< 23 October | 25 October > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lightened Crusade
- Lightened Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, non-notable Swedish band. Only source given is to Facebook. Somehow I think the creator of the page is involved in the band. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sum 41#Greatest Hits and Screaming Bloody Murder (2008–present). Also protected. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming Bloody Murder
- Screaming Bloody Murder (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)
Album title has yet to be officially confirmed and tentative release window is pure speculation. All sources are either dated or consist of Twitter posts, blog posts, forum posts, etc. When compared to the last version of the article during its first nomination, the only difference is mention of a 12 minute long song. Wait until there is actually something to say about the album that can be reliably sourced before creating an article. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was just a redirect prior to the current outbreak of text, so it could go back to that state, but I think it is worth keeping as a redirect until something is actually known for sure. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Lots of text and plenty of references. Unfortunately, none of those are reliable sources and so none of them count. It seems someone was hoping the lack of notability would be lost in all the text. Nothing verifiable to include so the redirect should be restored. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnut (Transformers)
- Lugnut (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thug cruft. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article about a star villian of a TV series that went 3 years, includes magazine citation. A Keeper. Mathewignash (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! per Mathewignash. I like this bit - Animated McDonalds Lugnut. Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - More non-notable fanboyisms... Fan forums, toy guides, primary sources, and comic cons are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ditto Tarc's reasoning. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Neutral, leaning towards Keep or Merge I'm not sure about this. There seems to be at least one third-party citation here, which means it's not entirely unnotable, but, well.....--Divebomb (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)*Keep There are two independent magazine citations in this article. Proves this isn't non-notable. --Divebomb (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - If more third party references are added would that sway you to keep? Perhaps some independent magazine reviews (ones NOT liscensed by Hasbro)? Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
- Answer Yes it would. Remember Turbo (Gobots)? --Divebomb (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - If more third party references are added would that sway you to keep? Perhaps some independent magazine reviews (ones NOT liscensed by Hasbro)? Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
- Merge - To List of robots in Transformers Animated. Unless notability can be established. Simply calling something cruft isn't a solid deletion argument. NotARealWord (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable villian. Has been mention is sources. Laso per Mathewignash. --Stickee (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative proposal. There are a lot of Transformers articles, due to the large number of characters involved in the fiction and the multiple continuity changes/reboots the series has experienced. I suspect that a Pokemon-style solution is the way forward, condensing articles into lists in the main and preserving and developing the most notable characters into well-supported articles. Doing so is outside the scope of the per-article approach of AFD. Regardless of whether there is any initiative to open an RFC or project on the issue, I support a procedural close of this nomination. The nominator's rationale here is wholly insufficient, as it was on this speedily closed AFD or this AFD likely heading for a procedural close. I understand the intended goal here, but I suspect there is a point being made. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Transformer AfDs have been going on for many weeks. If someone was actually interested in cleaning up the gigantic Transformer mess outside of AfD, I'd have expected them to start merge&redirect efforts weeks ago. I'd like to see the efforts first and only then a procedural close. – sgeureka t•c 07:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect efforts are ongoing. It's just that most of the merges proposed are, quite frankly, ridiculous. (Why? Why would anyone want to merge content from a page about one of the most important and notable Transformers to a freakin' list of characters?) --Divebomb (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By "one of the most important", you mean who? NotARealWord (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I mean Optimus Prime, Starscream, Bumblebee, Megatron and Cliffjumper. (I should've used the plural, sorry, I'm not a native speaker.) --Divebomb (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that merging character like this with a article like List of Decepticons is rather pointless. All that article has is a list of names that gives little to no information about the character. When we do merge/redirect it should be to a page like List_of_robots_in_Transformers_Animated#Decepticons, where Lugnut has a small bio - because the show is notable, and he's a major character on the show. Moreover IF we did the merge to that later page, we should make sure to add the references from the Lugnut page to it. Mathewignash (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete, not enough material of real-world significance to support a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 07:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack
- Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack (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)
Fixing nomination for User:Grapesoda22. Deletion rationale was "seems a little redundant". I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Why would a soundtrack for a notable, wide-released movie with notable artists be a candidate for deletion? --NINTENDUDE64 02:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it failed the guidelines at WP:NALBUMS, and didn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, then it would be more appropriate to cover the subject in the films article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, the article itself does not include references. However, that does not mean they don't exist; a simple Google search reveals that. The article just needs a little work. If I have some time in the next couple days I'll see what I can do; might only have time to post a rescue tag. --NINTENDUDE64 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; soundtrack for a notable film.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dublin Unified School District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin Partners in Education
- Dublin Partners in Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization. No significant coverage found in reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites. TNXMan 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dublin Unified School District which is the school ditrict that it supports. I would have said merge, but I don't really see anything worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect I concur with Whpq; there's nothing encyclopedic here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Gentlemen's Driving Club
- Boston Gentlemen's Driving Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this, at least insofar as it claims to be about a present-day organization. The club certainly used to exist: here are plenty of Ghits, but they all date from over 100 years ago, or are WP mirrors. Two versions of the article were created by SPAs; the first was deleted A7, and then this one was created. I told the author on 26 May that better references would be needed for notability; none were provided, but four days later, on 30 May, a single-page website was set up for the Club on the Google Sites hosting service.
This smells to me like a hoax or prank. The website doesn't look like that of an old and prestigious club. The first, deleted, version of the article included dubious, unsourced statements like: "The membership is very exclusive, and almost secretive. Much like a Skull and Bones society, rumours exist that some of Boston and Hartford,Connecticut and Providence, Rhode Islands' underworld was run through the club."
The alternative is that the club really continued to exist after about 1906, but became so secretive that it suddenly stopped leaving any trace, until in 2011 it suddenly decided it would like to be in Wikipedia and have a website. The trouble is, you can't be that secretive and be notable.
I considered whether it would be possible to make this an article about the real, 1900-era club; but (a) there isn't enough information, (b) that would help the pranksters with whatever game they are playing. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The real, founded in 1899, driving club was called the Gentlemen's Driving Club of Boston anyway (ISBN 9781110329441 pp. 137). I see that we have no article on driving clubs, a subject that extends from Boston to Bensington in sources. This article is unverifiable, and outright contradicted by the history books. And that's setting aside the blatant evidence that this is a hoax in the fact that the versions of the article created by BOSTONgentlemensClub (talk · contribs) and Bosgent (talk · contribs), a mere three days apart, don't agree on the type of driving being performed. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was such a driving club once. See [1], [2], [3]. But since these are the only sources to have survived, and have nothing to do with the current article. Delete Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G12 Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silverl the Hedgehog
- Silverl the Hedgehog (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)
Redundant to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters#Silver_the_Hedgehog. Excessive fictional details and trivia (WP:WAF, WP:TRIVIA). Typo in title makes it an unviable redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was directly copied from a Sonic wikia. Material is a copyvio (until properly attributed), obvious cruft and under the wrong name. Yoenit (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Aside from the copyvio concerns, this is already listed at List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters#Silver the Hedgehog. –MuZemike 03:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - minor character unlikely to have significant coverage, WP:COPYVIO issue as well. --Teancum (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this character does not need an article and the extra l at the end means that it is not a plasuable misspelling so a redirect is not needed.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North London Skydiving Centre
- North London Skydiving Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP due to lack of reliable third party references to establish notability. A search for refs turned up only directory listings and minor mentions as in this example - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP. blatantly non notable. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, I couldn't find any coverage (including news coverage). GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merginc can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of magical negro archetypes in fiction
- List of magical negro archetypes in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This almost seems like an attack page in some respects, against Morgan Freeman and Stephen King in particular. Movie critics (who in my opinion often have a very slanted POV and a distorted view of society in general, but they are entitled to their opinion no matter what I think) have a right to say what they want, but that doesn't mean we as Wikipedians have to repeat their conjectures as fact. This is Wikipedia, not Rotten Tomatoes. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also think it's a little hypocritical of Spike Lee to be accusing other filmmakers of being racially offensive, given that he himself directed the infamous School Daze, which uses many racial slurs and stereotypes (Don Imus got fired, if I remember correctly, when he and an assistant repeated some of the slurs from School Daze and applied them to the Rutgers women's basketball team). So I don't think Wikipedia should be endorsing Spike Lee's theories as unquestioned fact. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common problem, discussed in User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. The list of examples in magical negro#Examples was problematic and overlong. (There are at least three separate discussions, over four years, on Talk:Magical negro about how editors were just chucking random examples into the article.) It wasn't really a list of examples. It was a heap of occurrences being grown in the usual manner. Rather than dealing with the problem, in situ, the content was subjected to the Wikipedia equivalent of being swept under the rug. This AFD discussion is the next step in this dance that has been danced umpteen times before over the past better part of a decade.
