< 26 October | 28 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 delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sour Pop
- Sour Pop (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)
Disputed prod. A music genre supposedly created in 2010 by the band The Premiership. Article created by User:Thepremiership. No sources cited. None found in search. A neologism that combines WP:MADEUP and self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO is pretty clear on this - no secondary sources showing widespread use, no article. The article has no sources, and the only music related results from googling "sour pop" are a MySpace page for Sour Pop Records and this page. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 20-Mule-Team Delete: per above. Created by a SPA with no other edits. Can we put to rest the inane "creation" of "musical genres" by every bored band that Wants To Have A Unique Sound and every nervous semi-pro music blogger who feels the need to Create A New Genre in order to win props? Ravenswing 13:52, 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 merge to Jackass 3D. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jackass 3.5
- Jackass 3.5 (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)
Cannot independently verify that this film will actually be produced; violates WP:CRYSTAL. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources as of yet for the film and likely a too early release date in the first place (it's more likely the third film will hit DVD in February or late January more than mid or early January). Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Oops. Many sources easily available to those who look.[1] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Several hit the Net after my nomination (it happens), but I'll agree that it is independently verifiable now. A merge with J3 is probably the best option. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. Many sources easily available to those who look.[1] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jackass 3D much as Jackass 2.5 is part of the larger Jackass 2. The film, has completed principle filming and is currently in post-production for a Christmas 2010 DVD release.[2][3][4][5] Film meets WP:NF and coverage passes WP:GNG. Paramount is even considering a theatrical release.[6] Had this been pre-production, I might have offered a delete per WP:TOOSOON... but as principle filming is completed and the film is now in post-production and IS getting coverage in multiple reliable sources, what benefits the project is it being improved through course of regular editing. Sure... the article is currently an unsourced stub, but it IS an easily sourcable stub... and the stub can be merged, expanded and improved per numerous available sources.[7] No need to flatly delete what can be so readily corrected to serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As is said above, several of these sources were posted after my nomination. (I was also without a computer for a couple of days, thanks to a nice burglar or two.) I tend to favor a merge and redirect now. Admins, feel free to close if you wish. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either move or redirect but the move has been confirmed and it might be released to theaters due to the box office success of jackss 3D. to the mods and admins not everything requires a sledgehammer to fix --F4280 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If Jackass 2.5 has a article why shouldnt this dvd have one? Portillo (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it doesn't. Jackass 2.5 is currently in a subsection of Jackass 2. See Jackass 2#Jackass 2.5. That's why I opined as I did above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote merge then. Portillo (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bill van Rij
- Bill van Rij (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)
BLP(?), extremely questionable notability, no RS that I can find. T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on the {{find}} searches above, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of reliable sources. There is sufficient coverage in the Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand article, anyway. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the only sources I can find are mirrors of this article or a couple of passing mentions, no reliable sources support notability, and the issues covered go over ground covered in the Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand article. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and inadequately sourced. Doczilla STOMP! 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand. harej 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can't prove this person even exists, merging would be furthering a hoax. Sven Manguard Talk 02:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possible WP:HOAX. Despite claims of importance, this is the single longest uncited BLP on Wikipedia, and when I looked for citations I found... nothing. Wikipedia seems to be the only place that mentions him. There's a teenager with a facebook page, and a few sites for a buisnessman who did a web interview, but nothing on a politician or Christian leader. Zero news hits, image hits do not show any individual consistently, in other words, I can find nothing to prove he exists. Sven Manguard Talk 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, without even seeing this, I just AfD'ed this person. Oops. I'll get rid of the duplicate. Sven Manguard Talk 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand article lists these two references:
- Arjo Van Genderen: Religio-Moralism and the Politics of Cultural Defence: The Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand: BA (Honours): Long Essay, Political Science and History: 1991 (University of Canterbury, New Zealand)
- Martin Freeman: Christian Political Parties of New Zealand: Thesis 99/J94: 2001: University of Auckland, New Zealand
- These are both unpublished theses. They may still be reliable sources, but it explains how we have so much info in the article(s) without anything coming up on Google. I doubt very much this is a hoax, and I'm happy for the Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand article to stay, but this unreferenced BLP as to go. StAnselm (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unable to find any reliable sources to verify the article, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. J04n(talk page) 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now I agree I can't tell if this is a hoax or not, so out it goes. The claims are however really strong and we should recreate this if they turn out to be true (and sourceable!) Hobit (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:V. Probable hoax. RayTalk 06:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit Twisters
- Spirit Twisters (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 appears to be a non-notable product. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Product is non-notable. Article is unreferenced and all links are self-published. Dac04 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just an advert for the product, violating WP:ARTSPAM. Creator account has been blocked. Geoff Who, me? 13:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just advertising for a new product. No coverage at all found at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of People who have had a Vasectomy
- List of People who have had a Vasectomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially meaningless, given that this is a routine procedure; do we have a list for appendectomies and tonsil removal? JNW (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, can never be comprehensive and even if an individual on the list is notable themselves that they've had a vasectomy is not notable. QU TalkQu 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apart from obvious questions of notability and verifiability, this looks like a magnet for vandals. Already, of the 4 people listed, one is a cartoon character. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic in nature. Not all sources are reliable. Posting names of people who have had surgical procedures and their contraceptive choices borders on privacy concerns of live people (even with reliable sources.jsfouche (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-encyclopedia-worthy topic, poorly executed to boot. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Snip this one in the bud. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I recognize that it was a trial, but I don't have too much faith in a mess of a list where the four names are Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, Jon Gosselin, John Phillip Key, and cartoon character Peter Griffin. Though this one was badly executed, I think that the topic itself is encyclopedic. I don't see the privacy issue at all. Nobody knows whether a man has had a vasectomy unless he reveals that he elected to do so, and there's usually a reason why a guy decides to tell that to a reporter or biographer. In the case of Prime Minister Key, it was to encourage other men to make such a choice. Beckwith apparently was revealing that the Lincoln line had reached an end. I suspect that Gosselin decided that "Jon and Kate plus nine" didn't sound like a good idea. Mandsford 12:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is the type of stuff that gives Lists a bad reputation. Next thing we'll see is a List of people who should have had a Vasectomy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That one would actually be quite fun to contribute to ;-) QU TalkQu 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't that be a List of people who's father should have had a Vasectomy. ;-)
- Being serious for a minute, as a newbie, I'm not entirely sure where Wikipedia policy on lists is defined. There seem to be a lot of fairly pointless ones about. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
- (Perhaps in the meantime I'll start compiling a List of things that shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia) :-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good place to start is WP:IINFO, which is part of WP:NOT, and WP:CLN which stresses that lists can be a useful navigation aid. I think that this one broke several rules of how not to set up an article; to the author's credit, there was a good faith attempt to cite to a source for each item on the list, a rare quality in a Wikipedia page. Some people hate lists and think that they're frivolous. The other extreme is people who love their information in a convenient, ready-to-eat form, without considering whether there's a need for a list of such-and-suches. Lists are often a better way to present information than feeble attempts at prose. Mandsford 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for that - I did a bit of searching myself, and lists are a more complex subject than they look - or at least, useful ones are. Though this list arguably might be useful to somebody, I'm still inclined to suggest it is likely to generate more heat than light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good place to start is WP:IINFO, which is part of WP:NOT, and WP:CLN which stresses that lists can be a useful navigation aid. I think that this one broke several rules of how not to set up an article; to the author's credit, there was a good faith attempt to cite to a source for each item on the list, a rare quality in a Wikipedia page. Some people hate lists and think that they're frivolous. The other extreme is people who love their information in a convenient, ready-to-eat form, without considering whether there's a need for a list of such-and-suches. Lists are often a better way to present information than feeble attempts at prose. Mandsford 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic, and a future BLP vandal magnet. First Light (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete theres more letters than there are names, and im sure there are a lot of unnotable people who have had a Vasectomy. Longevitydude (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete This page is to vandals as fish is to water. Very unencyclopedic and potentially embarrassing. Brendan (talk, contribs) 04:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, I can't see keeping the article as is, but there's nothing embarrassing about a vasectomy, a reversible elective procedure. I imagine that the people who would vandalize such a page are dumbasses who confuse it with castration. The title of this page isn't much better, in that it is a "list of people" that is, by definition, confined to men. Women don't have a vas deferens. This probably doesn't merit a separate page, any more so than a list of women who have had their "tubes tied". Mandsford 15:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Verifiability is a difficult problem with a list of this nature. Racepacket (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My proposal for deletion was rather brief, and subsequent rationale for deletion has been more eloquent. I'd add to, or rephrase, what others have said: This isn't a list that promises to be supported by scholarship, but would likely become, even with the best of intentions, a pastiche of original research, and worse, gossip. JNW (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mohamed Khafagy
