh (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely unsourced, with no definition of what makes a technology "disruptive". This is more like some user's personal soapbox than an article. JIP | Talk 07:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not entirely unsourced, but still nowhere near sourced enough. JIP | Talk 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, per nom. --Crusio (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wanted to give the authors a chance to improve the article, as it looked like they were surprised by the early AfD. But I'm not seeing any intent of improvement, and the only keep vote is asking us to do the impossible. —Soap— 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, and magnet for self-promotional cruft and fancruft. Besides, almost all new technologies that improve upon a previous one are disruptive, and we don't need a laundry list of such here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine this becoming a useful page. Anything could potentially be considered disruptive in some way, and we already have a list of everything. --scgtrp (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about as POV as it gets. Anything could be disruptive, and the arguments presented by the keep votes makes it clear that there is no hope for this list. Might as well rename to 'list of technologies'. Arsenikk (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Migrate to the article incubator. Completely verifiable and notable as a topic, but at the moment the article is very poor and is based on a single source's estimation of what is disruptive technology. If it's going to be acceptable, than it needs a lot of work, which would best be conducted in the article incubator or userspace. The "Examples of disruptive innovations" section in the Disruptive technologies article almost certainly needs to be moved to this list. Steven Walling 08:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the point of having two separate articles? The explanation of the concept can't go in the "List of" article (and this will more encourage additions of things that don't belong). But the list can most certainly go in the main article. Jeh (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list and an article are not the same thing. The article exists to give an overview of the topic, while a list is meant to be a comprehensive catalog of major examples. It's the same concept as band articles versus discographies. The current list is already big enough to be split into a separate page, in my opinion. Steven Walling 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Gaunce[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Prod was contested. Pparazorback (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the independent sources even mention the blog, as far as I can see. Speedied per {{db-web}}. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabb sports blog[edit]

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

Article discusses a blog set up by a local newspaper to cover the sports teams of the locale's high school. References are provided, but the coverage doesn't seem substantial enough to warrant inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centauroid creature[edit]

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

While some of the individual creatures described here may be notable, I don't believe that "centauroid creature" is itself a notable concept, so this doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, I doubt that the article's sources actually refer to "centauroid creature" as a concept, so this is a case of original research and/or synthesis. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very cautious about syntheses, which are an essential element of thought and not really to be broadly denigrated across the board— Wikirules to the contrary notwithstanding— but this doesn't hang together as a subject. The neologism used for an article title suggests that it's not really a genuinely established category either. What is the generic term for a "man-beast"? Does any principle unite these? What about other hybrid creatures like the goat-fish of Capricorn? --Wetman (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the closest we've got is hybrid (mythology), which to my eye could be greatly expanded, by form, by culture, by characteristic (divine, mortal ...). A topic as universal as this, present in mythologies worldwide, must have engendered a lot of writing. At any rate I wouldn't want to lose the content at Centauroid creature, so some sort of merge or rename seems the right choice here. Man-Beast unfortunately has no general article -- turns out there was comic book character of that name. Antandrus (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a rename would solve this problem, but a merge to hybrid (mythology) might. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hybrid (mythology) still seems the best option to me. A redirect to Wiktionary would be a strange solution. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It doesn't advance discussion if you don't give a reason, and this is not a vote. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Any authentic material here, if there is any, should be incorporated into Hybrid (mythology), which covers this ground in more encyclopedic fashion.--Wetman (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Scanlon[edit]

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

Non-notable college age musician. BLPPROD terminated due to adding a reference asserting the subjects membership in a semi-notable performance group. Subject has not distinguished themselves in the performance group. Article may be an autobiography based on author's username selection. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable, fails WP:GNG Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero coverage of this 19 year old. I've searched under a variety of terms with and without the middle initial as well as searching the other bands mentioned. What coverage his university's New Music (student) Ensemble achieved was long before he even became a member. The "award-winning" band that he was a member of, The Rising Crisis, likewise has zero coverage apart from their moribund MySpace page. The award appears to have been 1st place in their high school's "Battle of the Bands" contest according to this YouTube video. The subject comprehensively fails the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. I wish people wouldn't try using Wikipedia this way. What a complete waste of everyone's time, and ultimately embarrassing for them as well. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Halligan[edit]

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

Appears, initially, to fail notability Quærenstalk/contributions 13:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. A quick google search shows some hit about her books and some articles written "by" her but not much "about" her. I think we need to dig a little deeper. Incubation might be an option here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBA point totals[edit]