I predict either no consenus thanks to a group of "But they're all individually verifiable!" arguments or a consensus to merge back into magical negro and deal with the problem properly. That's the usual outcome, too (although List of final girls (AfD discussion) and List of films featuring a final girl (AfD discussion) were two exceptions). Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets all the requirements for a list, each entry has a single or multiple references, the actual quote supporting the entry is used, or can be added where missing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Magical negro is an accepted archetype and a list of magical negro characters, however incomplete as this appears to be, is still a valid Wikipedia article. It just needs some content and formatting work. --NINTENDUDE64 02:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Magical negro. Both articles are a mess. This one is no good, because many of the examples are wrong. For instance, there are ten (!) citations of the reference to an article at an entity called "AV Club". This is not only just a website, but its apparently an arm of The Onion for chrissakes. Not likely a reliable source. And it's wrong. It sounds like the four authors wrote this over beers down at O'Shaugnessey's, throwing in whatever came up, many of which aren't good examples. This is a serious and contentious subject and deserves a decent treatment. It would not be an easy merge. If the closer closes this as a merge, I'm willing to do the work. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No shortage of news coverage using the term "magic negro". Salon gives a detailed bit about it[4]. Many list examples of this. Some of these news sources use the Wikipedia to define the term, and quote the items on this list page as examples. But the article I link to goes into detail about what it means to be a magic negro, and how films use that trope. Dream Focus 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep considering the reasonably improved state it currently has, . There is too much material to merge: this is a very specific topic, equally relevant to the two very much broader broader topic of negro archetypes in fiction, and magical minority archetypes in fiction. Personally, I think all such articles where there are more than a handful of examples should be kept separate in order to avoid the possibility (or, some would say, likelihood) of messing up the main article with garbage. That such content in general is appropriate seems to be perfectly obvious, as shown by the 100s or possibly 1000s of academic works discussing various archetypes in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - per User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. This article perfectly mirrors the timeline there: between being split out of the main article and the nomination it barely changed. Doing all the work that RAN seems to have done by tagging each bullet point with a source in order to keep the article misses the point: encyclopedic coverage of the magical negro concept would actually be enhanced by merging the important examples, shedding the chaff (Gabriel (Delroy Lindo) in The Simpsons episode "Brawl in the Family" (2002), sourced to tvtropes?) and using the discussion in the proper sources to flesh out the meaning and relevance of this stereotype, its appearances in fiction, and its impact. The merge would result in better encyclopedic coverage – that's why we're here, right? I've looked into the history of Magical negro, and in 1000 edits and over 2.5 years, 20 March 2007 to 26 October 2010 (diff) the article didn't really change: I assume there's a lot of vandalism in there, but that's still a waste of time and effort that I'd like to see rectified. Therefore I would happily help out Herostratus with the merge. There, we're teetering on the edge of diving in, give us a push! Bigger digger (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the concept of "magical negro" is clearly notable and therefore a reasonable list topic. Having said that, I have no objection to an editorial merge as proposed above--I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome, but not one that needs to be mandated by an AfD close. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trump Towers Atlanta
- Trump Towers Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-existent building, a delayed project--seems to me there's nothing to source. There are a few articles mentioning the project, but I question the notability of the subject given its lack of existence. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No certainty that it will be ever built. Notability not established. --Elekhh (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely pure crystal speculation. Nobody knows what the future holds. If and when this project gets the green light and construction is initiated, I could see an article at that time. Not now. Cindamuse (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - conjoined, conjured, crystal-balled, and moth-balled. See also WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stacy Harris
- Stacy Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article looks like a completely legitimate article, but is actually a promotional piece with fake sourcing. Stacy Harris is a non-notable professional blogger and PR consultant who has been exploiting Wikipedia for several years in an effort to promote herself and her website. She seems to have a virtual army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to defend her articles. See, for example, the following discussions which are littered with comments from single purpose accounts:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STACY'S MUSIC ROW REPORT
- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-05-01#Stacy's Music Row Report
- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-12-10#Stacy's Music Row Report
- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-07-28#Stacy Harris/Stacy's Music Row Report
- Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-05-22#Stacy's Music Row Report
- User talk:Music_Row#STACY'S_MUSIC_ROW_REPORT
- User talk:Counterpart0#Stacy's_Music_Row_Report
Much of the current Stacy Harris article, including 40 of the last 50 revisions, were written by various sockpuppets of User:TRATTOOO who is indefinitely blocked and has 63 other suspected sockpuppets. This includes virtually all of the article's sourcing which was added in response to another editor's speedy deletion request. Most of the article is currently cited to "Stacy Harris, Encylopedia of Tennessee, 2010, Pp. 332-3" which is a completely fictitious source. The other prominent source "Nashville Magazine, December 2009, Pp. 31-33, 68-69" also appears to be fictitious (although there was a Nashvillle Magazine in the 1960s). In addition to most of the article being unverifiable, it is also written in a promotional style, and fails to establish any actual notability of Stacey Harris. This Wikipedia PR campaign has gone on for long enough and needs to be shut down. Note to closing admin: Please check for sockpuppet astroturfing. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also looks like Stacy's Music Row Report has been recently recreated by one of the sockpuppet accounts (with questionable sourcing). Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that the only refs are from quite a while ago. I did a search on the archives of the Sarasota paper, and I've got some questions about that source based on the few lines they show (paywall to see full article). Here's the link, the article used is 2 down "Actually ...". It doesn't look like something usable as a source, more of a "hey, look what I found!". And the creator's only edit was to create that article. Hmmm, methinks a sock. Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other source doesn't appear much better. Paywall again, but here's a link to the intro. Article doesn't seem to be about the site. Ravensfire (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to be fair, the Tennessee Encyclopedia does exist - [5]. It's being used as a source that Harris wrote some small summary articles of various people? Seriously, that's like using the fact I've edited various article here that I'm notable! Absolutely not a useful source. Writing something like those articles does NOT belong in an Encyclopedia entry about someone. We don't list every possible article someone has written, only notable ones, and those fail. Ravensfire (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those citations are legit, although probably the least significant for the article. Just to clarify for anyone following along, the citations to articles written by Stacy for Tennessee Encyclopedia are legit. The citations to the article about Stacy in the "Encyclopedia of Tennessee" are fake. Kaldari (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes - completely agree with you about that! Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I'm on a roll, other misrepresentations of sources - this is used to source "founder and executive editor of Stacy's Music Row Report", article only says editor. Given the name, I'm not questioning it, but the source is completely misrepresented there. Primary source is the TN Ency which I don't feel does anything with regards to notability. Harris has written articles for the TN Ency, very easily could be a backscratch. Heck, she could have written it! Her article is not available online, so have no idea. The references are notably bare about the authorship. Ravensfire (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To get back to Stacy's Music Row Report, it was previously AFD'd in 2007. Ravensfire (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps there is a middle ground here. The legitimate article should stand based on the Stacy Harris' credentials. Sourcing confirms Stacy Harris (the correct spelling) as a longtime contributor to hundreds of publications over a period of some 35 years, a published author of several books and a contributor to several others. Stacy's Music Report exists and is notable for not only for its unique blend of country-music news and opinion- you will not find such articles on the Country Music Foundation as are linked to Stacy's Music Row Report (http://stacyharris.com/adultery.html) on cmt.com or countrymusichall.fame.com, for that matter. Some might argue musicrow.com also has this blend, but Harris has successfully contradicted this notion. (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0DC163BF93AA3575BC0A96F9C8B63.)
Since she reviews music and books she has a relevance to the industry she covers and with an added media criticism page at http://stacyharris.com/mediawatchdog.html she appears to be the only current "one stop shopping source" of local, regional, state and national media criticism. Harris is not a "professional blogger." It is very clear that the minimally advertiser-supported "free" site is a loss leader used to entice paid subscriptions (see http://stacyharris.com/paid.html).
The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture (hardback) does, in fact, contain the original print version of Harris' articles on Brenda Lee and Carl Perkins. Harris' article on Harlan Howard appears only online.
While there is no reason to doubt Harris' contribution to the world of academia (http://www.jewishsouth.org/journal_new.htm), her pre-Internet broadcasting nor acting credentials, given her age, background, etc., the 2010 reference to the encyclopedia and the reference to Nashville Magazine would be bogus (the magazine has been defunct for years) as apparently is the reference to a half-sister. (Why a legitimate genealogical reference to Samantha Harris would be removed and a fake one substituted makes as little sense as one editor's complaint about lack of sourcing when the sourcing has been deleted.)
Perhaps because Harris is a controversial public figure (see the introductory information at http://stacyharris.com/faqs.html) there are some editors who seek to question her notability. But the unsolicited testimonials at http://stacyharris.com/industry.html, http://stacyharris.com/media.html and http://stacyharris.com/fans.html tend to suggest otherwise as should the previously cited legitimate credentials.
The article should be improved, not deleted because of discomfort with the subject's viewpoints, competitive jealousy, or some other attempt to marginalize the subject and to undermine tje efforts of Wikipedia's legitimate contributors. But there should definitely be an investigation of the bogus sourcing and repetition of the same links as in the Nashville Magazine "links" as the case for the Stacy Harris entry stands on its own.
74.179.25.175 (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple sources about the person, documenting the person's life and works independently, reliably, and in depth, not sources by the person, are what are relevant to this discussion. So far, you haven't cited a single one, and neither does the article. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the post above by 74.179.25.175 is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the address geolocates to Nashville. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or prune At a minimum, a major cutback on the article without interference by the various socks is needed. As it stands, the article is at least 75% puffery, full of non-notable information that anything but encylopediac. Seriously - a mention of being a paid extra? Being a plaintiff in a lawsuit? The article is, simply put, a PR piece for Harris. I'm struggling to see any reason for her notability in the article or searching on-line. Ravensfire (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suggest editors take a look at this article's talk page discussions, as well as the deleted article links listed above, to see how this COI editor's "middle ground" comment is not any kind of offer to work with other editors, but a summary of how this editor has consistently edited over the past five years and exactly how this editor will continue to edit. This editor continues to express a willful ignorance of Wikipedia policy, the intention to relentlessly readd the same trivial details, wildly exaggerated claims and sourcing that doesn't meet WP:RS, can't be verified or does not support the statement, aggressively challenge and bully any editors who try remove or edit the article, and complain that the same persecution, jealousy and fear that keeps her from getting press credentials to the CMAs is also shutting her out from sharing the minute-by-minute account of her life's every single accomplishment, whether they actually happened that way or not. Without clear boundaries and a community of editors willing to enforce them on this article, delete, prune, gut, whatever; we'll be back here in a year defending our stance that posting comments on article pages does not constitute "significant media coverage". Flowanda | Talk 08:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's deal in informed opinion ("This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography... This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism") and in facts (separating each from that which is not credible).
If "this article looks like a completely legitimate article" where does it follow that it "is actually a promotional piece?" What is the basis for calling an entry, added to and excised by any number of contributors a period of evidently some months, "at least 75% puffery."
Being a paid extra is presumably not a big deal in Hollywood (even though the overwhelming numbers of unemployed SAG members at any one time are staggering). Being a paid extra over a period of several decades in Nashville is like any other acting credits, including the others cited- impressive for any woman, particularly as she ages. I don't see a mention of being a plaintiff in a lawsuit but, if there is one, agreed. There is no relevance.
The statement refuting Stacy Harris being a blogger has already been addressed on this page. If she is a "PR consultant" presumably she is promoting clients. Not herself. (Can you even find a photo of her, a full name or a DOB, etc. on her own Web site?) Where is the evidence that either she or her presumed but "army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets" have been "exploiting Wikipedia for several years" (presumably undetected in this conspiracy, I gather)? If this could not be proven in court, perhaps it should not be written at all, let alone as gospel.
All fictitious sourcing should be removed. Agreed. Anything written in a promotional style should be rewritten by the person making that judgment.
Every living person profiled in Wikipedia who is internationally-recognized as a professional and an expert in her/his field would seem to pass the notability test. To be a member of the inaugural class of an internationally-recognized leadership organization such as Leadership Bluegrass, for example, is but one of the several easily verifiable examples (http://www.ibma.org/events.programs/leadership.bluegrass/alumni.asp). Email from music industry professionals, fans and industry experts from all over the world (as documented by posted testimonials) are another. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor is put off by yet another of Harris' achievement: her having been a Mensan.
Harris was also the editor for the top country-music publications of her time. These statements establish credibility and are no more statements of self-promotion (not only, but most especially, when Harris is not making them) than anything that any accomplishment an employer would WANT to see, as an example of excellence in the field, on any fact sheet or resume. Similarly, Harris apparently built on the achievements mentioned bringing her to the attention of ABC Radio News and Newsweek creating opportunities to represent them in Nashville.
While it's easy to pick apart any Wikipedia entry, if one is so inclined, to criticize the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture for its short entries- when the original publication (in hardback) is only a single volume- is ridiculous. (While a single-volume encyclopedia of any subject- of which there are more than I can count- may seem silly, perhaps that's what persuaded the publisher of this particular volume to do an online expansion.)
Re: Stacy's Music Row Report. It evolved from an online bulletin board presence in the early days of the internet when Harris worked for the owner of nashville.com who has since gone on to be a "Tea party" type watchdog. It was then part of the (now defunct) Country On Line before it became part of roughstock.com., geocities and later countrymusicreport.com.
The biggest problem with the Stacy Harris entry, apart from the someone imaginatively providing her with a half-sister, the repetitious entries and other obvious, previously-cited information that one would think editors would have removed, is that some sections are not well-organized. The broadcasting section should include nothing more than her broadcasting credits. Writing credits should be moved to the writing section.
With so many pointless revisions resulting in the removal of sourced material, the excising of this documentation tends to blunt the criticism of poor sourcing other than that mentioned.