- Mohamed Khafagy (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 Since creation, No results in Google TalkToMecintelati 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced for years and nothing but facebook hits. Mohamed Khafagi does not appear in either of the rosters of the clubs he is supposed to be playing for either. Also, playing for two clubs at the same time isn't possible (unless it's a loan, in which case the player still only plays for one club, but still.) Hoax? Either way, clear delete on notability. Sven Manguard Talk 05:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference in the article links to the official site where he isn't mentioned at all. I searched for his name on that site, http://www.fifa.com/search/index.html?q=Mohamed+Khafagi and found zero results. This might be a hoax. Dream Focus 07:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Well, I was hoping Dream Focus would be able to find sources if he can't find any the topic is definately not notable. The source in the article I added. The player is mentioned here at the very bottom of the lineup, Player #20, other than that I couldn't find any mention of him. If Dream Focus can't find sources, then there are probably aren't any. There is a possibility of sources in Egyptian, as this is a foreign language player. Currently it appears there aren't any, therefore delete. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Youth internationals do not confer notability, doesn't seem to have appeared for a professional or senior international team to qualify under NSPORTs and no coverage to support notability under any other clause.--ClubOranjeT 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - He apparently plays in the lower divisions of Egyptian football (I found his profile at the FilBalad's English-language football website), but I can't be certain he has ever played in the Egyptian top flight or otherwise would meet our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong comment 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources. SnottyWong express 17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear failure of both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG, due to lack of significant coverage, and no professional appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reformed Church of Dunedin
- Reformed Church of Dunedin (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)
Just an ordinary church, really, and as such non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. No clear claim to notability and no independent sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Reformed Churches of New Zealand, as according to this it is a local representation of it, but there simply not enough sources to establish notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dunedin, New Zealand or whatever the correct article is for the place where it is, deleting the list of pastors; the church programme as WP:ADVERT. Such merger is usually the best solution for churches only of local notability; retain the external link as a reference. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [8]. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Reformed Churches of New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Boland
- Robert Boland (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)
Subject is quoted in news sources and receives some passing mention, but I see no significant coverage about the subject. Apparently fails WP:PROF --Nuujinn (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No sources have been provided at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. The only source I could find was his faculty profile at NYU, which serves to illustrate how bloated this article is; he is actually a "clinical associate professor" there, but the article repeatedly calls him a "professor". The article lists a long string of careers for him - "lawyer, sports agent, coach, professor, publicist, event manager, speaker, and author" - but he does not seem to fill the notability criteria for any of them. I could not find any outside/independent sources about him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Blakeman
- Bruce Blakeman (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 is a classic has-been, also-ran, wanna-be politician. His position on the Port Authority is not so significant that he's notable per WP:POLITICIAN. According to the New York State Elections website, Blakeman came in third in his most recent primary last month. In fact, as may be seen on page 7 of that pdf, he came in dead last in 58 counties, only coming in second in four counties out of 62. He failed to win even a single county, and he got less than 25 % of the vote. In 1998, he got more votes, as may be seen here, but was defeated by greater than a two-to-one margin for an obscure post. He never got on the ballot for Mayor of New York City. Just getting nominated or running for office is not sufiicient for notability. He's now run three times for three different offices, each time getting crushed. If he had done anything else that ranked for WP:GNG, I do not see anything. Several Google searches fail to find any reference other than the "also ran" or "third party" candidacy notice for the record. There is some evidence that persons with a conflict of interest have edited the article. In effect, this article acts as a resume page. He is on the ballot on November 2nd on a very minor line. We are not a free webhost for failed politicians. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per User Bearian, failed the ballot, low long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notwithstanding all of the words of praise for this gentleman from the nominator, I agree that he isn't notable enough for a stand alone article. Being one of the six Commissioners of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey isn't exactly the county library board, but it's not inherently notable either. Mandsford 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to United States Senate special election in New York, 2010#Republican primary. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quite clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as Bearian said. There isn't enough notability, he hasn't achieved anything notable enough, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above; subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. If he does end up elected, though, the question can be revisited. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment, not affecting my previous decision to delete and redirect. The Daily News has 27 articles that mention Blakeman on its blog. Liz Benjamin's blog has another 28. Granted, many of them mention him as one of many in the Senate election, but there are substantive news articles on him, particularly earlier in the race when he was the designated Republican nominee and only one in the race. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Shifted rationale below. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC))
Extremely strong keep Responding per a request by Bearian on my talk page. I'll add clarification to my vote in a couple of days. My apologies if this sounds escapist, but the keep clarification is apparently pretty long, and I just don't have the time today to structure it.(by chance, if I'm not able to add the clarification in a couple of days, could the closing admin/editor leave a note on my talk page please?) Thanks and regards Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Merge and Redirect. I see no reason to ever delete an article entirely when the issue is "only notable for one event" (or multiple similar events, in this case). What exactly is behind this determination to make it as difficult as possible to recreate an article if things change? Flatterworld (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect Not enough independent coverage in reliable third-party sources, as there is no mention of the subject by some of the references purported in the article and some sources are even dead, nor satisfying the criteria under WP:POLITICIAN to even warrant a merge with the target article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to United States Senate special election in New York, 2010#Republican primary. There are no BLP concerns, so I agree with Flatterworld on this. Plausible search term. Location (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd be willing to keep open the discussion until after the results of the November 2nd vote prove me wrong or right. Say if he gets less than 10 %, can we delete? Bearian (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely strong keep With due regards and respect for Bearian and other commentators in this deletion discussion, I'm confused about which notability/deletion guideline is being invoked when Bearian brings out the 10% clause? I'm sorry, but some of the deletion comments I've seen here are plainly without policy/guideline basis, the 10% clause inclusive, nomination exclusive (Bearian, please forgive me as I know these statements will sound affronting). Other statements qualifying on non-existent/wrong criteria; Mandsford ("If he gets less than the winning candidate, delete"), TeleComNasSprVen ("Not enough independent coverage in reliable third-party sources"), and some more I'll leave mention... Evidently, the individual is clearly notable. I've listed the points below:
- The individual qualifies easily on WP:Politician. WP:Politician mentions, "Politicians who have held...sub-national (...provincewide) office, and members and former members of a...provincial legislature...are generally notable." Blakeman was the Presiding officer and Majority leader of the Nassau County Legislature, holding the positions from 1996 to 1999.[9][10] The presiding officer of a county legislature is clearly considered notable as per our guidelines...
- WP:Politician mentions that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are generally notable. From the year 1993 (three significant coverage that I randomly found in GNA for that year[11][12][13]) till 2010 (randomly chosen multiple significant coverageNew York TimesNewsdayLong Island Business NewsNew York Daily NewsNY PostNewsDayNewsDay2), Bruce Blakeman has regularly received multiple significant coverage in media. Clearly notable!
- WP:BASIC mentions and WP:GNG supports, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Even a seat-of-the-pants click on Google News Archives shows significant coverage on Bruce Blakeman almost every year from 1993 till 2010. Am I missing something out here?
- With so many significant reliable news coverage, it doesn't matter whether Blakeman wins or loses in any of the current or future elections. One simply cannot and should not disregard such an enormous number of significant articles on Blakeman. The person is neither BLP1E or BIO1E. Sails above our notability criteria without an issue. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges" says that being associated with a "county legislature" is notable? That's certainly not in "our" Guidelines. Mandsford 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While not all counties have completely reported yet, in my home of Albany County, Blakeman received 33 votes, or 0.03 %, of the vote yesterday,see here; in Buffalo's Erie County, he got 324 votes, official 0 %, but actually 0.13 %, see here, and he got 887 votes, or 0.24 votes in his home county, see here. He was by definition a fringe candidate. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bearian. That wouldn't matter. If he was once a US County legislator, he qualifies without issues on our notability guidelines. Mandsford, some notes. A province is considered to be an administrative division...within a state. In the United States, you don't have provinces. Instead, at the same level, you have counties forming the symmetrical "local levels of government below the state (or federal territory); counties are used in 48 of the 50 states in the US."Search for 'county'[15][16][17]Number of US Governments by Type and State. Anyway, this is irrespective of the fact that the individual peacefully qualifies on WP:GNG, as I've shown above. Thanks Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to read any reference to an American county, parish or borough as a "province". The USA doesn't have provinces anywhere. "Sub-national" means just that, one step below national. Some nations (USA, Mexico, Brazil) are divided into states. Others (Canada, France, China) refer to their subnational units as provinces. I can't imagine equating the Province of British Columbia with Columbia County, Arkansas. I'll be surprised if anyone agrees with your theory. Mandsford 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, county officers and authority directors have never been considered notable at Wikipedia, and almost always at AfD, their articles are deleted with very little debate. Mayors of larger cities are a well-respected special exception. People who run again and again and again, each time with lower and lower percentages, as Blakeman has done, are de facto fringe candidates. The final numbers are not in, but Blakeman probably got 1/4 of 1 % of the vote on Tuesday. You can quibble if it's 10 % or 2 % or 1 % or 1/4 of 1 %. At some point, he's a fringe candidate. We can't let Wikipedia become a webhost for every jobseeker out there who can get a few hundred signatures. Articles on Senate candidates who lose their primaries badly almost always are deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Goode as an example in the race for this very seat. I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_objective_definition_of_a_fringe_candidate_for_WP:POLITICIAN to get a broader consensus. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I mentioned earlier dear Bearian, for a person who qualifies with flying colours on WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, the fact whether he was a fringe candidate or not doesn't matter. WP:BASIC overrides all the arguments I have seen till now. You have to realise that the closing administrator will not be able to disregard such over-weighing GNG of Blakeman. Frankly, and please don't mind this, I'm surprised at the deletionist perspective you are forwarding. I again apologise for my statements in advance. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another example from Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#People is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination) ("Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability"). Likewise:
City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.