PBA 5,000 Point Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PBA 10,000 Point Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PBA 15,000 Point Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 unsourced articles giving career point statistics for athletes. It is unclear whether these "point clubs" actually exist as an actual official list or institution or whether these lists are purely OR. Travelbird (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It would be much better to list these people in an article called List of Philippine Basketball Association career scoring leaders, along the lines of List of National Basketball Association career scoring leaders. This particular way of displaying the data is not the best way to handle it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the 5,000- and 10,000-point articles. Why bother creating a list with those who scored 5,000 or 10,000 points when you then create a list with players who have scored 15,000 points? The 15,000-point list completely absorbs the previous two. It's redundant. However, I !vote keep for the 15,000 point article. It just needs to be renamed. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vice versa, right? The 5,000-point list includes everyone who scored 10,000 or 15,000 points, but not the other way around. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I believe that the way I phrased it is correct. Players who qualify to be on the 15,000-point list are, by default, already eligible for the 5,000 and 10,000 point lists, making the latter two redundant. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine if that's what you prefer. I just want to clarify that deleting the 5K and 10K Point Clubs and leaving the 15K Point Club means that the players who scored between 5,000 and 14,999 points are going to be left out of coverage here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The other major problem with these articles is that that absolutely no sources are given, so that we cannot verify if these numbers are actually correct or not. Travelbird (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that account, then I agree with its deletion. If absolutely no references can be provided then even if it's all accurate, it would still be classified as WP:OR. Delete until refs provided, but if they are, then keep. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

JMV VILLOCILLO mVP 100 points per game 200 rebounds per game 500 steals per game 1000 assists per game Mvp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.4.98 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2013 (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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violate This[edit]

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

Lacking multiple reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant inclusion of articles on any of these objects. Google:Violate this and Google:Violate this Stuck Mojo for example only shows pages with track listings or those affiliated with the band itself. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obscure bands shouldn't get a page for every album. Wikipedia is not a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the group is notable and per WP:NALBUMS, the albums are mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Violate This - [49] all are mentioned in - [50], a few are covered in Italian [51]. We're not running out of space, I see no reason to delete.WormTT 09:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Boyle[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking independent GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Recruitment[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Recognition in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100 list in 2007 is sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, but no other significant sources can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recognition in the Sunday Times Fast Track 100 list in 2007 makes it notable. It is a useful article; there does not seem to be any good reason to delete it.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Fast Track 100 simply means that the company is growing quickly. It was one of 100 companies listed in that article, which is not evidence of significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many companies get listed in top 100 'fastest growing' or similar magazine articles, but the page make no claim of notability nor an encyclopedic summary of why the company is interesting at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Shimla[edit]

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

Very, very redlinky list, no sources. I doubt any of these are notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and keep: There are many notable schools in Shimla. Although the article needs a cleanup by removing red links for articles to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article per WP:RED. WorLD8115 (TalK) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if most of these schools were not considered notable in themselves we could still have a list, in the same way that unnotable elementary schools in the US are listed in school district articles. It appears, however, just from the names, that most of these are almost certainly notable as high schools (GHS = "Government High School", GSSS = "Government Senior Secondary School", SSS = "Senior Secondary School"), so we can keep the red links there to encourage article creation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Roller Vixens[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this amateur league article only contains primary sources and gets only 2 gnews hits [52]. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TargetPoint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TargetPoint (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 to meet WP:WEB, being exclusively existing article in its form (ads for bittorents) makes it look as ads promotion. 'Notability' tag was placed in November 2009, if it had notability the authors could've shown it by now. Userpd (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:lisa baguley (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Crawford[edit]

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

Procedurally completing nomination on behalf of Sandman888 (talk · contribs) as it appears Twinkle broke. I'm guessing the deletion rationale is that it's a BLP with no independent reliable sources, possibly failing WP:N. —james abrig''Talk'' 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) E. Fokker (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Ortiz[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest that this artist, while talented, is notable. Stephen 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already listed several such sources above and added some of them to the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how I could have missed that and the references in the article. Here's some: EFE Mundo January 31, 2009, EFE Mundo April 23, 2009. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant artist.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Doty[edit]

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

Fails sports guidelines by not having played for the pros, and fails GNG as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spongecell[edit]

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

Spam advert heavily edited by a succession of IPs and WP:SPA accounts with heavy WP:COI. Company fails WP:N and has no WP:RS, just self-generated Internet presence, mentions in blogs, etc. Qworty (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without knowing anything about the COI issue, I see there are just three sources with shallow or trivial coverage, which is already insufficient to base an article on. --WTFITS (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2011_February_1&oldid=1142638697"