Beware of any Wikipedia "contributors" who make additions that are dishonest or try to make subjects such as, in this case, Stacy Harris more impressive (or even notorious) than they already are, but also beware of those who excise, as they, too, appear to have an agenda other than securing for Wikipedia a reputation for credibility and excellence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.44.105 (talk)
- Delete - Spam, and serieous verifiability issues. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for a multitude of reasons, the main one being that no evidence has been provided of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I can find no such evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I, too, am unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Location (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Phil Bridger and others. It seems to keep coming back to coverage, which we require to document notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia notability and legitimate citations have been established as has the fact that some of the notability is pre-Interent. That many citations have been excised has apparently gone unnoticed by those editors who suggest otherwise yet have not spent much time contrasting edits. As far as one editor's suggestion that Harris is resting on her laurels, that is what many successful people who have saved their money are content to do tend to do as they approach retirement.
Nevertheless, Harris' peers have weighed in at http://stacyharris.com/industry.html and http://stacyharris.com/media.html while Stacy Harris' online bio (at http://stacyharris.com/author.html) indicates that her work has been acknowledged in books written by Eileen Sisk, Ivan Tribe, Steve Eng, Alanna Nash, Tom C. Armstrong, Cliff Linedecker, Stephen Miller, Anne Fletcher, Staff Sgt. Barry (Ballad of the Green Beret) Sadler, Warren B. Causey and Rick Marschall and by Adam Compton in The Texas State Historical Association's The Handbook of Texas Online, while authors Karen Breen and Judith Silverman acknowledged Harris' children's books in the Index to Collective Biographies for Young Readers (1988) and author Hao Huang cited Stacy Harris' oeuvre in Music in the 20th Century, Volume 2 (1999). All of these sources are readily available (in libraries, book stores, or via a check of Amazon.com) and verifiable, whether it be by a simple look at an acknowledgment page, index or page number.
For example, author John O'Dowd acknowledges Harris's contribution to one of his articles at http://www.hollywoodstarletbarbarapayton.com/samijo/page5.html
Further Harris has been interviewed by abcnews.com, Poz Magazine, Glenn Whipp, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News,, Chad Dougatz, of launch.com and the Launch.com Radio Network’s New York bureau, Dave Retseck, a reporter for Crystal Lake, Illinois’ Northwest Herald, BBC Business News reporter Kate Noble, WMAQ-TV (Chicago) weekend co-anchor/reporter Anna Davlantes, by Steve Penbrook, arts and entertainment editor for the (Fort Wayne, Indiana) Journal Gazette and by Family Chronicles' contributor Barbara Krasner-Khait (http://www.familychronicle.com/ReadingTheOmens.html).
Additionally, Harris who, for many years was a regular contributor to Country Music People (the United Kingdom's largest country-music publication) was listed in the 2002 British Country Music Association Yearbook (34th edition).
Writing in the December 2002/January 2003 issue of Shout (the magazine of "Insurgent Thought + Culture"), Andy Baker, in an article titled Hey There Cowboy: Is New Country the Ambiguously Gay Genre?, for which Harris was interviewed) referred to her as "Stacy Harris, a Nashville-based journalist highly regarded for her exhaustive, behind-the-scenes reporting of the [country-music] industry."
All of the above are unsolicited and not the work of sockpuppets or meat puppets. Similarly, that Harris is an author of several books about the areas of her expertise is not in dispute.
Her music reviews are featured in numerous artists "internet press kits" of the artists whose work she has reviewed (when those reviews have been favorable) and it is THEY who deem her work important enough for THEM to use for promotional purposes. Similarly, Multi Talent Management/ publicistwire.net (http://www.publicistwire.net/PDF/Arts_Entertainment.pdf) includes Harris among its international list of notable media contacts.
Both The New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E0DC163BF93AA3575BC0A96F9C8B63) and The Wall Street Journal (Thomas E. Weber, April 30, 1998) have acknowledged Harris' role as the editor and publisher of Stacy's Music Row Report. 98.87.45.196 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as obvious hoax Rodhullandemu 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vanquish theorem
- Vanquish theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on a universal creation theory, no references at all. A Google search returned nothing, could be a hoax. Acather96 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Find an excuse for speedy delete. Utterly original research being promoted by one of its creators. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- {{db-hoax}} would do it. Rodhullandemu 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was a housekeeping non-admin close. The article has already been speedily deleted by an admin.--hkr Laozi speak 21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Fitzgerald
- Hugh Fitzgerald (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)
Sub-stub with no refs to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, consequently also fails WP:V. Acather96 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete After creating this nomination, I saw that it was already listed in 2006 and deleted. There was no evidence of this on the talkpage, have tagged under G4. Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BF Deals
- BF Deals (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)
Possibly non-notable article about an iTunes app that appears to fail WP:GNG, notability not asserted, no references apart from link to iTunes store page. Acather96 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, clearly not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 by Theresa knott (talk · contribs). I have salted both capitalisations of the name. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fahad shiftra
- Fahad shiftra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A possible hoax, that has been deleted many times already. The sources this time do not seem any better and the ones given as of nomination do not appear to mention his name. Notability is also questionable. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted twice through AfD under a different capitalization see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shiftra and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shiftra (2nd nomination). -D•g Talk to me/What I've done 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax recreation. At least one verifiable source must be added. Fæ (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt as hoax. Ban creator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Block creator for disruption. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax, salt, and block. RayTalk 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Salt based on repeated recreation. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt WP:CSD#G4, so tagged, as repost of deleted material. This is effectively identical with the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahad Shiftra (2nd nomination), and has already been deleted once per G4 a few days ago. There is still no mention in Google Scholar. JohnCD (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Aside from the sock puppets, the consensus here is obvious. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chartered Wealth Manager
- Chartered Wealth Manager (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)
Recreation of deleted material; G4 speedy deletion denied because present article is not close enough to deleted version. This is still the product of corporation, the product itself failing to be notable except in discussions of the corporation (there is a Wall Street Journal article that lists this among other dubious credentials awarded by the corporation). It is still just as non-notable as it was before. The article as written clearly suffers from advertising problems, but even once corrected there is still the problem that Wikipedia is not a product catalog. RJC TalkContribs 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- RJC TalkContribs 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete because the CWM from the American Academy of Financial Management appears to be globally referenced in a multitude of 3rd party sources and considered legally famous. After review, this new CWM article has 17 or more new book, regulatory, and governmental references just for the US and English Market. The Famous Investment Dictionary & Reference Guides also contain the CWM from AAFM. Chartered Wealth Manager See Investopedia,Forbes, Wall Street Journal Guide and also the FINRA Governmental regulatory guide. AAFM and the Chartered Wealth Manager was also clearly a featured program with Wharton NYU and others in the Oct. 2004 Wall Street Journal Article on the Wealth Management Profession. Just Reviewed the 50+ Citations, Sources and links at: Chartered Wealth Manager and American Academy of Financial Management The AAFM and CWM program has been disclosed and listed in the NASD and now FINRA for over 6 years which is easily verified on the Archive.org
Wiki already includes other company and corporate awarded designations and credentials such as CFA, CFP which are not government issue or sanctioned. CFA and CFP are registered & profitable corporations. After analysis, the AAFM USA CWM program has always required accredited government recognized education as stated in all 3 Wall Street Journal articles about AAFM. After a review of the US government recognized and CHEA recognized AACSB and ACBSP, it appears that any group that requires double accreditation is mandating the highest educational standards in contrast to any other programs. The WIKI articles also shows the CWM program being offered by ABA accredited law school programs with verifiable links.
7-10 Years ago, I may have voted to delete, but at this time, there are expansive global references, support, government citations, and so forth along with verifiable press from the big names globally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorlaw (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — Doctorlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment. Not one of the many citations suffices. The WP:TL;DR version of this is that the citations show that the CWM exists, but not that it is notable, any more than being listed in the phone book suffices for WP:BIO. The citations are directories or passing mentions. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a product catalog.
Citation one does not "feature" the certificate, but mentions it once on a table with other newly created certifications of questionable value. Citation two does not "feature" the CWM, but rather repeats information from the AAFM's website as part of a directory; see WP:LAUNDER. Citation three is again a directory entry, and does not even mention the CWM; it and citation four are from Investopedia, which again just repeats AAFM press. Citation five establishes only that a trademark has been filed. Citation six lists the CWM as one of many designations that its law degree counts toward (reciprocal puffery: this is an online law school). Citation seven is not a book about the CWM, but rather a book that has the CWM listed once on a table in Appendix C. Citation eight is identical with citation four. Citation nine establishes that another trademark has been filed. Citation ten is again not a book on the subject, but rather a book that has a directory. Citation eleven is just the homepage of the online law school. Citation twelve is not a book on the CWM, but again a directory that lists it. Citation thirteen is identical with citation six. Citation fourteen is not a book on the subject, but a book that lists the CWM only once in a long list to demonstrate how many financial certifications there are (the book's point is that most certifications are bogus, but it doesn't even discuss the CWM in detail). Citation fifteen is just a link to the AAFM's website. Citation sixteen is just a directory, as is citation seventeen.
Not one of these, incidentally, is from Forbes, despite the assertion that Forbes has "featured" it. None of these is a "feature." This is outright mendacious. Verizon has not recognized me to be a leader in my field because it lists me in the phone book. RJC TalkContribs 15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Comment. Not one of the many citations suffices. The WP:TL;DR version of this is that the citations show that the CWM exists, but not that it is notable, any more than being listed in the phone book suffices for WP:BIO. The citations are directories or passing mentions. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a product catalog.
- Notable.
The Wall Street Journal Featured the AAFM CWM in 2004 with Wharton NYU and others. See Article [6]
By the Way Forbes Owns Investopedia [7] .... [8]
WSJ also references in their Credential Guide various AAFM Certifications and notes their FINRA inclusion. [9] CWM etc.
Also notable in FINRA [10]
What is the motivation? RJC has already used the descriptive words of bias including: Dubious, Mendacious, and Bogus to describe this article and AAFM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
Weak keep. There are multiple external sources that establish notability. If the principle that "Wikipedia is not a product catalog" is taken to mean "articles about products must be deleted regardless of notability" then either the principle, or the interpretation, is wrong. Wikipedia's not a travelguide either, but we still have articles about Disneyland, Cunard Line, and safari. I think the text is pretty rough but that is best fixed by improving the text and cutting out the promotional stuff. bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Did you read the citations? RJC TalkContribs 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; although IMHO those that actually count towards notability are rather close to the borderline hence the weak keep. I was pretty close to sitting on the fence but the spamminess is getting a bit offputting now and I'm sorely tempted to withdraw the weak keep. :-) bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After getting some more caffeine, rereading all the cites, and especially considering the responses below, I've decided to strike out my weak keep. (I actually wrote something a bit more ranty but I won't post it because there's nothing to be gained and it won't dispel the smell of socks). I'll stand back and let the AfD run its course. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; although IMHO those that actually count towards notability are rather close to the borderline hence the weak keep. I was pretty close to sitting on the fence but the spamminess is getting a bit offputting now and I'm sorely tempted to withdraw the weak keep. :-) bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you read the citations? RJC TalkContribs 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE because the AAFM is a global certifying body for financial managers and tomorrow's leaders. The different certifications AAFM offers through Training and Examination and Graduate schemes are experiencing global attention and members are growing daily world over. Also see: AAFM® career website link: http://jobs.aafm.efinancialcareers.com, CMA (Chartered Market Analyst) AAFM designation for finance professionals has recently been featured on the globally respected http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chartered-market-analyst.asp?partner=TOD10 , Investopedia:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/american-academy-of-financial-management.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyapa (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — Sammyapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
- Keep This Famous Article
- Citations and correction to above Cite 5 & 9 Establishes that the trademark is registered, approved, and protected by the US Government The two citations referenced above are labeled REGISTERED with US Government as Trademarks when the public user clicks the link below.