- I just think that using his past notoriety in the Long Island Newsday as an excuse to get his resume online here. Every article I've read in the Times and such news places as listed at Google News shows he's good at getting in the news -- but in each case, it's just a one-shot on the news. Yes, he keeps running for bigger offices, and the media dutifully reports it each time so it's on the record and so they can appear "fair and balanced" or whatever motto they use. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bearian. Would this be of any relevance? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Yatauro; one example of how a presiding officer of the Nassau county escaped deletion, purely because she was Presiding Officer of Nassau legislature, considered a major county; apparently, this goes strongly against your logic... Also, in our case, I repeat that Blakeman has been additionally the Majority leader of the legislature. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have deleted Diane Yatauro, and her BLP is still technically unsourced, but you do have a good argument based on precedent. Perhaps the best statement about such past outcomes is that sometimes county-wide politicians on Long Island get to have articles. I want to get a real discussion on such marginal cases. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bearian. Would this be of any relevance? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Yatauro; one example of how a presiding officer of the Nassau county escaped deletion, purely because she was Presiding Officer of Nassau legislature, considered a major county; apparently, this goes strongly against your logic... Also, in our case, I repeat that Blakeman has been additionally the Majority leader of the legislature. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think that using his past notoriety in the Long Island Newsday as an excuse to get his resume online here. Every article I've read in the Times and such news places as listed at Google News shows he's good at getting in the news -- but in each case, it's just a one-shot on the news. Yes, he keeps running for bigger offices, and the media dutifully reports it each time so it's on the record and so they can appear "fair and balanced" or whatever motto they use. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fringe candidates often attract local coverage in their failed candicacies. WP:POLITICIAN recognises this by saying, as a general rule, the articles should be redirected to the relevant constituency pages. Notability is about more than "coverage", that's why we have specific objective subject matter guidelines. I'm not seeing non-local coverage of his activities, which is what I'd need to see to say the coverage is significant.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An example of a Rebublican who was not a fringe candidate is Scott M. Sipprelle, whose article, by the way, has plenty of sources to show independent notability. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Street Fighter II. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku
- Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku (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 independent sources exist with enough direct coverage to WP:verify notability. Looking through the article history, editors previously agreed to turn this into a redirect, but the article was re-expanded without any real discussion or consensus. Most importantly, it was re-expanded despite the lack of sources that would comply with WP:V and the WP:GNG. Deletion is more appropriate than redirecting since this is an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Street Fighter II, as per the previous discussion, with the possibility of WP:SALTing it if it becomes an article again. It's debatable whether or not it's a likely search term, and it's true it isn't as widely known as Hadouken. However, I'm certain that some fans of the series will search for it, since it is one of the better known moves in the series, so I support a redirect.--hkr Laozi speak 20:10, 27 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) 17:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. No assertion of or claim to notability; no citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, protect if necessary, and Transwiki to someplace appropriate if desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. Complety game-GUIDE material that is not suitable for wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 05:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as I still support since my proposal about 2 years ago. Nothing has changed since the. I also support salting over the redirect. –MuZemike 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silvermoon Drive-in
- Silvermoon Drive-in (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)
Prod declined with rationale of "Seems notable enough to me, there are very few in the state, one in the whole county, been around for more than 60 years, and has been mentioned in the news (local and otherwise.)" Longevity and "only one left" are not qualifications for notability if there are no sources — I've not been able to find any of the news mentions the editor said exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really hate saying this because there's a lot of personal history when it comes to the Silvermoon... the Silvermoon makes a perfect "third" date, the movies are only 75 cents and the popcorn's really buttery, but none of that makes it notable so delete. VictorianMutant(Talk) 00:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm surprised that TPH couldn't find any substantive news articles. In moments with Google News archive (with nothing more convoluted than "Silvermoon Drive-in" as a search term) I found several; one concerning its operation by a local church, one concerning its 50th anniversary bash and one about morality protests in 1976. With the GMA News article that makes four reliable sources, hitting the GNG going away. Ravenswing 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of those articles do anything more than mention the Silvermoon in passing. The article mentioning morality protests in 1976 talks about protesting "Gentlemen's Clubs" and interviews one of the church members saying "we oughta close down the Silvermoon, too" or something like that. Should the Silvermoon be mentioned in the Lakeland, Florida article? Absolutely! Should it have its own article? Part of me wants to scream out "Yes!" for hometown pride, but I realize it's only notable in the sense that a few dozen other drive-ins in the U.S. are notable for- a relic of the past which is barely hanging on. VictorianMutant(Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you've read all those articles if you believe they do nothing more than mention the Silvermoon in passing. The Tampa Tribune article is about the drive-in and its 50th anniversary celebration. The other Lakeland Ledger article is about the local church's takeover of the drive-in. The GMA Times article is about the drive-in. Whether or not you believe the drive-in has national significance or that it's a "relic of the past," significant mention in multiple reliable sources is a pass on the GNG. Ravenswing 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read the Ledger article you mentioned above? You've actually added erroneous material to the article in question! The Ledger article you refer to is about a "mini" drive-in opened by a Presbyterian Church in Haines City. Read the caption on the picture in the article and it should become clear that the Silvermoon and the small theater owned by the church are not the same (Haines City and Lakeland are about 25 miles apart). A quick check of the Silvermoon website says it is still owned by Sun South. Where in the article does it mention anything about a takeover by a church? The GMA article is about the nostalgia of going to the drive-in; sure it features the Silvermoon, but the author could have just as easily chosen any one of the handful of drive-ins left in the U.S. Nothing in the article says anything notable about the Silvermoon. Proof that the subject of the article is the title which says "At 75, drive-in movies still draw fans". The drive-in theater (concept) is 75 years old, not the Silvermoon. As for the TBO article, well we'd all better start writing because there are a lot of couples out there who have had 50th wedding anniversary articles printed in the newspaper and don't have Wikipedia articles abouth them. A fiftieth anniversary may be notable, but it is not encyclopedic unless the subject itself is notable... otherwise we would have hundreds of Mildred and Henry Jones type articles out there. VictorianMutant(Talk) 05:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you've read all those articles if you believe they do nothing more than mention the Silvermoon in passing. The Tampa Tribune article is about the drive-in and its 50th anniversary celebration. The other Lakeland Ledger article is about the local church's takeover of the drive-in. The GMA Times article is about the drive-in. Whether or not you believe the drive-in has national significance or that it's a "relic of the past," significant mention in multiple reliable sources is a pass on the GNG. Ravenswing 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reason as Ravenswing, several news stories about the theatre. Michael1115 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Significant coverage does exist from reliable sources, from the Philippine GMA Network no less. Not many (if any) American drive-ins can make that claim. --Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Online communication between school and home
- Online communication between school and home (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 essay discussing benefits and challenges of a very narrow topic. Dac04 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The numerous sources provided in the article indicate that this topic is far from original. The supposed narrowness of the topic is likewise refuted by these sources. And the essay criticism is irrelevant being, if anything, a matter of style, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google book search shows one result straight away talking about this, and Google news search shows a press release about a study they did. Ample references in the article, although they not placed there properly. I'll go work on some of that now. Dream Focus 09:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong confabulate 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Topic is awfully narrow. How is online communication between school and home different from online communication between a shopping mall and an airplane? It's all just communication over the Internet, the mechanisms of which are already covered in great detail in other articles. The only difference is what software is specifically made for that purpose. Therefore, this article only serves as a veiled linkspam advertisement for the various software packages linked to in the "Technology and Tools" section of this article. If this subject is truly notable per WP:GNG (and I don't believe it is), the article would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. SnottyWong spout 14:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between online communications between school and home and that of a shopping mall and an airplane should be obvious. One is a well documented and major advance in educating people and allowing parents to keep track of what their kids are doing. The other makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the style may not be quite encyclopedic, this article is relevant. It's not arbitrarily discussing what online communication is, but how it is utilized to achieve outcomes specific to education. Mr.gsrussell 11:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article offers not advertisements for technologies but summaries how online communicate is used between school and home, in terms of education. In education field, this topic is not narrow, which could be dealt with more broader. This topic is necessary for people who look for appropriate technologies in school and the purpose.Exgalaxy 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MANU JONES
- MANU JONES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Mostly self-referenced, advert in tone, with little or nothing turned up on Google. Article started numerous times by same account, with history of speedy deletes. Don't see that there's much here still. JNW (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-referenced article about non-notable company with serious NPOV issues. Dac04 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of any independent sourcing is a strong indicator of non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:10, 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 speedy delete: A10 as a duplication of Future Past. The majority of the content was a direct copy, with scant additions that were unsourced and therefore not viable for merging. --Kinu t/c 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future Past (Deluxe Edition)
- Future Past (Deluxe Edition) (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)
Duplicates Future Past and adds detail about the re-release of the album - I suggest the "Deluxe Edition" additions should be added to the extant article Future Past and this one deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom: fails WP:NALBUMS on its own. Top Jim (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've done the merge, so all that is left to do is delete this new version. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the merge has been done the original should be deleted per WP:NALBUMS. Dac04 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A10. As recent page that duplicates an existing topic. Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:47, 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, nomination withdrawn, no one else wanted to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evercookie
- Evercookie (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)
Never establishes notability, reads like an advertisment for a Firefox add-on. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to coverage by Schneier, arstechnica, and threatpost. Schneier writes for reliable sources such as magazine on security issues and is a recognized expert. Arstechnica is generally pretty reliable, I think, and Kaspersky Labs is also reliable on computer related security issues. See also Info Security article and this Network World article. Agree that article needs work but afd is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: a readable article, for which reliable sources are available. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn per Nuujinn's findings and the general removing of most of the advertising-esque text from the article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy! College Championship
- Jeopardy! College Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Game show tournament is not notable to warrant a separate article, and college tournament structure and info is already included in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#College Championship.