AAFM Registered Citation five
CWM Chartered Wealth Manager Citation nine
- Citations and correction to above Cite 5 & 9 Establishes that the trademark is registered, approved, and protected by the US Government The two citations referenced above are labeled REGISTERED with US Government as Trademarks when the public user clicks the link below.
- Finance Dictionary
The independentn reference works of: Investopedia, FINRA and the Wall Street Journal guide to professional designations reference AAFM & the accredited education and assessment required for these credentials such as the AAFM CWM Board Certification. WSJ Guide to AAFM [11] Designation Guide for WSJ
- Finance Dictionary
- References and Press
Press from the US and International recognize the Standards of AAFM and the CWM certification along with the FINRA Governmental Regulatory SRO [12]FINRA
- References and Press
- ABA Accredited Law School
This is the only program that is partnered with an American Bar Association Accredited Law School. The LLM courses count as a certification path for CWM and other designations http://llmprogram.tjsl.edu & [13] ABA Accredited Program for CWM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
- ABA Accredited Law School
- Delete per RJC's comments and nomination. I hope the certificate awarding body has better typing than the supporters here. I get a whiff of socks, too. WP:SOCK for those that don't understand what I mean. Peridon (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and Another Correction to Above Certificate Socks CFA, CFP, AAFM only offer Board Certification and Charters AND DO NOT offer any training certificate or academic diplomas. The AAFM Standards Board has never offered any degree or diploma but rather sanctions and registers government recognized and accredited programs as a path to certification. The 500 AACSB, ACBSP and ABA Government Accredited Schools offer Degrees and Diplomas in which the AAFM recognizes these programs. See AACSB and ACBSP or ABA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordiang (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
- Keep this article - I do not want this article deleted. This article falls, non-exclusively, under the Guidelines WP:Academic and WP:Company Education. Educations is offered by many accredited academic institutions, including mine, for eligibility for this certification (as well as other certifications listed by Wikipedia). This particular certification is listed on the FINRA website under professional designations, and several other prominent industry websites including Investopedia. The board of standards that issues it is listed on the US Department of Labor website as well as I recall on the California Department of Labor website. The certification is offered in many countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and in North America. Naturally, as with any certification, degree, or academic institution, one will find supporters and detractors when searching online. If wikipedia chooses to lists certifications, degrees, and academic institutions, which I note wikipedia lists within these categories, then it should not discriminate in favor of some certifications, degrees, or academic institutions over other ones. Such competitive brand discrimination will lead to wikipedia losing its academic freedom and becoming just another competitive marketing blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamByrnes (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — WilliamByrnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This user has been blocked for sockpuppetry; (case).[reply]
- Quite right. Wikipedia shouldn't become "just another competitive marketing blog". I'm sticking to Delete. Peridon (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those guidelines regard notability, the first for persons, the second for organizations; neither speaks to certifications. The appropriate guideline would be WP:PRODUCT, which states, "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy;" this is not the case with even the longest version of American Academy of Financial Management. To be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, a topic must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Notability, moreover, is not inherited, meaning that AAFM's notability does not make its certifications notable. While your school may advertise itself as being acceptable to the AAFM for CWM certification, this does not itself make the CWM certification notable. Many degrees more widespread than the CWM do not rate their own articles. For example, there is no article on joint JD/Ph.D. programs, joint computer science/electrical engineering programs, etc. Nor does a product's being sold internationally, even in great volume, make it notable. So, Wikipedia does discriminate among products and services, based on whether they receive enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. RJC TalkContribs 14:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.57.102 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This much special pleading is going to make any article look fishy, but I have to agree with RJC's review of the offered "sources". This offered credential does not seem to have attracted a great deal of significant third party attention. Oh, and all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: You have been elected a genuine and authorized Pope; and we request that all concerned authorities should treat Him/Her/It right. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I concur with RJC's source analysis. As for some of the followup sourcing like the Forbes article, it mentions the certification, but it is not significant coverage, and certianly not sufficient given the lack of other coverage beyond directory listings and mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per this edit by Coxeagle (talk · contribs), "All current holders of the CWM Designation received a request from the AAFM to review and edit the Wiki listing". That certainly explains the flurry of action for this article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jumanji. T. Canens (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Van Pelt
- Hunter Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article about the fictional character from Jumanji has exactly 0 reliable sources (indeed, no cited sources at all) and seems to be pure original research based on fictional material. My effort to find sources produced nothing to indicate the character is independently notable. He is rarely mentioned, usually just in passing in discussions of the film. (Note: Google News searching will produce some hits about real people with the same name, who should not be confused with the subject of this article.) RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jumanji, as seems to consist only of WP:OR, and probably arent enough sources to make it a viable article on its own. Heiro 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jumanji, as subject is non-notable as per the general notablility guideline. I would suggest deletion, but the page gets quite a lot of viewers, according to this. Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While not adverse to a sourced merge and redirect, the rather iconic character of Van Pelt, recurs a a major influence in the 1981 book, the 1995 film, the 1995 Milton Bradley board Game, and the 1996-99 television series... as as this character is covered in multiple books,[14] such seems to have him tickle at meeting WP:GNG... and as sources, these might be used to clean up and source the article through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not deny that the character is mentioned in sources that describe the plot of the movie, and Google searching will reveal that. So it is verifiable that such a character exists in various media, and that information could be included articles about the movie and subsequent derivatives (the character is not prominent in the original book). But I'm not seeing the "significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources that is called for in WP:GNG. --RL0919 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am not proposing a keep, nor that GNG is absolutely met. It's just that "delete" is the only option a nominator usually seeks at an AFD, and we do have other suitable options worth discussion beyond a flat deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not deny that the character is mentioned in sources that describe the plot of the movie, and Google searching will reveal that. So it is verifiable that such a character exists in various media, and that information could be included articles about the movie and subsequent derivatives (the character is not prominent in the original book). But I'm not seeing the "significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources that is called for in WP:GNG. --RL0919 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Redirect at this point, since there is no sourced material to merge, but it's a somewhat likely search term. I presume that even if suitable sources can be found, they will not be enough to support a separate character article. They might help the film article or TV series article though. – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a strong consensus that the subject is not suitable for a standalone article, and there is no consensus at best for the suggested merge. T. Canens (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Conley
- Andrew Conley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:PERP. I don't see him meeting any of the 3 PERP criteria. simply being a murderer at 18 years old is not enough for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well, simply because I created the article and ofcourse I think that the person reaches notability. His case has been written about and reported about way beyond his Rising Sun hometown. He is also notable in my opinion because of his very young age. Hmm.. perhaps a redirect to the Dexter article part where his case is described in short. But then it needs an update, perhaps a few lines from this article. But however, I still believe he is notable beyond a one time event. Now I guess other users can decide. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And im not totally comfortable with the fact that Libstar put this article up for Afd, as this user and myself has had quite a history on the Linda Norgrove Afd during the last week that by the way reached Keep status earlier today. (No offence just telling my point of view Libstar).--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It does bring up over a million google hits, and MSNBC is reporting it [15]. The potential for notoriety is there. It's on CBS News as "The Dexter Killer" [16] -- that may be what makes this particularly noteworthy, if it's presented as being noteworthy for that reason. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And it is mentioned in the article as one of the reasons for the crime itself. And I do agree with you AJ.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also agreeing with you on the number of hits on Google. Its a high number for an "american murderer", usually for example an Florida murderer sentenced even to death get mostly coverage from Floridian newspapers and media.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GOOGLEHITS. the questions here for a criminal article is not about covearge for the crime, under WP:PERP they must demonstrate more than this. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself - For me atleast that he was so obsessed with the series Dexter then trying to copy his murder is a special case. And the media referring to that is making him notable beyond the crime itself. Also that is one of the reasons to why this particular murderer story has reached beyond his Rising Sun home town and even outside the US itself. So I do actually believe he passes WP:PERP.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:GOOGLEHITS. the questions here for a criminal article is not about covearge for the crime, under WP:PERP they must demonstrate more than this. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also agreeing with you on the number of hits on Google. Its a high number for an "american murderer", usually for example an Florida murderer sentenced even to death get mostly coverage from Floridian newspapers and media.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Dexter (TV series). I'm not convinced that there is enough to pass WP:PERP, WP:EVENT, or WP:NOTNEWS: "Troubled boy obsessed with Dexter kills his brother, pleads guilty, and is sentenced to life imprisonment." The section regarding "reactions" shows how little of substance there is to this story. This story and the article on Dexter would be better served if they were tied together. Location (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whatever's not already in Dexter (TV series)#Conner Conley murder and redirect. I'm in agreement with User:Location, there's just not much else to this story to merit a separate biographical, and the Reactions section struck me as inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. -- Ϫ 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per OlEnglish. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- do not merge at least to the suggested article. this would imply a judgment that the show was actually responsible for the killing, which seems a judgment we should not be making. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Murders are, and should be, newsworthy, and they will get covered in newspapers, but more than this is required to pass the WP:NOTNEWS bar. Most murders are not encyclopedia material, and I cannot see this one as an exception. Life in prison for murder is a routine sentence, the age of the defendant (18) is low but not exceptionally low, and a psychological obsession as a motive is not unusual either. The "reactions to the sentence" section, with quotations from the judge, prosecutor, and defence attorney, is typical for newspaper coverage, but not typical of encyclopedias. In total, the event does not have enough impact, the coverage is not lasting or deep enough, to pass the WP:EVENT standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and strongly endorse DGG's admonition not to merge. I feel that would be like merging Barry Loukaitis with the Stephen King article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is already there. I think we could salvage some of this content that's not already there, just not the reactions section.. -- Ϫ 13:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and strongly endorse DGG's admonition not to merge. I feel that would be like merging Barry Loukaitis with the Stephen King article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Aren't there usually a rain of deletes on these single-murder people?--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I still think this person deserves his own article. As Milowent says usually with "non-notable" cases their is a rain of delete sayers. But here its not. A merge of this article would not be productive either. I suggest that we let this article "grow" for a while and the reasses the situation. Its a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Qouting another user here I feel that would be like merging Barry Loukaitis with the Stephen King article. Just that I suggest instead of deleting to keep the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject doesn't meet WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT and I agree with DGG that merging would not be appropriate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the number of Google hits is a fake argument. The actual number is About 16,200 results (0.12 seconds)--Kudpung (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as per RonRitzman, and do not delete, as per DGG.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you meant do not redirect? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Courcelles 00:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cinders Trophy
- Cinders Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable competition played in a small town. No reliable sources, and almost no sources of any kind. A search on Google UK turned up only four hits [17] pertaining to this competition. One of the hits is from the local village church's website, two are Wikipedia articles. The fourth is user-inputted in a website for the village, mentioning a "Matt Thorne-Apps." Coincidentally, the creator of this page, User:Sturgeons87, is a suspected sockpuppet of indef blocked user Andrewthorpeapps, the focus of a current investigation for a myriad of vandalizing socks, and the subject of an oft-deleted article now recreated by another of the socks and currently at AfD. Ravenswing 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable competition. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the noms reasoning. Heiro 18:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article creator's now been blocked as a sock evading an indef block. Ravenswing 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, G5. Hairhorn (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP and the closing admin is a dumbass. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shlomo Lipsky
- Shlomo Lipsky (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)
Unreferenced BLP Dawnseeker2000 15:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP? The article says he died in 1989. Not a good argument for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me... Lets change the reason. "Unreferenced biography". Dawnseeker2000 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, but this isn't much better. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Shlomo Lipsky founded Cafe-Talpiot, where "British officers would spend their evenings". OK, but is it notable enough for WP? I don't think so. In 1928, Shlomo built the first house in Talpiot. The neighborhood was established in 1922, according to the article Talpiot. No sources found, no indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable and unreferenced, and very likely to stay that way considering the absence of sources. Heiro 18:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even if the cafe were notable (IMHO it isn't), notability is not inherited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted G5 - creation by a banned user. AnemoneProjectors 15:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Max Irons
- Max Irons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Actor lacking notability. Minor roles. Relatively unknown actor, outside of being the son of Jeremy Irons, however, notability is not inherited. Does not meet criteria found at WP:ENT. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Cindamuse (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Medaforce
- Medaforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references and no assertion of notability. Therefore, no article. Divebomb (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Medabots. Regarding references, I'm sure it cannot be a problem to find one or two. But the concept discussed in the article is part of an anime series and is not going to be notable on its own. -- BenTels (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut down and Merge per BenTelsSadads (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medabots. Medaforce could be summed up in under three sentences. This article was created by fans for fans and is not encyclopedic. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 10:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete having a mysterious force that powers up the characters is one of the oldest and widest-spread fictional tropes of them all, and nothing suggests this series' handling of the concept is in any way special or warrants detailed coverage. I'm not even sure this warrants a redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdraw. (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Miss University
- World Miss University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A Google News search found exactly 1 result, in a non-English language. The official website is a blank black page. Even unreliable sources like blogs don't seem to have much clear information. I can't find any good evidence about the nature, size, or importance of this pageant. Unless we can verify with reliable sources that this article meets notability guidelines, I believe the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep:I hereby withdraw my nomination. User:John KB did an outstanding job of finding sources. I'm not totally sure that all of them meet WP:RS, but enough of them do that this pageant does appear to be legitimate, regular, and notable event. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United Roma Party of Kosovo
- United Roma Party of Kosovo (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)
Appears to be a very minor political party, about which not much is known other than that it exists. I looked around but did not finding anything in the nature of focused and specific coverage, just a few passing mentions. The party got 0.2% of the vote in the 2004 Kosovo elections and does have one legislator represented in the Kosovo parliament. I think under such circumstances it is appropriate to have an article about that legislator but not about the party. Does not pass WP:ORG, in my opinion. A prod was contested. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, nom appears contradictory. Surprised to find WP:ORG does not specifically mention parties, but my very general unsourced observation is that one seat in a national government does support an article. Does meet the "noncommercial" section of WP:ORG (inconveniently called WP:CLUB). If more sources turn up for the man than the party, name can be changed later. JJB 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, per JJB comments. Heiro 18:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep parties successfully running candidates in elections are notable. Suggest SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Moginie
- Samuel Moginie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A notable person's no doubt accomplished but as yet non-notable son. With greatest respect to Moginies père et fils, notability is not inherited. Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing much found at Google. Article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. The best it can say is that he is a regular contributor to the non-notable Alternative Media Group of Australia, for which he writes music criticism. And "regular" is a stretch - only three items appeared in 2010 [18]. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted by User:Mkativerata under WP:CSD#A9 (non admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godspeed (E.P.)
- Godspeed (E.P.) (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)
Unremarkable EP. Special Cases Spit out your comments 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A9 - artist has no article. Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basic presentation skills
- Basic presentation skills (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)
Blatant vio of WP:NOTHOWTO. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 08:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 08:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for the first phrase returned exactly 10 identical copies. Tagged for deletion as an obvious rip-off. Alexius08 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. (No remaining !votes for delete) (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mir Ali of Persia
- Mir Ali of Persia (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)
Very few reliable sources available. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As creator of this article I have very little to add. I was doing cleanup of another article which commingled information about very distinct subjects, and I removed information from the Mir Ali, Pakistan article and created the present article. __meco (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak deleteunless the article is sufficiently expanded to clearly identify the person. Mir Ali hints that this is a very common name; there were also Mir Sayyid Ali and Mir Ali Mashhadi (centuries before the reign of Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar) and "a peripheral court parasite Mir Ali Naqi" (contemporary of the Shah, [19]) etc. Mir Ali Shir Nava'i is commonly reduced to just Mir Ali etc. etc. East of Borschov 12:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- keep, rename with just one letter added (Mihr Ali) plenty of evidence showed up! East of Borschov 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I read something about this fellow, Rirunmot (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per new changes to the article by User:Grutness; needs more work but historical and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. the artist (whose name is actually Mihr 'Ali), is one of Persian history's more notable artists, though unfortunately there's not too much info online. I have expanded the article a little from the (IMO - no offence intended) pathetic stub that it was to something that at least looks like the start of an article. Note: If kept, the article should be moved to the correct name. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. With the expansion of the article this is a clearcut Keep. __meco (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Most of these books have coverage of the subject, and clearly identify him as one of the foremost artists of his period. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. Sufficient references have been found and appropriate footnotes included. I am withdrawing the nomination. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to BRST quantization. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRST formalism
- BRST formalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a mess. And it seems BRST formalism is the same as BRST quantization, which is better and has more detail. I'd say just nuke this sucker, Wikipedia will be better off without it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, Speedy deny None, of the things mentioned in the nomination are any reason for deletion. Merger and redirect to BRST quantization may be a good idea, but do not in any way require an AfD.TimothyRias (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Tim said. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is important but the article is atrociously written. Redirect to BRST quantization which says it better. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and Redirect No reason for stand alone article when compared with duplication that is far superior. It should be recreated in the future though, and expanded. Outback the koala (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not expand it now, then? And what will happen in the future that will make this not a duplicate of the same subject? Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please feel free to expand, I am willing to change my opinion if there are significant changes on the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A duplicate article is a duplicate article and no amount of expansion will ever change that. In fact, it only makes it harder to try to merge things in the future. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please feel free to expand, I am willing to change my opinion if there are significant changes on the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not expand it now, then? And what will happen in the future that will make this not a duplicate of the same subject? Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anita Rachlis
- Anita Rachlis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable researcher/academic. XinJeisan (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as passing WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of GS cites. Nominator should have looked at them. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I did spending time checking various locations. I saw the that Rachlis has several co-authored papers but I failed to see, from my perspective, any "independent reliable source." A large number of co-authored papers by themselves doesn't say to me "significant impact." But that is why there is a process, to discuss these issues. XinJeisan (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Web of Science lists >100 publications, total of >3000 citations, h-index of 24. --Crusio (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Xxanthippe's and Crusio's findings on citation stats are pretty clear on this one. Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per the above, and membership of a significant national body (now being added to article). hamiltonstone (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neha Dalvi
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. relatively little participation in the AfD, but clearly not notable--no point in relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Combat Marine Outdoors
- Combat Marine Outdoors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As any Google search quickly establishes, this is not a notable organization by Wikipedia's standards, and there are no references to reliable sources provided that would indicate otherwise. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable per WP:ORG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources about this organisation. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a Burning Body
- Upon a Burning Body (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article adjudicated at DRV to have been ineligible for A7 as it contained an assertion of notability. Restored and sent for an AfD discussion. I am neutral. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article has a slim assertion of notability, allowing it to pass the low level required to survive speedy deletion. However, with no significant coverage in relaible sources it fails the criteria set out by the general notability guideline and the guidelines for music. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Charting on Heatseekers is a slim asssertion indeed: it's a chart of uncharted albums by groups that have never had a charting album. I removed most of the text as a copyvio of http://www.last.fm/music/Upon+A+Burning+Body/+wiki/diff?b=6&a=5 .—Kww(talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not enough sources to establish notability. Heiro 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wish there were more expansive CSD criteria when something is obviously not going to survive AfD. It sucks for the author - a speedy delete doesn't prejudice recreation if they come up with sources. A recreation after AfD is more likely to be challenged on principle. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casey and Andy
- Casey and Andy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious notability. Not a single secondary source, just primary sources and forums. The fact that it had an RPG based on it isn't an assertation of notability, nor is its longevity (in webcomic terms). There are absolutely no secondary sources to be found anywhere. Last AFD was in 2005; I think this is long overdue for another look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Summarizing the previous AfD debate: a blatant spammy article was stubbed out, that was challenged. The creator of the comic apologized for a fan making the original spammy article. The debate was low-level with KEEP votes, when they bothered to list a rationale at all, opining that the article would be eventually developed by fans. A KEEP result was recorded. In the interim the article was indeed fleshed out by fans. I can see where my friend Mr. Hammer is coming from here, the sourcing still sucks. I have no personal opinion about the inclusion-worthiness or lack thereof of this article. I'm tagging for the Rescue Squadron and we'll see if any sourcing materializes sufficient to save this very extensive, fanziney page. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single reliable secondary source. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per sourcing concerns above. SnottyWong chat 18:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reviewed on Websnark and it won their 2004 Shortbread award(see links in previous AFD). Also seen on Sequential Tart reviewed at [20] and then the creator interviewed at [21] where this webcomic is mentioned in several places throughout the interview. Note: Sequential Tart is quoted in a 183 Wikipedia articles[22] as a reliable source, but doesn't have its own article yet. Dream Focus 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep the sources found by Dream Focus aren't the best (coverage only in the context of other comics and not too in-depth) but probably hits the bottom bar of WP:N. [23] is the Websnark article/award. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I'm usually an inclusionist, but this article is very borderline when it comes to notability. Yes, it's been mentioned by Websnark and has won an award on that site, but WP:WEB states that a website requires multiple reliable sources for notability, not just two non-trivial mentions. And seeing as there's zero results from mainstream media outlets, leads me to support deletion.--hkr Laozi speak 05:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainstream media outlets don't cover most/any webcomics, regular comics, certain genres of novels even if they become bestsellers, the vast majority of manga, etc. Horrible system to rely on. Fortunately the guidelines are just suggestions, not absolute law like the policies are. Dream Focus 05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with that, although it's true in some cases. Notable webcomics usually are covered in the media.--hkr Laozi speak 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided. There are a small number of independent sources provided, but the vast majority of the article consists of descriptions of the characters, sourced to the comic itself. It would be best to edit this article to focus on the evidence of its notability and its reception on the Internet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Few secondary sources found. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 08:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. It has been over 5 years since the last nomination, and still not a single significant reliable secondary source has been found for this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I think that's blatantly untrue. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I wrote "It has been over 5 years since the last nomination" because the last nomination was from February of 2005 and it is now October of 2010. I wrote "not a single significant reliable secondary source has been found for this topic" because the only sources mentioned here or used in the article (other than the website itself) are interviews (primary sources) or a few paragraphs (insignificant coverage) on self-published blogs (unreliable sources). Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I think that's blatantly untrue. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subsoap
- Subsoap (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)
Spotted this and the one game they seem to have produced - Faerie Solitaire - when just reading up on Solitaire on a whim. Research on this shows nothing special - just some mentions on some blogs at best. Website as linked to is entirely content free. Not seeing notability. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subsoap is not notable, although I think the game they have produced is notable. I think WP:NOTINHERITED comes into play here. - Pmedema (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not enough significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Panton
- Peter Panton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Re-created following expired prod for notability. Top Jim (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unable to find reliable sources independent of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find any coverage in independent sources, either. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing. Furthermore, I read the nominator's comment below as "withdrawn". (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fermentelos
- Fermentelos (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)