Entire list of contestants is completely unsourced and other <ref> tags are from Jeopardy! fansite not affiliated with production of the program. The official site and specific tournament section do not even list as much intricate detail about participants as here, merely showing first names. Likely unable to find any acceptable source detialing the participants in the tournaments due to lack of subject notability.
Sottolacqua (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Already covered at the List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events page. Extensive list is trivia at best. Dac04 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; clearly indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; deletion rationale (that no source could ever be available for the information in this article) is inaccurate, speculative, and circular. The information in this article has been compiled as the show has aired. In essence, its content, with regard to the particular names of the contestants, falls under the category of WP:FACTS, and each name may source to the episode of the show itself. (As to the full names of the contestants and other information, this was available in press releases published by the show's distributors as each tournament prepared to air.) The deletion counterargument that would seem to follow, then, would imply that once a television episode has aired, the information contained therein will have been forever lost to the stratosphere and could never be known or recovered. This argument would seem to me to be antithetical to the meaning and purpose of Wikipedia as a venue to store, share, and categorize knowledge. This is not an issue of original research, "unsourcedness" or unsourceability, as the nominator would suggest. This is a basic issue of "do we make this information available in a well-organized way, or do we delete it". One need only click on the "news" link in the deletion nomination, above, to see the wealth of sources from which information about the College Championship could be drawn. Clearly, not all of these sources would need to be linked to or listed in the article for it to survive an AfD. That would be the indiscriminate collection of information. Robert K S (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel what is at issue is more the value of the list of contestants on its own rather than its verifiability. The first part of the deletion rationale is that Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Such a list seems to be WP:Overlistification to me. Dac04 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The contestant names in this article are a far cry from anything going on in WP:Overlistification. This is not a "list of Europeans" or "list of African Americans". It is not even a list, but a table which organizes by tournament advance status, with notations of winnings in excess of the guaranteed amounts. I would say it is akin to, and should be found as valuable to the encyclopedic project as, team rosters of sports franchises, as can be found in numerous articles such as, e.g., 2010–11 Cleveland Cavaliers season, except that those are mere lists whereas this is an organizing table. The remark above that characterizes the article as comprising "indiscriminate" information misapprehends the meaning of the word "indiscriminate". The argument that we "don't need" this tabularly-organized information is merely deletionist dicta and is not in itself a rationale for deleting the topic as an article. Regular notability standards should apply. Robert K S (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notation that this article lacks sources outside of a fansite and are likely unable to be found is presented as additional assertion that this game show tournament is not notable outside of the parent article, nor is it not notable enough to warrant an individual article separate from List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#College Championship. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel what is at issue is more the value of the list of contestants on its own rather than its verifiability. The first part of the deletion rationale is that Wikipedia is not a database of Jeopardy! contestants. Such a list seems to be WP:Overlistification to me. Dac04 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the list. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed Us441(talk)(contribs) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Agreed" above should not be viewed as an extra "delete" vote. The two remarks above are devoid of rationale. The article subject is independently notable apart from its parent article, as clicking on the "news" link at the top confirms. Robert K S (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't to see how one of the most popular and publicized (as evidenced by the wealth of news articles available) tournaments of the highest-rated quiz show doesn't meet notability standards. The rationale states that that Wikipedia is not a database for Jeopardy! contestants, but I don't see how this is different from, say, listing every person who's ever played a single game for the New England Patriots. HansTAR (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed with HansTAR and Robert K S about the sports comparisons. In addition, the case of this article bears little difference from any other televised competition catalogued on Wikipedia. A few examples: "The Amazing Race," "Dancing With The Stars," "American Idol," "Survivor", et. al. All of these shows have individual pages for each of their seasons, complete with tables for the finishes of each contestant/team, and other information about how the competition played out. The examples I gave, I might add, are all of fairly long-running programs. "Jeopardy!" certainly fits the bill, as it has run continuously, nationwide, for nearly 27 years. The information given in this article is organized in one singular page, presented in an orderly fashion, and as Robert K S has noted, the "news" section shows many examples of this article's notability outside of its parent article. Wikipedia is indeed not a database of "Jeopardy!" contestants, but there is no reason that it should not be a database of notable aspects of "Jeopardy!," when the notability of said aspects can be readily proven. Musicman800 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though it might be worth collapsing the various articles into one "Jeopardy tournaments" page. I do, however, agree that these articles need more sources, whther they are press releases, news articles, or the J! website itself. Aldaryx (talk) 09:18, 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 AfD stopped, reverted to a WP:PROD for each affected page.
Series 10
- Series 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Was prodded "Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate between multiple pages, but instead just links to a search." (by Fabrictramp | talk to me at 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)), but needs discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for pages Series 2, Series 3, Series 5, Series 8, Series 9: best discuss them all here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Why did you create these pages? How are they supposed to improve wikipedia? If I search for "Season 10" almost all results are intitle anyway [[18]]. Now people have to click twice and get an incomplete search result, as season numbers are not always in title (List of Doctor Who serials, All That (season ten) to name a few). Yoenit (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Adds nothing beyond just doing a search for "Season X" Dac04 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These are mislabled as disambiguation pages, they should be soft redirects. Yoenit (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, OK, I am reverting them to prods. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ayesha Omar
- Ayesha Omar (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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 2010/10/26 05:23:24
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep umm...whats the purpose of this AfD..? Article is clearly about a notable person and even references are given. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as no reason has been given for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and close of errant AFD with no justification for nomination of a sourced article about a notable person. I suggest that new editor User:Art wart1234 [19] gain a greater understanding of processes before making nominations in the future. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 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 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leadfoot (Transformers)
- Leadfoot (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)
Minor Transformers character, extremely unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added another non-licensed book source to the page today. Mathewignash (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another pointless TF article with no good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:09, 29 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 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solo baston
- Solo baston (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 weapon which doesn't assert why its notable or have sources Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Eskrima which covers the baston and other similar weapons quite well already. Dac04 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is probably the primary weapon in eskrima. However, it's discussed in many eskrima articles, and done in more detail than this one line article. Bottom line: this article adds nothing and has already been merged. Astudent0 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article adds nothing that isn't already in other articles on eskrima. I think merging is fairly pointless for that reason and the fact that "solo baston" is an unlikely term for anyone to search on. Papaursa (talk) 17:11, 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 delete. Courcelles 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Team Brasa
- Team Brasa (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 poor one line article with no source which should've been deleted years ago. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for sources, and the only one I came up with is actually blocked by our spam filter. Oh dear. It does provide coverage, albeit in an indirect way, but isn't sufficient, on its own, to show that the team passes WP:ORG or WP:N, both of which require multiple sources. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no independent sources that show notability. This is an unsourced article that doesn't make a real claim of notability ("successful" is far too vague). Astudent0 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article gives no concrete reason why the team is notable and has no sources. My search found nothing that shows notability that's supported by reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:14, 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 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tora Dojo
- Tora Dojo (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 non notable martial art without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no independent sources showing notability. When this article was discussed at the martial arts project's article review, no one produced an independent source then, either. Astudent0 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be another "new" martial art that simply combines techniques from a variety of existing ones. My search found no independent sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:18, 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 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Eskrima Kali Arnis Federation
- World Eskrima Kali Arnis Federation (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 non notable martial arts organisation without any third person sources to support it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no independent sources that show this organization is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I also found no independent sources supporting notability. I'd say it's notable if it's true that it has thousands of international tournament competitors from over 30 countries, but I found no evidence to support that. There appear to be just a handful of member schools in the U.S. (according to the WEKAF-US website). Papaursa (talk) 17:30, 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. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian church football association
- Norwegian church football association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like an amateur organization, which fails WP:NSPORT notability requirements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable church rec league team. Dac04 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a bunch of friends playing football together, not notable. GiantSnowman 01:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Amico
- Sam Amico (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 with notability concerns. Attempts to find sources returned many articles written by Sam Amico, but I couldn't find any about Sam Amico. Reach Out to the Truth 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is a prolific writer, but mostly for minor publications. I could find nothing written ABOUT him by independent sources, except this which is from a blog. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Non-admin Housekeeping - accidentally raised and subsequently withdrawn -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William M.Webb (for president)
- William M.Webb (for president) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
Possible hoax - can find no GHits on such a politician or anything on him running for president -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. Twinkle reported a CSD:G3 and I canceled, but it went ahead with this AfD anyway. I'll close it myself if I can figure out how. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 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. Courcelles 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Csaba Kovacs
- Csaba Kovacs (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 about a non-notable footballer who has only played for the reserve team of a Slovak football club and doesn't satisfy any of the notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep per criteria number 2 as the nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". I contacted MickMacNee to ask him to elaborate on his deletion rationale and got this response.. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melniboné
- Melniboné (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 contains the wikilink British Isles. Therefore, it should not exist. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:POINT perhaps? No valid deletion rationale provided Yoenit (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep If a point is being made here, it's an invalid point. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I'll play the devil's advocate and note that it lacks the citations needed to establish notability. But that should be easy enough to fix.—RJH (talk) 22:08, 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. Courcelles 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Behcet
- Darren Behcet (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 footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE having not played at a higher level than the National Conference. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, has not played above the Conference National or at a fully-professional level, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant third-party coverage. --Jimbo[online] 17:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because article fails WP:ATHLETE, player is not notable enough for a wikipedia entry. John Cengiz talk 17:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Behcet's a nice bloke, but that doesn't make him worthy of an article and nom is correct in their analysis. —Half Price 18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MEIET