Speedy was declined. This article is way too short to be an article. Inka888ContribsTalk 02:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Why was an article of a town nominated for speedy deletion within an hour of its creation?[24]--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm endorsing this, but if you look at the new page log, there were about 70 of these, if not more, created within a few minutes of each other. I was on NPP at the time, and there was a gigantic flood of one sentence stubs on Portuguese towns; it almost looked like someone was using a spambot. I'm not sure if/how often you do NPP, but it's fairly easy to have knee-jerk reactions when you see that. Inka888 and I have started a conversation on the user's talkpage so that next time, this user will at least include a reference and a little more information. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2002, User:Ram-Man and his bot and other users auto-created most of the United States geo-stubs based on 2000 Census data. Lompoc, California, for example. It was very useful as there are literally tens of thousands of towns and population centers in the US. I don't really have a problem if a similar effort is embarked on town stubs for other countries. If there are any "false positives," places that aren't really towns or population centers, like with the US, there won't be many. As for this article, this was definitely not one of those, which I think you agree with. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree with you— I just wanted to provide a bit of context. I've been doing NPP for several months and I've seen this sort of thing before, so I knew what was going on, but I'm not surprised that someone newer to NPP didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2002, User:Ram-Man and his bot and other users auto-created most of the United States geo-stubs based on 2000 Census data. Lompoc, California, for example. It was very useful as there are literally tens of thousands of towns and population centers in the US. I don't really have a problem if a similar effort is embarked on town stubs for other countries. If there are any "false positives," places that aren't really towns or population centers, like with the US, there won't be many. As for this article, this was definitely not one of those, which I think you agree with. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm endorsing this, but if you look at the new page log, there were about 70 of these, if not more, created within a few minutes of each other. I was on NPP at the time, and there was a gigantic flood of one sentence stubs on Portuguese towns; it almost looked like someone was using a spambot. I'm not sure if/how often you do NPP, but it's fairly easy to have knee-jerk reactions when you see that. Inka888 and I have started a conversation on the user's talkpage so that next time, this user will at least include a reference and a little more information. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, usually pages of this nature atleast have an external link with the documents, but on this, there is none to be found.TalkToMecintelati 03:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the official government website that documents facts of the town. I found this rather quickly. --Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - "Too short" is not a valid deletion criteria. It's only a reason to keep an article so editors can expand it. Looks like a town to me. According to the Portuguese Wikipedia page, it has over 3,000 people. There's no such thing as a "non notable town." Perfectly valid geo-stub. --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Towns and communities have been held to be inherently notable. Poor nomination for both CSD and this AFD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, towns are inherently notable. "Too short" is not a criterion for deletion. JIP | Talk 07:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated above, towns and the like are inherently notable. Just because it's very short doesn't mean it's not a valid article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep As above, settlements with official recognition are inherently notable. For UK settlements, a reference to the relevant Ordnance Survey map is usually sufficient for a stub. Is there a Portuguese equivalent? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per the above. Heiro 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like i tagged it too quick. Inka888ContribsTalk 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unverifiable. I can find no evidence that this term exists. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Audit elbow
- Audit elbow (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)
Unreferenced, non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, zero coverage online, probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Creator history indicates newb with some skills. Talk:Audit elbow is sincere but insufficient keep justification. Whether hoax or not, solution might be
userfydue to WP:BITE. Then it becomes a candidate for the later abandoned-page track. JJB 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC) - Comment: note that this article was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax the last time the editor created it a few weeks ago. Top Jim (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, bite him again. JJB 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete At the very least, unverified. I can find no other examples of usage of this term. Certainly there are diseases/injuries caused by new technology and sedentary lifestyle, but "audit elbow" does not appear to be one of them. I would not encourage a Userfy result, because that suggests that the article could be brought back after rewriting, and I can see no future for this article - the verification simply doesn't exist. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to University of California, Los Angeles#Student life. Any usable content for merging may be recovered from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awaken A Cappella
- Awaken A Cappella (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)
Well-written article, but lacking sufficient reliable sources to establish notability criteria for musicians and ensembles or under WP:GNG. They have been mentioned in places outside the local college newspaper (such as the Boston Globe), but they are just mentions. A search for coverage brought up similar trivial mentions. tedder (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to University of California, Los Angeles#Student life with a brief mention. It's just another among thousands of student a capella groups. Two outside sources are listed, the California Chronicle and the Boston Globe, but those articles have only trivial passing mentions of this group. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This discussion was blanked by User:76.89.131.243, a WP:Single purpose account dedicated to this article; the blanking was reverted. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PowerVision TV
- PowerVision TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I tagged this with {{Primarysources}} in October 2008. It is now October 2010 and I don't think much has been done in the two years since I tagged it to establish it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Compare the diffs: October 9, 2008 - October 16, 2010 Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to K. C. John.Delete All I can verify for either this or KC John are videos on YouTube oe similar sites. I shall nominate the KC John article separately. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Zajicek
- Jessica Zajicek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing substantial in this article; it can all be covered by Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List. I only suggest deletion because I'm not sure if a redirect is even warranted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as a possible useful search term. Neither a need nor sufficient sourcing to cover her as a notable individual. Merge if needed is fine too. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete News mentions for being Kathy Griffin's personal assistant is not much of a claim to notability. Almost seems like a BLP1E. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being Kathy Griffin's former assistant might not be much of a claim to notability, but being a major part of four seasons (two of which won an Emmy) of a popular show is. — AMK1211talk! 05:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List. She's too much of a minor character to merit a separate article, but since she is associated with a notable television show, a redirect would suffice. --hkr Laozi speak 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List. Jessica(!) has no claim to notability independent of appearing as an assistant on this show and no significant coverage in independent third-party sources to be notable for Wikipedia herself. Hekerui (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youth Friendship Games
- Youth Friendship Games (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)
Original AFD no consensus in 2007. Non-notable sporting event under WP:ATHLETE; Google News returns no hits so fails WP:GNG as it hasn't been widely covered in news sources independent of the subject outside of any WP:ROUTINE coverage. No sources and article is orphaned. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article states this is "Youth Friendship Games Holland", which is not the same thing as "Youth Friendship Games" 76.66.196.13 (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Half Price 15:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Xraig (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirrily White
- Kirrily White (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)
Actress who doesn't seem to have played any significant/major roles. Main claim to notability appears to be her appearances in All Saints, but according to IMDB she only appeared in 16 episodes in 2 years and is listed well down the cast. The sources cited in the article do not constitute significant coverage, and none was found elsewhere. Michig (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: her role in All Saints was fairly major (I'd think it was more than 16 episodes), online coverage of that era is sketchy as most Aust newspapers have archived most of their articles from the late 90s/2000s. The-Pope (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, ref says she appeared in over 100 episodes of All Saints. Also I had go at using trove nla, rather than google, to find some info and I found a fair bit of stuff, which I have now added to the article, including info on her early life and the other guest roles that she's had and it has all been referenced. Take a look and see if it should now be kept. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see any significant coverage other than the 'seven network' one which doesn't look particularly reliable.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree the other refs don't show significant coverage (they just provide some extra info), but I would argue that the Seven Network ref does provide significant coverage and is reliable. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bilingualism (Brain)
- Bilingualism (Brain) (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)
Basically an essay. Reads more like a research review for a Trends paper than an encyclopedia article. "Bilingual brain" may well be an encyclopedic topic (if not for an article, then for a section in the Bilingualism article, but an article like the current one is not really suitable for Wikipedia. As there has been no significant improvement in at least a year (stuff has been added and subtracted, but the overall style of it has remained the same), I propose that it would be better just to remove this and let someone else have a go at this topic from scratch. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep good sourced article at a high but reasonable degree of technicality on a significant topic. There's an overlap between what might be in an academic review and a wikipedia article. This fits in that area. (I might suggest copyediting to give a slightly more explanatory style). Lack of improvement is not reason for deletion, let alone slowness of improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to Bilingualism (neurology). Good topic, article already has plenty of sources, all that needs to happen is for the article to be wikified according to the Manual of Style. MoS concerns shouldn't qualify for deletion.--hkr Laozi speak 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that none of the issues I raised above are MoS, they are content issues. Interesting, though, that you seem to think you can cancel all of them out by proclaiming "good topic!". Care to elaborate? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote your deletion rationale: "Reads more like a research review... stuff has been added and subtracted, but the overall style of it has remained the same". There are references in the article, lots of them, your concern is on how the article is written. I can't see how this is not a Manual of Style concern, since that is primarily what the MoS deals with. Unless you're arguing that it violates notability criteria?--hkr Laozi speak 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The Manual of Style is about stuff like where to put quotation marks; don't get confused just because it has the word "style" in it. When an article is written like an essay, that's a content issue, not an MoS issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a trivial issue but... the Manual of Style is just "about stuff like where to put quotation marks"? No. It's not. The MOS covers everything regarding how to correctly write a wiki article from the layout (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)) to formatting (Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting)) to content (Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content)). Content issues can be MoS issues, unless they're about notability and reliable sources, which is not a problem that affects the nominated entry.--hkr Laozi speak 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I agree, it's written like a scientific journal, but I think it can be rewritten, with a cleanup, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I still think the article should be kept, but I see your point.--hkr Laozi speak 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that none of the issues I raised above are MoS, they are content issues. Interesting, though, that you seem to think you can cancel all of them out by proclaiming "good topic!". Care to elaborate? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not incubate this until someone fixes it? T. Canens (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kereta api Bantowi Eksekutif
- Kereta api Bantowi Eksekutif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not in english - and although the specific rail service might exist (of which the Indonesian language details are clear about the etymology and service - I do not think adequate WP:RS exist to verify the notability - more likely the info would serve a purpose in a list of named railway services in Java. SatuSuro 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 12:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete. Per statement by User:Davidelit having reviewed the copy and making the determination that the translated text fails notability. Guidelines clearly state that translation must be presented for articles on the English Wikipedia. However, a timeline of two weeks is the standard, after which time, it would be appropriate to discuss deletion. After a translation is provided, then we can review the article accordingly. Until then, the article is placed at WP:PNT. In my opinion, this is just jumping the gun a bit. Cindamuse (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Not notable, fails WP:SIGCOV. Not even worth translating - it's about a night train that goes from Bandung to Slawi, the latter of which is the subject of a short unreferenced article. Davidelit (Talk) 13:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rail transport in Indonesia, if the information can be verified. No great harm if it's deleted, as that article doesn't look too reliable either..... Sumbuddi (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyDelete without prejudice for English recreation.G1Speedy deletion criteria specifies it includes "coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material."Train passenger services are generally considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, G1 CSD is not applicable to "coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material". Cindamuse (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it's still not translated by 28 October, in which time it has remained untranslated for two weeks. I can't translate it myself because I don't understand Indonesian. JIP | Talk 07:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it's translated into English, just let me know and I'll withdraw my !vote. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can vouch for editors Davidelit and Sumbuddi's competency in Indonesian language as being well well above mine (aging brain - not enough practice) - and their comments should be taken as a very good guide as to the practicality of deleting rather than saving or translating SatuSuro 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Lupe Fiasco. T. Canens (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All City Chess Club
- All City Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable group? Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Why are we wasting time on this one? Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BAND. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Lupe Fiasco. Band hasn't apparently released much content, but the founder is notable.--hkr Laozi speak 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Lupe Fiasco per above Vodello (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The B.F.E. (the Blaine Fowler Experience).