- MEIET (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 neoligism, and based on the history of the article and a search, I'm not sure it exists beyond this article. Sigma 7 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete even if references are added, and the text is made legible, this seems to be a fringe theory with... nothing behind it. Nergaal (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete unable to find even any mention of it online. As above, seems to be a fringe theory at best. Dac04 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Fringe theory" is being kind; it's closer to gibberish. Agree with nominator that it doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dharmaraja College alumni
- List of Dharmaraja College alumni (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 list consists almost entirely of non-notable people. The few notable people that it does contain can be mentioned at Dharmaraja College#Old Rajans (the "notable alumni" section of the main article). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of the people mentioned in this article are notable. Refs will be added as soon as possible.Astronomyinertia (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such lists generally should be limited to people who already have a Wikipedia article. Of the over 250 people listed in this page, fewer than 25 have actual Wikipedia articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge notable entries to Dharmaraja College#Old Rajans as suggested by nom. Yoenit (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References will be added shortly. Most of the people listed are celebrated personalities of Sri lanka, and the school is one of the most prominent in the country; therefore, (after the necessary adjustments) I suggest it should be kept.Gihaned (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hulme Grammar School
- Hulme Grammar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to User:WhisperToMe, who corrected me on a slip up I did, apparently only school DISTRICTS are notable, single schools are not. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no such thing as a "school district" in the UK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the community article, per longstanding precedent on articles on schools at this level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think you've either been misinformed or misinterpreted what you've been informed. Note this school is branded Oldham Hulme so the name is a bit off. See the history here. The school is also a member of the HMC. It's notable in its own right. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - inherently notable, and vastly better than most school articles, though it could still do with a few independent references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above--J3Mrs (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable. --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The lack of a school district is not, and to my knowledge has never been, considered a valid reason to delete a school-based article. That said, the article in question needs some work. Friginator (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Grammar Schools in the UK are mostly, as this one, High Schools and usually old and important ones. They are not elementary schools as in the US. It needs more references but this one is well up the lists of schools in the UK we should have articles on. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not so convinced by article quality as others - looks too much like a prospectus to me. But that is something that can be fixed through editing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per longstanding precedent on articles on schools at this level. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The Nom is uninformed as to the English educational system. This is a secondary school - a High School, according to another classification. Under the old selective (pre-compreehnsive) system, its pupils would have come form the local elite of the brightest pupils. I would thereofre expect a reasonaly well populated alumni category. Clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Cohen-Corwin
- Amy Cohen-Corwin (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 subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for academics. Additionally, this article has no incoming links from the article namespace. —Bkell (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The notability seems essentially an administrator in Mathematics education, not in mathematics--I cannot find any published research papers in WoS.. Looking at the cv [20], she seems to have been managing editor of Selecta Mathematica a journal that is in JCR (and therefore notable). The role of Managing Editor is variable, but normally its more of an administrative not an academic position, but still worth considering. I am not able to judge the administrative positions, but there are certainly many of them. I would have said delete except for Fellow, AAAS, which is probably notable, "Election as a Fellow of AAAS is an honor bestowed upon members by their peers. Fellows are recognized for meritorious efforts to advance science or its applications." [21] DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A search on MathSciNet suggests that her research days are behind her (last reviewed publication was in 1992); however, I think she would pass WP:PROF criterion 4, judging from the numerous service awards and the effort she's put into mathematical teaching, with a possible pass of criterion 8 based on her role as managing editor of Selecta Mathematica. FYI: Her research cites from MathSciNet go 12,11,6,4,etc. She has also published as Amy Cohen, Amy Cohen Murray, or Amy C. Murray. RayTalk 17:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We normally accept Fellow of the AAAS as a notability clincher, but it's not conspicuously clear that the subject actually is a Fellow. I can't find any variation of the name in the AAAS Fellows database (perhaps it's not complete), nor does the CV claim AAAS fellowship (though it does claim AAAS membership). I agree with DGG that this case turns pretty much entirely on this aspect. Is anyone able to verify Fellow status? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not sure why she's not in the database, but the AAAS annual report from 2006 has her election as a fellow listed. Speaking of which, how big a deal is the AAAS (that is, the association for the advancement of science)? I've not heard of this AAAS before, although my memory may be conflating mentions of the other AAAS (American Academy of Arts and Sciences), which is a fairly big honor. I have heard of Science magazine, of course, but ... RayTalk 22:14, 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. Courcelles 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Missing Chromosome
- A Missing Chromosome (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 promotional recording. Cannibaloki 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Also, creation protection would be a good thing.--Cannibaloki 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax (and not a notable hoax a la Piltdown Man) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NMUSIC Vodello (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Walton
- Brett Walton (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 particular evidence that this person is notable, so far as I can tell. See also [22] ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Only one WP:Secondary source has been supplied so far: it doesn't mention his surname, which explains why I wasn't able to find it in an online search. Top Jim (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jim above. Fin©™ 13:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lots of significant online coverage TadjHolmes (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So prove it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the page now - well over 15 references / citations without even trying —Preceding unsigned comment added by TadjHolmes (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So prove it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" means in-depth coverage on Walton, not mentions of him or quotes from him in connection with his company. Most of the WP:Secondary sources you've given are quotes from him about the industry, or quotes from him about his company, which is indeed notable. But please note that being the CEO of a notable company does not of itself automatically confer notability. Top Jim (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. He is notable for being the CEO of a major website and for providing analysis of the videogame industry in this position as is demonstrated by the various articles based on his comments on videogame industry related issues. What is it that you are looking for in terms of "in-depth coverage on Walton"? Do you have an example of what you mean by this?TadjHolmes (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good example would be profiles on him and interviews with him, from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify a reliable source? Are [23], [24], [25] not reliable? If not, then why?TadjHolmes (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All three articles are about video games, not about Walton, and only quote him briefly about the products. Quoting WP:BASIC (emphasis mine):
- {{quote|"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
- What's needed is coverage about him, from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References 4 and 5 are clearly about him and references 6-16 clearly demonstrate his public presence as an expert in his field who is called upon to comment on key industry matters and trends. Surely this meets the basic requirements of notability. TadjHolmes (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will leave it to editors with expertise in the video game industry to evaluate whether BitBag and Gaming Blend are regarded as WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said reliable or secondary sources - even if they are not deemed to be reliable they are certainly secondary sources. From how I understand the definition of a reliable source, those I listed above all fit and clearly refer to Walton as an expert in his field while two secondary (or even reliable depending on your interpretation) sources cover him as you asked for. TadjHolmes (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I said "WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources", not one or the other. It's not clear to me yet whether the two references that you've given which are about him are WP:Reliable, though they are apparently WP:Secondary. Top Jim (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said reliable or secondary sources - even if they are not deemed to be reliable they are certainly secondary sources. From how I understand the definition of a reliable source, those I listed above all fit and clearly refer to Walton as an expert in his field while two secondary (or even reliable depending on your interpretation) sources cover him as you asked for. TadjHolmes (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will leave it to editors with expertise in the video game industry to evaluate whether BitBag and Gaming Blend are regarded as WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References 4 and 5 are clearly about him and references 6-16 clearly demonstrate his public presence as an expert in his field who is called upon to comment on key industry matters and trends. Surely this meets the basic requirements of notability. TadjHolmes (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify a reliable source? Are [23], [24], [25] not reliable? If not, then why?TadjHolmes (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good example would be profiles on him and interviews with him, from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean. He is notable for being the CEO of a major website and for providing analysis of the videogame industry in this position as is demonstrated by the various articles based on his comments on videogame industry related issues. What is it that you are looking for in terms of "in-depth coverage on Walton"? Do you have an example of what you mean by this?TadjHolmes (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" means in-depth coverage on Walton, not mentions of him or quotes from him in connection with his company. Most of the WP:Secondary sources you've given are quotes from him about the industry, or quotes from him about his company, which is indeed notable. But please note that being the CEO of a notable company does not of itself automatically confer notability. Top Jim (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I've never heard of BitBag or GamingBlend before this. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is all very subjective really. TheBitBag is listed on Technorati and ranked just outside the top 100 gaming sites [26], likewise Cinema Blend is ranked in the top 170 blogs in all categories [27] and is listed as a major site with a high authority. Also, Jim - surely a reliable source would supercede a secondary source so why list both if it is a reliable source you are interested in? TadjHolmes (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs both: reliable sources don't necessarily supercede secondary sources. For example, McDonald's online press releases can be a highly reliable source of info about their chain, but neither secondary nor objective, and so unlikely to be acceptable on their own as sources. Similarly, press releases from Vgchartz can't be considered secondary sources, and some online sites simply publish press releases more-or-less verbatim, with no editorial control. Worse still, some sites that are routinely considered "reliable" on Wikipedia, like Yahoo and MSN, will barf up a dodgy press release unchanged, dignifying it with a "reliable" looking URL. It's not an exact science, by any means. Wikipedia operates by consensus, rather than by hard-and-fast rules, so I'm hoping for more input from as many editors as possible. Top Jim (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is all very subjective really. TheBitBag is listed on Technorati and ranked just outside the top 100 gaming sites [26], likewise Cinema Blend is ranked in the top 170 blogs in all categories [27] and is listed as a major site with a high authority. Also, Jim - surely a reliable source would supercede a secondary source so why list both if it is a reliable source you are interested in? TadjHolmes (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep Appears to have a record of commentary and media interviews regarding issues in the industry. It is very borderline IMO.The Eskimo (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weakish Keep the interviews, in particular [28] deal with him. Is he the subject? Yeah, him and his site. An author or other creative person is generally notable for their work, this appears to be a similar case. I agree with Eskimo, it's fairly borderline. But the article is now fairly well written and has a lot of weak sources backing up the stronger ones so I think it's (just) over the line. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 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 speedy keep. Invalide deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detlev Lauscher[edit]
- Detlev Lauscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Very little information about him. Who was his family? What did he die of? Where did he die? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:36 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Subject clearly meets "Wikipedia standards" for football players. Check this link for verification, please. As for the circumstances of his death, see this link (requires knowledge of German language). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But, there is no personal info on Wikipedia about him, all the stuff you're citing is on another site, which is the main reason why his page here is nominated for deletion: Lack of information, all it says is what his name is, birth and death dates and where he was born, and an info box, no statistics, family info, health,teams he played for, how long did he play for them.
Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:24 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to improve the article. Rusted AutoParts, this is Wikipedia, millions of articles are currently in a similar shape as this bio. Do you want to nominate all the imperfect articles for deletion? Please, read WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT for a better explanation. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as per the policy cited by Vejvančický. The fact that there's not yet much there now is no reason to delete. Kansan (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - looks like a perfectly valid stub to me. There is no policy-based requirement to delete an article for failing to contain all the stuff that the nom mentions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable footballer who played in the German top flight for several seasons, winning the league and cup during his career. Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – It may be a short article, but it meets the relevant notability guideline. This needs improvement, not deletion. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - very clearly meets relevant notability criteria, as per the discussion above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the player clearly is sufficiently notable. The article, like many on Wikipedia, could do with expansion but being incomplete has never been grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:01, 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Morris (journalist)[edit]
- Joseph Morris (journalist) (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)
He sounds notable, but I couldn't find a single independent ref from a reliable source to back up any of his claims. Seems to be mainly a reputation builder for his journalism institutes. Is there anything that others can find, perhaps offline, that confirms that he can pass the WP:GNG? The-Pope (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find anything that looks like a reliable source either. Don't know about you, but I've never heard of Australian United Press (though it seems to exist - barely). The International News Syndicate Limited website doesn't fill me with confidence either, particularly the "Submit Articles" button in the menu bar. Delete unless notability can be demonstrated in the next few days.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background to O&M Manual[edit]
- Background to O&M Manual (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 seems like it belongs on an intranet somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Written like an essay and uses weasel words and seems to be filled with WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam under a thin veneer of article, links are to a company that writes O&M manuals. Poor context. There might be a legitimate Operations and maintenance manual article (maybe), but this isn't it. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. An essay of coatrack spam meant to sell consulting services, "referenced" to the website of a firm who will happily draft the manuals alleged to be required by UK law for a price. I agree that the manuals themselves might support an article, but this text is not helping. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete likely stealth advertisment. No objection to possible partial merge somehwere without the links, but I'll leave that to experts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. I doubt that a partial merge would work; I can't think of a single sentence that I'd actually keep after comparing to whatever reliable sources might be unearthed, it'd be a rewrite. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigma Partners[edit]
- Sigma Partners (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 was deleted as an uncontested prod. I've restored it per a request at WP:REFUND. The original prod rationale was "No evidence of notability". I'm neutral at the moment. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain - it is possible that the firm is notable; but if it is, this article doesn't make the case. I know I'm the stereotype evialllll deletionist, but I don't want to kneejerk D on this one if they are actually notable and the original editor wasn't Wikicompetent enough to make it clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. I looked at the Google News results. A venture capital firm, they have generated a prodigious number of press releases announcing that they've funded some startup or another. But looking through the first several pages, almost every one of them is a press release. The few genuinely independent stories I found had only incidental coverage, and were not about this firm.[29][30] There might be one in depth story in Business Week, but Google Books is not showing enough to tell.[31] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Smerdis. Vast majority of sources are regurgitated press releases and PR. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong communicate 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A major newspaper interviews one of the guys working there about this group [32], doing a very detailed article. Other mentions of them are there as well, just sort through the Google news results. Dream Focus 09:46, 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. Courcelles 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Young Turks (Documentary Film)
- Young Turks (Documentary Film) (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 film from a non-notable director documenting the lives of non-notable artists. Google searches turn up some mentions of the book that was produced from the script and stills from this film, and some mentions of the film on the websites of the artists who participated, but nothing else. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm inclined to say that virtually any movie that isn't on IMDB is non-notable by default. This seems to be the 80s equivalent of those "look at my wacky buddies" home movies on Youtube. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable film with little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab HTTP jabber client interface
- Punjab HTTP jabber client interface (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 No evidence of notability. No sources, after being tagged for five months. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Was going to suggest merging with Comparison of instant messaging clients, but there's been no activity of the project's website in 5 months, and most of the activity was over 2 years ago. The project is probably dead, and it most certainly non-notable since many lesser-known clients are listed on the comparisons article. --NINTENDUDE64 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not established. Yworo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep The use, by User:Polaron, of U.S. Census Bureau data to source the article removed valid concerns about the original sourcing to a self-published document. Mandsford 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality
- List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality (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)
- reluctant Delete. Information seems interesting but quotes a self-published document online of doubtful notability. No peer review. Appears WP:OR. Also material is sufficiently peculiar to provide little use for a researcher other than "Gee Whiz!" Student7 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gini coefficient#Gini coefficient of income distributions, which contains such data. This information is verifiable (what Student7 calls a "self-published document online" turns out to be a calculation and methodology by Professor Mark L. Burkey of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University), and it's also encyclopaedic, so there is no reason to delete it outright, but it's insufficiently notable for a separate article. Personally I'd put it in a collapsed box in the Gini coefficient article.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, but. The online document is still self-published. It has not had peer review. The figures could be wrong! While you believe the information has been furnished by Prof. Burkey, there is no real way to certify that, which is the problem with self-published stuff. (It is allowed sometimes, but probably shouldn't be here. There is time to get "perfect" information, not something off the professors laptop that he just finished. This is not that much of a time-critical event IMO) Student7 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Interest data, but a single table hardly constitutes an independent article. Stick it in Gini coefficient. --NINTENDUDE64 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think merging this with Gini coefficient would be appropriate. That article is about the statistic itself, not applications of it; the merge would be akin to merging US States' GDP data with the page on GDP. Though my personal preference is for a separate article, I'd argue a better merge would be to put this into the article on US States; or merge it with the List of U.S. states by GDP (nominal). NZUlysses (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This might fit in a broader article on topic of Income inequality in the United States or similar name, which could cover inequality measured by Gini coefficient by state, and by major cities, and which could cover other inequality measures. I agree with NZUlysses that merging it into Gini coefficient would be odd. I would want to consider what articles already exist on income inequality or similar subjects. Seems different than a GDP topic, too. --doncram (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, i thought I was suggesting Income inequality in the United States as an article that would currently be a redlink, but that is the name of an existing article. And there is a link from that article to this list-article. So this list-article is like a split out of material. So the question is, can it be merged back into Income inequality in the United States, or can it be revised to include a bit more and stand alone better. It currently does not seem like a great article, but it serves a purpose if it is only to hold a table that is deemed too long for inclusion in the other article. I think it could appear in the other article. --doncram (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a valid spin-off data list for "Income inequality in the United States". We do have a bunch of other similar lists of U.S. states by some economic measure (poverty rate, HDI, minimum wage, unemployment rate). I'm not sure why this list deserves to be deleted. This topic is also a standard measure tabulated by the U.S. Census Bureau [33]. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Say you are a researcher. Okay to give me an OR sentence here, we aren't grading them. The sentence should start with the statement, "Connecticut has one of the furthest, and Hawaii one of the closest income equalities in the country. Therefore we can expect that Hawaii will have.... and Connecticut will have....(something different from Hawaii besides cold weather! :)" (Finish the sentence). I don't see that anything can be judged from this that is useful in any way to anybody. Rich people need people who will operate services for them. Is that good or bad? And so what? What good is this? It appears to me to be just another meaningless statistic. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Polaron. Data is well-sourced and encyclopaedic. Could use some secondary sources and another sentence or two at the beginning for context. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Polaron and Uncle Dick, the data on this list is indeed encyclopedic. --Elassint (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KcaveMen
- KcaveMen (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 real claim to notability. Only release is a limited (to 100 copies) cd release. Lacks coverage from independent reliable sources. Nothing satisfying wp:music. Article written by band member. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria of WP:BAND. VictorianMutant(Talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC as non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND. 100 copies of their album, and it doesn't actually say they even sold them :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International Songwriting Competition
- International Songwriting Competition (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 entirely unreferenced article that fails to establish that this is in fact a notable music contest.4meter4 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My initial response based on the article was that it probably wasn't notable. However, a search found reliable sources that appear to support notability.[34][35][36][37][38] Cindamuse (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if it attracts judges with the level of fame of Tom Waits and Robbie Williams, then it's notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R. H. Sankhala
- R. H. Sankhala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent memorial of non-notable biochemist. No indication of significance. Revision history reveals that he is the grandfather of Ankit Singh Gehlot, who is apparently the main contributor (User:Dashing boy31). Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above edited in light of sock investigation. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete makes a claim of notability "was a professor in many international and Indian universities" but does not provide any sources to demonstrate WP:ACADEMIC is met. A search for sources has not lead me to any. Smartse (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article raises no issues about his relevancy to the biochemical community. The only paper that seems more notable (the linked one) has the authors listed alphabetically so it is not clear if the work was even done mostly by the person here. Nergaal (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voice Commerce Group
- Voice Commerce 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)
Non-notable per WP:COMPANY created by interested party. Attempt was made to delete via WP:PROD, but an IP who may be an interested party deleted template, so sending here for discussion. VictorianMutant(Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in the article indicates notability supported through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindamuse (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This company might be notable (see Business Weekly, Telegraph, Reuters), but our article is written like an advert. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. The article creator is User:Voicecommerce so there's a clear indication of a conflict of interest. The Telegraph source isn't an official article, it's an advertisement paid for by the company, with a line at the top categorising it under "sponsored". The Reuters reference is trivial, it only mentions that Voice Commerce is one out of forty other firms bidding for RBS' payment processing arm. Business Weekly (an obscure paper, not the much more well known Business Week) does have a non-trivial interview with the chief executive of Voice Commerce, but there needs to be more sources to satisfy WP:N. The rest of the results on GNews search are either PR releases (which aren't reliable sources) or trivial mentions.--hkr Laozi speak 14:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. This text is unambiguous advertising: The Voice Commerce Group allow consumers to use their own unique voice to sign and authorise transactions, guarantees transactional security and protects users against personal data compromise....The Voice Commerce Group use voice biometrics with transactional history, trends and patterns to create a highly secure, unique authorisation environment which can identity authentications virtually anywhere. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete company may be notable, but this is pure spam, delete and let someone without a COI create it someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 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 delete, A7. This is a non-admin, housekeeping closure, article has already been deleted by an admin.--hkr Laozi speak 12:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ankit Singh Gehlot
- Ankit Singh Gehlot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent vanity article about a non-notable person. References are unreliable, best one being a press-release about a planned blog. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: A7; nothing even remotely resembling a claim of notability here. --Kinu t/c 10:16, 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 Keep, nomination withdrawn Mandsford 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fantasy novels
- List of fantasy novels (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 per WP:NOTDIR. List which has potentially tens of thousands of entries, even if only notable books are included. Category:Fantasy novels is much better suited for this job. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by title: 0-9 (2nd nomination) for a related AFD.