- The B.F.E. (the Blaine Fowler Experience). (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Why are we wasting time with this? Utterly fails WP:BAND. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Periodic Systems of Small Molecules
- Periodic Systems of Small Molecules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is nothing more than an essay. Even though it has references, I think this article fails wp:OR. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless someone knowledgable is prepared to do an extensive rewrite (but I doubt that this article is salvageable). The idea of periodicity in molecular systems (not limited to small molecules) seems to be a valid topic within chemistry (it is particularly relevant to computational chemistry and materials science, as near as I can tell), but this article does not do a good job of addressing the topic. Some related Wikipedia articles include molecular geometry, molecular dynamics, computational chemistry, and molecular modeling. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the topic is notable, the content is referenced and not a case of OR . Wikipedia has simple procedures in place to invite editors in to improve the article where needed. V8rik (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there seem to be sufficient sources. That an article should be improved is not reason for deletion, or we;d have an extremely small encyclopedia with only the Featured articles--and, in my opinion, not all of them either.
- 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) 01:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it has reliable sources (and this article has plenty), it's not original research. Original research "refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." It needs to be cleaned up, wikified, not deleted.--hkr Laozi speak 05:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triton Armor Group
- Triton Armor Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a company. In fact, hardly anything other than the company's page and facebook page exist. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no much proof that this company really exists, much less that it's notable. The website [25] only has a blank home page. Will Beback talk 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - reads like corporate advertising to me so there may also be conflict of interest and POV. Anotherclown (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No evidence of notability as a company or military unit. Seems odd that they would write an article on Wikipedia when thier website is blank. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WaitTriton Armor Group actually and surprisingly got their first contract in their first week of business. So, within a few days the website will catch up. Thank you for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This doesn't change the fact that it appears to have been written to promote the company. If you can reword it to make it more neutral and can find reliable and independent sources to establish notablity then please do so (the company's website does not count as either IMO). Anotherclown (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, no article. I wonder where this inside information comes from--does anyone have a COI sticker laying around? Drmies (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: does not meet notability standards due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please delete it. No one deserves Drmies wrath on pure suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 06:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be afraid, Wolfgänger. I have no guns and no military training--unless Wolfenstein 3D counts. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I commend your sharp, clear spirit, Drmies. (And sense of humor). It inspires to bring out the best. (talk)
- Delete Clearly not notable, I'm not even sure does it even exist. Their website is blank, and there isn't really any other reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The web site is in fact in existence and will be posted within days. This is an elite, private company. It's principals are respected professionals. All postings to the contrary are false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.76.135 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources. Being a new startup should not bar an organisation from having a wikipedia article as long as notability can be established. I can't find any evidence of notability. I got no further than this: [26] which makes for an interesting comparison with [27]. Apart from that, some of the factual claims about the organisation seem a little suspicious considering that organisation appears to be so new and has just a placeholder website... bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to UCL Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. T. Canens (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CoMPLEX
- CoMPLEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. deserves a 1 or 2 line mention in University college article. no significant coverage [28]. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: with UCL Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. This is a sub-department and may deserve a blurb in the parent department's article, but it's not notable as a stand-alone article. The sister research centres have no material other than the name, so some expansion is needed there.--RDBury (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Günter Singer
- Günter Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources given to establish notability of an individual; a search of gbooks and gnews didn't bring up anything. (gbooks brought up some German language hits, but likely refer to another Gunter Singer) tedder (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Triton Armor Group is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Armor Group. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no notability per WP:BIO and WP:MILPEOPLE. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable per Bahamut and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: agree with nominator's rationale. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait Hard to find third party reference for a spec war operative due to classification issues, but the current company Triton Armor Group will have their web site up in a few days, of which Singer is CEO. Thanks for the great and objective work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That Singer you referred to, Tedder, is decidedly different--unless our mercenary has, for a long time, been concerned with the reconstruction of Jewish community in Hamburg. No website by no company will make this acceptable--we need reliable sources. If those don't exist because he's led such an underground life, his Wikipedia article should reflect the classified status of his life--by disappearing. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please delete it. No one deserves Drmies wrath on pure suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgaenger (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2001 Cincinnati riots#Officer Roach shoots Timothy Thomas. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Thomas
- Timothy Thomas (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)
Poor sourced article which violates WP:BIO1E. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2001 Cincinnati riots. There are plenty of sources available to verify that he is notable in context of the riots, so merge and redirect is warranted per WP:ONEEVENT. Location (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to 2001 Cincinnati riots#Officer Roach shoots Timothy Thomas per WP:BIO1E. Target article already has al relevant information and there is nothing else to merge. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#G7 [29]. Pedro : Chat 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Butcher
- Howard Butcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music producer; article is basically an autobiography with a bunch of internet links (most of which I removed, before deciding that notability guidelines weren't met). The only thing I could find about the subject is this, which verified that the subject has a studio--that's it. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Howard Butcher slipped up when trying to add an external link and I was alerted to it by Igloo. I tagged it and was going to nom it in a week or two, but it clearly fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mechanical digger (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A man doing a job. The nature conservancy might have been interesting, but I can only get 3 ghits - all their own site. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Heiro 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modilo
- Modilo (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)
Nomination on behalf of NexCarnifex (talk · contribs) (see this). I declined a prod added by that user earlier; on further investigation, the additional coverage I found was minimal and unhelpful. NexCarnifex has stated that the subject of this article is not notable and that the sources included do not help establish notability. I am neutral in this AfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. --hydrox (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... I'm new at this, so I'm not sure if this is the way to do this ... but My concern is the article on > modilo < that we have submitted. We do not understand why it is "suggested for deletion" or why it would not qualify, as it is a legitimate company with references AND is "notable" in that it definately IS one of the first (if not The First) nordic companies to implement <position awareness> in ERP / business oriented applications... which is definately significant IMHO K-S Sirkka User:K272479 User_talk:K272479
If you can add legitimate references that clearly indicate it's notability, the tag will be removed. But the references there certainly do not indicate it.NexCarnifex (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I've copied the above from Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Modilo, since the comment was misplaced. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. nothing about this company in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so "indicating that it is Notable" would be what ... newspaper articles ?
Since this is a Nordic company, it's not surprising there is no mention in gnews. As I said earlier, I'm new to this, so excuse a stupid question ... should this article about modilo perhaps be only in the Swedish/Finnish version of Wikipedia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K272479 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K272479 —Preceding unsigned comment added by K272479 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing ... I hope You are aware of what <position aware> solutions are about, and that this is The Hottest area of smartphone and web-applikations right noe ... and probably for the comming decade ! As the artiucle states modilo is in the forefront of this revolution in ERP & business applications, which in it self should be "notable" IMHO
k272479
- Comment, there's no reason it cannot be here as long as reliable sources provide coverage. Newspaper or magazine articles about the company itself are fine, but if they are in Swedish/Finnish, please provide a translation on the article's talk page. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. Let us know if you have additional questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... Thanks for your patience with my questions and your suggestions. We'll try finding a couple of article references and provide translations of atleast part of them
--kss (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)--kss (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
When we have additional references (and their translations) HOW do we go about submitting them ? Should they be appanded only to this discussion, or should we edit, append and publish the modilo wikipedia page again ? --kss (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hailstorm (Transformers)
- Hailstorm (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only "sourced" material is too a long discredited fansite to assert its notability and is full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Decepticons. Also, I'm not seeing the original research you speak of. --Divebomb (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. No major coverage in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Le Monde, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable toy, no mentions or references in reliable sources, just the usual tfw2005.com listing of in-universe data. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, extremely unlikely ny reliable sources exist. Article doesn't mention any media appearances, so I assume this is a toy-only character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hailstorm never did anything important. Redirecting to "List of Decepticons" isn't really helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative proposal. There are a lot of Transformers articles, due to the large number of characters involved in the fiction and the multiple continuity changes/reboots the series has experienced. I suspect that a Pokemon-style solution is the way forward, condensing articles into lists in the main and preserving and developing the most notable characters into well-supported articles. Doing so is outside the scope of the per-article approach of AFD. Regardless of whether there is any initiative to open an RFC or project on the issue, I support a redirect of this nomination to the appropriate list, in accordance with the Pokemon solution. Although I disagree with the label of "original research" here, this nomination is not troubled in the manner of other recent Transformers AFDs where I (and others) have argued for closure on procedural grounds. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. The consensus is to redirect to Transformers: Generation 2, however in deference to the presented arguments, I am going to add a hatnote to that article referring people to Active laser medium -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laser Rods
- Laser Rods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article lacks any kind of independent information to assert notability and is full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to laser rods. Make that page a disambiguation. Then have one link directed to Transformers: Generation 2. Toyline is notable, sub-group of said toyline is not. Clear-cut case for a redirect.--hkr Laozi speak 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transformers: Generation 2 per User:Hongkongresident. JIP | Talk 07:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Transformers: Generation 2. Mathewignash (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Transformers: Generation 2. However, I question your OR claim. Let's go through the article.
- "The Laser Rods are a sub-group of Transformers toys released as part of their Generation 2 line. Members include both Autobots and Decepticons. They were also called Illuminators in some parts of Europe." No original research there.
- "Members include:
- Electro
- Jolt - released under the name Hot Rod in some parts of Europe.
- Sizzle
- Volt - Released under the name Autovolt in Japan. " Again, no original research there.
- "All members featured great amounts of articulation at the time, as well as clear plastic swords that could be lighted by small light emitting diodes." Not seeing it here either.