Note I am also submitting the subpages
Yoenit (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLN is the relevant guideline here; read the second paragraph. Basically, Category:Fantasy novels is all very well, but a list can be sortable (by title, by author, by date of publication etc.) A list can also be watchlisted leading to better scrutiny. And nothing in the nomination gives a pressing reason for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is not sortable in any way and does not contain date of publication (yet). The workload of creating (and maintaining!) a proper list is staggering. I have no problems with a more managable list such as List of fantasy novels released in 2009, but all this is likely to do is waste editors time. My reason for deletion is that it violates WP:NOTDIR, please explain if you think this is not a valid reason for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see it more as a navigation aid than a directory. Hopefully, now that Wikipedia has the capacity to make sortable tables, someone can revamp this. This was fairly good at the time that it was created, listing title and author information, and to try to describe the subgenre of fantasy fiction represented would pose OR problems. The idea that there must be a choice between a category or a list isn't consistent with WP:CLN. It's fair to say that listmakers find categories to be an inefficient way of searching for information, while category fans see lists as unmaintainable. There's room for good category systems and good lists, and there's always room for improvement in both. Mandsford 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to expand on Mandsford's excellent explanation, a good example of a very large list that co-exists with a category is the List of minor planets (which actually co-exists with quite a number of categories). These lists take the place of Wikipedia's missing contents and index pages—they're there to help end-users find content, and so their purpose isn't to be a directory but to enhance the encyclopaedia. As for the point that it isn't sortable in any way, the counter to that is that AfD considers whether a valid list could exist with this title. It doesn't consider whether this list is satisfactory, because AfD accepts that Wikipedia's a perpetual work in progress and anything in it can be improved.—S Marshall T/C 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but I'd like to see more information added to the list, like dates of publication, country of origin, language, etc. to make it more useful. I support retaining the list for the same reason why we have both List of symphonies by name and Category:Symphonies. Categories are great for organisation and exploratory browsing, but they simply do not offer the context, information, or elaboration (beyond a link to the entry) that a list can. Also, a list can contain redlinks, which is important, since many titles by notable authors don't have their own articles.-hkr Laozi speak 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as lists of lists are permissible, there's no policy-based reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep lists are good navigational devices and do what categories cannot--in this case, addthe author, for ease of browsing, a legit function of encyclopedias. There's no reason why we cannot handle a list with tens of thousands of items-- or for that matter, 100s of thousands. That's what alphabetic subdivision was invented for--and its a problem that is much more cumbersome in categories. The deletion of List of Books was in 2007, & I think consensus has changed there also. (& even if it has not for such an extensive list as that one, this is just a relatively small subset.) DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination, Some very good points where raised in the keep arguments, which have convinced me the article should be kept. Can the next person through please close this? Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 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 Speedy Delete A7 Alexf(talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg'ry Revenj
- Greg'ry Revenj (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)
Seems to be a non-notable YouTuber and aspiring fashionista. All of the refs are self-published, Twitter, or YouTube - bar one which doesn't actually mention him. I can find no GHits for his name or for "revenjjeans", other than self-published, blogs, Tweets, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the article is written by User:Revenjjeans, so there's probably a WP:UAA violation there too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reliable sources that confirm the claims in the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: A7, the article has no claim of importance. Starting a website isn't enough. Possibly also a speedy delete: G11 as pretty thinly-veiled spam. --Kinu t/c 10:18, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noodles! (band)
- Noodles! (band) (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:BAND, unreferenced, no trace of the band can be found online, no mention of the band on Lookout! Records website, no evidence for assertions of gold and platinum status or thousands of record sales, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator, probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by anonymous editor with an IP address in Meerut. Top Jim (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article has no sources, I'm tempted to rescue the article but as you say top Jim, you couldn't find anything online so i doubt this band is notable enough--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:V. Claims are completely unsourceable. The content of the article leads me to believe that they would not pass WP:BAND regardless. --Kinu t/c 10:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The information about platinum and gold albums may be sufficient to avoid CSD A7, but it puts it in the realm of hoaxes... G3. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article's creator (named in the article as a band member) has now been blocked indefintely for removing AFD tags and maintenance templates. Top Jim (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But someone has put the wrong block notice on their talk page, saying they've been tempory blocked as a sockpuppet, you might want to correct that so it matches the reason they've been blocked on their contribution page--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as non-notable, failing WP:BAND. Gold status in India requires selling only 7,500 copies internationally so it may be true, but who cares? We're talking about an EP here that sold 7,500 copies. Toddst1 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Sure looks like a G3 to me. Doesn't show up on any searches. Even a search on Lookout! Records' website (which the article says released their "early releases") draws a blank. VictorianMutant(Talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable band, no sourcing at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G3 or A7. Obviously ridiculous statements aren't enough to dodge an A7. Frankly, the reasoning doesn't matter as long as it goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonnote The Eskimo (talk) 16:24, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diamonds under fire
- Diamonds under fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, only 1 contributer and said contributer is called Diamondsunderfire which leads me to believe it is a promotion account. Has been put up for speedy deletion before, but said contributer deleted notice. Said contributer is reported. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 06:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This could be WP:COI, however, I can't find any blatant promotion in the article, it is written in a neutral way. Moreover, the article contains multiple reliable sources, which is in my opinion sufficient to meet notability requirements for bands (# 1). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep recommended due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That said, I'm totally puzzled as to why the Facebook template is added to this article. Cindamuse (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rumah Sakit (album)
- Rumah Sakit (album) (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)
Studio album with no evidence of notability; one sentence and a track listing. Albacore (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:17, 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, CTJF83 chat 05:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of notability, unsupported through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Honestly, the band itself doesn't appear notable, let alone any of their recordings. Cindamuse (talk) 12:47, 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) 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua G. Berman
- Joshua G. Berman (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 has been around since 8 Feb 2006 & still has failed to established notability. The two references are to blogs. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Subject is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Subject is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Subject has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Subject's work has not (a) become a significant monument, nor (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, nor (c) has won significant critical attention, nor (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Cindamuse (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He sounds like someone whose books I would enjoy, but I can find no evidence that his three books and one blog have attracted the kind of coverage required by WP:AUTHOR. His homepage claims one award, the "Lowell Thomas Travel Writing Bronze Award in category for Best Guidebook" [39], but I doubt if that is enough to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Pittsboro,_North_Carolina#Media_outlets. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chatham Journal
- Chatham Journal (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)
Tiny weekly newspaper. Page consists of a single sentence, "Chatham Journal is a weekly newspaper based in Pittsboro, North Carolina covering Chatham County." My speedy was denied. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to a new Media subsection in Pittsboro, North Carolina.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I went ahead and added a media outlet section to the Pittsboro, North Carolina article. Cindamuse (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non admin closure) Sven Manguard Talk 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Lazarsfeld
- Robert Lazarsfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Sven Manguard Talk 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, "R-Lazarsfeld" gets an awful lot of citations according to Google Scholar. Do you have an explanation for this? Abductive (reasoning) 03:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publish or perish. The man has been around for a while, so has had to produce a lot of academic papers. That in and of itself fails the guidelines set at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I checked the website, and I did a news and a general search on top of the scholar search. He has published a lot of papers, but every professor publishes a lot of papers. I don't know what to say, other that that notability tends to focus a lot on quality over quantity. Finally, as I don't see his CV on his website, I can't tell if he has any honors or positions not mentioned in the page. Certainly I didn't see any in the searches I did. Hope this helps. Sven Manguard Talk 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He has published a large number of much-cited papers. I think he is notable. —bender235 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that he is "much-cited." I'm not doubting it or confriming it, I just want to know how you're determining how often he is sourced. Sven Manguard Talk 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the little "cited by" numbers at the bottom of each entry in this search. Those are fairly big numbers for mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how you reached the conclusion that he is "much-cited." I'm not doubting it or confriming it, I just want to know how you're determining how often he is sourced. Sven Manguard Talk 03:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the very likely pass of WP:PROF#C1 based on the citation numbers, he also passes #C5 as the holder of a named chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. To put a number onto the comments above, the GS h index is 31, pretty high for a mathematician, so obviously a pass by a mile of WP:PROF#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawn You learn something new every day. Today it was h-ratings, and that citation number at the bottom of the scholar search. I never would have guessed that the man was important at all from reading the article though. Someone needs to rescue that mess. Sven Manguard Talk 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pyramid (game show). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyramid (game show) broadcast history
- Pyramid (game show) broadcast history (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)
Way, way, way, way too much WP:IINFO. We don't need a total breakdown of every single thing that happened on the show. Many parts, such as the many pilots, are inherently unverifiable, and other things like "it brought some CBS affiliates back into the fold who had been preempting the first hour of network daytime programming for syndicated talk shows such as Donahue for the past several years." or "where the traditional broadcast and cable outlets fought for smaller slices of an audience pie than was the case in the game's network heyday." are useless fluff that can never be sourced.