- So, uh, try not to confuse unsourced statements with original research? --Divebomb (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the term as used on Wikipedia is sometimes confusing. Original research for our purposes doesn't just refer to stuff like "I did an experiment in my basement that proves onions can feel pain!", it also means inserting material that you know (or think you know) rather than what you can verify through reliable sources. So, in other words, if I wanted to say in an article that GI Joe is 12" tall, I couldn't just get one and measure it with a ruler, I'd have to find a book or other reliable source that states the same fact and then cite that. You're technically correct that unsourced material isn't necessarily original research, as the editor may have had reliable sources but forgot to cite them, but for practical purposes we can assume that unsourced material like that in the article is probably original research and should be removed unless a reliable source can be found quickly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable source materials. Not found on CNN, Times of London, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "laser rod"s are a real world item with nothing to do with toys. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete never, ever, ever redirect a real-world thing to a fictional cartoon article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uh, guys, that's a page about a toyline and its related promotional materials. --Divebomb (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and redirecting something real to something fictional is irresposible and stupid. That would be like redirecting "gun" to Han Solo's blaster pistol or "castle" to Castle Greyskull. We don't do that. Not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I have another idea. Perhaps we could merge the content somewhere, but leave the page as a redirect to Laser rod? --Divebomb (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, merging without redirecting removes attribution and thus violates the GFDL. Besides, there's nothing reliably sourced enough to merge anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can move the history to a history subpage, which is viable under GFDL and has been done before on Wikipedia, you can redirect elsewhere, but leave merge notices on the talk page, which is also viable under GFDL ({{copied}}) and has been done before on Wikipedia. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can, yes, but there's nothing reliably sourced in the article to merit such a treatment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can move the history to a history subpage, which is viable under GFDL and has been done before on Wikipedia, you can redirect elsewhere, but leave merge notices on the talk page, which is also viable under GFDL ({{copied}}) and has been done before on Wikipedia. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, merging without redirecting removes attribution and thus violates the GFDL. Besides, there's nothing reliably sourced enough to merge anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I have another idea. Perhaps we could merge the content somewhere, but leave the page as a redirect to Laser rod? --Divebomb (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and redirecting something real to something fictional is irresposible and stupid. That would be like redirecting "gun" to Han Solo's blaster pistol or "castle" to Castle Greyskull. We don't do that. Not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoever said this was a page about a real-world thing? Check the incoming links. Do you see any incoming links from non-Transformers articles? You could perhaps be right if this article was named laser rods, but it's not. It's named Laser Rods with a capital R, which alone makes it an unlikely search term for a real-world item. It's not like the article semi-automatic weapon is located at Semi-Automatic Weapon. JIP | Talk 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is there has not been one single source which is reliable. To WP:VERIFY this article notability or is likely bar an unreliable fansite. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What has that got to do with the question about whether this is a real-world or a fictional thing? I agree that the article is completely unsourced, but all that concerns is whether the article should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the difference between "Laser Rods" and "laser rods". JIP | Talk 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is there has not been one single source which is reliable. To WP:VERIFY this article notability or is likely bar an unreliable fansite. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JIP, but I can see why Starblind's concerned. However, I still don't support leaving the article as a redlink. How about a compromise... a disambiguation?--hkr Laozi speak 13:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uh, guys, that's a page about a toyline and its related promotional materials. --Divebomb (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an article severly lacking in sources. 80.40.144.68 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of modern weapons
- List of modern weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has essentially the same problem as the now-deleted Modern weapons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern weapons (2nd nomination)): there is no sourced definition of "modern weapon".
Even an alphabetical list of post-1945 individual firearms, which seems to be the intention here (why 1945? Developed since then? Used since then?) is not very helpful, since there are simply too many potential entries. The sublists List of modern weapons by country and List of modern weapons by type are far more useful. Sandstein 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if this current article is deleted, an article at this title should exist, since it should list the two sublists on a single article (a list of lists), and the other deleted page, Modern weapons should redirect to that list of lists as well. Or if this article is kept, it should redirect here. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Too many" is not a reason to delete because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper. Post-WW2 seems a reasonable working definition of modern. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too many" is a reason for deletion for lists that can become, by virtue of their scope, unmanageably long. The better approach is to split the topic into more tightly focused sublists, as has already been done. Sandstein 08:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When a list is split for reasons of length then we keep the original to provide a summary so that a tree structure is formed. See List of minor planets for an example. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But here the contents of the list (a random assortment of handheld firearms) is neither the original of the other list (and would be too large if it were), nor their summary. Sandstein 09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the list already contains sensible structural elements directing readers to sublists. The part that you are talking about is just a section. That section can be split off in the same way, improved in situ or just removed. This can all be done using normal editing tools. Deletion is neither necessary nor helpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete: the skeleton is OK per Colonel Warden, but the "by name" section is impossibly incomplete and unmanageable and needs to go. There are by and far many other lists and categories that are more useful, in better shape, and with more clearly defined scopes making this list utterly redundant. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, changed my mind, just merge and redirect to Lists of weapons. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'Modern' as understood by historians is post 1500 AD. Anything Twentieth Century is very much modern. What use is a list of post-45 firearms when we have the categories page for exactly that? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Per WP:NOTDIR. The articles already exist in their own right, so there's no need to create a directory article. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that referencing NOTDIR is a bit disingenuous. For one, it notes that there is nothing wrong with lists with a significant association (and directs the reader to see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists). I wouldn't classify the article in question as a directory, at least, not in the sense that the policy prohibits. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately this list suffers from a very vague title (what is modern?, what is a weapon?) and thus its inclusion criteria is essentially indiscriminate. (violates WP:SAL) Most of the entries are guns, but there are countless other types of weapons--bombs, missiles, knives, non-lethal, bows and arrows. Its not that there shouldn't be a list of weapons, its just that whatever form those lists take, there needs to be a much better, and discriminate set of inclusion criteria.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per DGG with the caveat that it is renamed to List of post-1945 military weapons and there is specific inclusion criteria as to what specific types of weapons are to be included.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , changing the title to "list of current weapons", which is what is intended. If one looks only at the current title, it would seem vague, but actually theres a good specific definition at the article. I think that answer's Mike's main objection. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Current" is no more specific than "modern". The definition in the article, "every weapon currently in development, production, or significant service in the world" encompasses an unmanageably huge number of weapons. Sandstein 20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the definition used by the article: "in use 1945-". That's a perfectly reasonable historical time period, but in any case is specific. The title cannot express all the subtlety. If you like , List of firearms, 1945- . The actual use in the article is well-defined. As for unmanageably lare, it means as always, those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That's hardly unmanageably large: if we can manage the articles, we can manage a list of the article. I don;t know that anything is unmanageably large for us; we're not paper, and have no fixed limit, and the total size of Wikipedia is way below what the database system could accommodate even now. If there were a million such weapons, we could have articles on them, and make a list of those articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: it's not specific to the point of being NOT reasonable. Many armies of 1945 still employed equipment designed in the 19th century. Practically all firearms of WW1 were still used in WW2 and survived it. Just what kind of weaponry would you expect to find, say, in Peru in 1945? A less exotic example would be the M1911 pistol. The article says some of US services still carry it, but would anyone call it modern? East of Borschov 13:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would. Heck, they are still being made, such as the MEU(SOC) pistol. But the example of a 99-year old model still in production and used by elite operators just goes to show that even a clearly defined scope is still ambiguous with the constant phasing in of new equipment; there simply are no clear lines to be drawn in the sand that will make sense for most instances. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: it's not specific to the point of being NOT reasonable. Many armies of 1945 still employed equipment designed in the 19th century. Practically all firearms of WW1 were still used in WW2 and survived it. Just what kind of weaponry would you expect to find, say, in Peru in 1945? A less exotic example would be the M1911 pistol. The article says some of US services still carry it, but would anyone call it modern? East of Borschov 13:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to List of post-1945 weapons. I agree that the name is very vague, but a move will resolve any problems.--hkr Laozi speak 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. "Modern" is subjective; "weapons" are, in fact, small firearms (see List of firearms) with a few 155-mm howitzers (see Category:Lists of artillery) thrown in... This is better handled by already existing "by type" or "by country" lists. East of Borschov 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subjective, arbitrary criteria. An indiscriminate list. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Indiscriminate, arbitrary, unmanageable, contains no useful information. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:SNOW, WP:POINT, and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taxation in Finland
- Taxation in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not needed. Already covered in Economy of Finland. If it is expanded enough and enough sources are added to prove that it merits its own article, I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please immediately remove the deletion request. If you want to discuss the question whether "Taxation in XX" is a good template for an article title, take this discussion to a more general level. --vuo (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Primary concern is that the article lacks content. Well, we can always add more! There's plenty of content out there to expand the article with. There are plenty of "Taxation by country" articles to use as a guide.--hkr Laozi speak 01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there proof that it will get big enough? Add some references and start expanding it and I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I could, there's thousands of books on the topic, but the majority of it is very jargon heavy. I think it would be better to contact someone more familiar with economics.--hkr Laozi speak 03:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there proof that it will get big enough? Add some references and start expanding it and I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Another nomination in the series of totally unexplained attacks on notability of completely relevant articles. My guess is some users feel a need to seek developing articles and nominate them for deletion just in order to boost their perceived wiki-fame on the expense of destroying other editors' good-meaning contributions. This is a a pathetic and sad trend in Wikipedia, and again, to me personally at least, this nomination tells much more about the user who made and his/her motivation than the article itself. (Finnish taxation system is a very complicated subject and even has professorships in Finnsih unversities, including a M.Fin level main discipline in the University of Tampere. Hunders of published academic and government works, plenty to write e.g. comparison to other countries, unique features, taxation tables, specific examples, controversy & criticism, effect of the EU, influence by Hannu, history & development etc. etc. ad nauseum) --hydrox (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Edit: Relevant policy would be WP:PRESERVE. Nominating articles that obviously pass WP:N for deletion just to state a point like "this article is too short" is an example of abusing the community process. --hydrox (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an unfair judgement you made of me. My main point for nominating the article is the fact that is already included on it. It should be userfied until it has more content then it. JDDJS (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have to admit it was unfounded. But I've seen people who seem to do here nothing but to nominate articles for deletion and have been personally hurt by their ignorance – calling out names would be wrong, but let's just say I now largely hold deletionists in same regard as vandals, a counter-constructive force that aims to damage Wikipedia. Your ignorance of Wiki policies does not change the fact that this nomination is pointless. Wikipedia is eternally a work in progress, and asking for an article to be deleted (or moved to userspace) where its subject matter trivially passes WP:N is an attempt to censor Wikipedia, though your motivation largely escapes me. As long as article subject matter is notable it should be allowed to develop - there is no deadline. In a nutshell: deletionist attitude is not in line with the spirit that Wikipedia has been following for the most part of its fruitful growth. --hydrox (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is already covered in Economy of Finland. For there to be a split there should be proof showing that it is merits its own article. Right now the section at economy of Finland actually has better coverage of the topic. If someone adds several references, then I'll be convinced it can expand and I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have to admit it was unfounded. But I've seen people who seem to do here nothing but to nominate articles for deletion and have been personally hurt by their ignorance – calling out names would be wrong, but let's just say I now largely hold deletionists in same regard as vandals, a counter-constructive force that aims to damage Wikipedia. Your ignorance of Wiki policies does not change the fact that this nomination is pointless. Wikipedia is eternally a work in progress, and asking for an article to be deleted (or moved to userspace) where its subject matter trivially passes WP:N is an attempt to censor Wikipedia, though your motivation largely escapes me. As long as article subject matter is notable it should be allowed to develop - there is no deadline. In a nutshell: deletionist attitude is not in line with the spirit that Wikipedia has been following for the most part of its fruitful growth. --hydrox (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an unfair judgement you made of me. My main point for nominating the article is the fact that is already included on it. It should be userfied until it has more content then it. JDDJS (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. While the topic of "Taxation in ..." any independent country is inherently notable, this article is completely unsourced so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, encyclopedic, per all. JJB 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- How about userfy This article is pointless right now due to no references at all and little content thats not already covered in economy in finland. After the sources and more content is added, then just recreate the page? I don't feel content that is already covered on other pages should be created until they contain a lot more content then the other pages. JDDJS (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, that's not what the "wiki" in Wikipedia means. If the topic of an article is inherently so limited that it's impossible to write a long article about it, then it's justified to have it as a section in another article only. If the article could be expanded, it is kept as is, until it becomes longer (see for example Märket). In this case, it's obvious that taxation in Finland is such a convoluted topic that you could create tens or hundreds of articles about it. In general, it's bad form to start AFD proceedings by default if one does not understand the topic or Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:NOTPAPER. --vuo (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.