I cut down the article by removing a ton of coatrack about the set history, onscreen graphics and theme song, none of which have anything to do with history. What's left is nothing but fanwank that can't possibly be sourced. Pyramid (game show) already covers the relevant parts of the show's history in sufficient detail. Note also that the article has been tagged as "fan's point of view" for one year and "needs more references" since 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOTTVGUIDE says Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, past, present or future. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with parent article after a significant further pruning. The chart tells everything necessary (maybe more) about networks and time slots. I agree with TPH that the information about the pilots and the discussion of network programming strategy are unsourceable. Each individual version can probably be described in a sentence or two within the parent article. JTRH (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a legitimate spinoff from the article about the longstanding (on and off since 1972) show. Some people enjoy articles with what the nom describes as "way, way, way, way too much information" on the page, and they simply call it "information". In the case of programs with a long history, articles are spun out for such things as episode guides, lists of characters, and so forth. It's funny how WP:NOTTVGUIDE redirects to something that makes no mention of either TV or televsion. Wikipedia is not as heavy on TV show articles as it used to be-- when I first came here, we had lots of articles about individual episodes and biographies about minor or even one-show characters, and relatively few about real events and real people-- and I think that over the last several years, it's become less of a TV guide than it had been. Mandsford 13:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge, but certainly don't delete. There's a lot of stuff in the article that should be salvaged,provided there be reliable sources to back it up. WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not apply here. Vodello (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The article is very long as it is. It needs it's relevant parts put into the parent article, and that's about it. Nicholasm79 (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hans van de Koot
- Hans van de Koot (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:PROF; highest cited paper 53, single digit h-index. Senior Lecturer, Head of an eight professor "Research Department". Abductive (reasoning) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:PROF. Merely having published papers and being a senior lecturer isn't usually enough, and there are no WP:RS to indicate notability otherwise. --Kinu t/c 10:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RayTalk 18:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. GS h index = 6 so not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astronomical Society of Dharmaraja College (ASDRC)
- Astronomical Society of Dharmaraja College (ASDRC) (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)
Student club at a (in spite of the name) high school. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a student club at a Sri Lankan high school.--hkr Laozi speak 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dharmaraja College. Non-notable student club. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaival Gyan Mandir
- Kaival Gyan Mandir (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 religious group — goethean ॐ 01:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've reread the article several times and also browsed to the external link at the bottom of the article. Is "Kaival Gyan Mandir" a sect, a Hindu congregation or a person? Couldn't this be speedy deleted as A1 since it provides no context as to what exactly the subject of the article is? VictorianMutant(Talk) 12:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that this mandir is a particular "congregation" in the Chicago area, which is part of a larger Hindu sect which is referred to in this article as 'Sat Kaival Gyan Panth'. That sect may be notable in India (using Hindi- or Gujurati-language sources), but I couldn't find any English-language sources for its notability. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I support a speedy delete as well.
Went through their website and still can't figure it out. My best guess is that Kaival Gyan possibly references a holy entity, another reincarnation of a universal god, or a belief system, while "Mandir" may possibly differentiate one local society from others within their belief system. But then again, I could be wrong.;) Cindamuse (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now that gothean has clarified the subject (and the author has expanded the article), its purpose is now clear... it's an advertisement! VictorianMutant(Talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable and no sources to support. Even the sampradaya is not notable. Wikidas© 19:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like an advertisement and is non-notable. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:46, 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. The keep rationales are both unconvincing and articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, so yes, the extent to which the sources discuss the subject is important. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aqua Data Studio
- Aqua Data Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Article is about a software suite, but does not list any reliable sources. I can't find any sources beyond press releases and self-published material. TNXMan 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable. A reference has been added, but it falls into the category of promotional press release. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong prattle 14:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Catfish Jump and the soapdish and nom. Refence is non-reliable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catfish Jump???? lol... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ample Google News results are mostly just announcing it exist and quoting from their press release, but these are in major computer news sources. They wouldn't bother doing that if the software wasn't notable. Google Book search shows many places mentioning it, and giving links to it, based on the quality of the software, and the fact that it is free. I'll add a few quotes into the article from published sources. Dream Focus 04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until legitimate sourcing clearly meeting WP:RS is provided. Press releases, raw search results and mentions in non-notable books do not establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:39, 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) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I had originally closed this as "delete" but per request on my talk page I'm relisting this so that sources added to the article but not mentioned in the AFD can be considered. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ron, by "sources added to the article" do you mean the "further reading" section? Because to me, that doesn't seem to address the notability argument for deletion in any way. In fact, this seems like such a clear "delete" outcome that I don't understand why you've relisted it, unless to raise false hopes. Am I missing something?—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree with S Marshall here. Doesnt change my position at all. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepIssues brought to attention in the earlier stages of this discussion such as
absence of references and proper citations have been addressed. There are citations in a proper format now.
The discussion has shifted towards reliability of sources. According to the WP:RS Wikipedia guideline the article “should be based on reliable, published sources”. Questionable sources are described as having “poor reputation” or “self-published”. The sources of references on this article are from books published by O'Reilly Media, Springer Science+Business Media, SAMS Publishing. Neither of them can be described as of poor reputation or self-published. All of them are well known, independent international publishers. (Please refer to the corresponding Wikipedia articles dedicated to these publishers ). So what is the ground for saying the referenced books are “non-notable”? On contrary they are notable because published by notable agencies. On my opinion the article should stay because it complies with the Wikipedia policies in full. --71.172.113.130 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis of sources is almost always what AfD is about. In fact, when you're building an encyclopaedia most of the work boils down to careful analysis of sources. In this case, the sources are admitted to be by and large independent, reputable, reliable sources. What's in question is the extent to which they talk about Aqua Data Studio.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references for Aqua Data Studio go further then many other Wikipedia article references. It would be interesting to know to what "extent" is required by a reference to discuss a subject before it is qualified. The current argument for deletion is not quantifiable, and prevents anyone from enhancing the article on the subject to get it approved to Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.166.184 (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 71.204.166.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KeepWhich Wikipedia policy would you apply for measuring the extent a source talks about a subject?
In this particular case the sources speak about Aqua Data Studio in the same way they speak about other database tools. Check some of them : SQLPro SQL Client, TOAD (software), DatabaseSpy, DbForge Studio for MySQL, Database Deployment Manager, DatabaseSpy . All of them and many other are similar Wikipedia articles about very similar data base tools. Shall we delete all of them or shall we follow the Wikipedia policy and keep those articles in compliance? We cannot judge the way or extent the _sources_ speaks about subjects. We can only judge the way _the article_ speaks about the subject. And the article must be based on reliable sources, that directly support the facts stated in this article. It this case the sources say that the subject of this article is a database tool with this specific set of functions, no more, no less. And the article says the same thing. There is no contradiction with the sources and this and only this fact is required by the policy. --71.172.113.130 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns press releases and promotional content but no reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources in the article and do not believe they establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Trion City School District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trion Middle School
- Trion Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable middle school. Delete, Merge and Redirect to school district as per standard procedure Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "Delete, Merge and Redirect". Pick one action: having your cake or eating it. Merger and redirection do not involve deletion, nor AFD, in any way. Moreover, you could have done that yourself, in fewer edits than it took for you to perform this AFD nomination, if that's what you wanted. Uncle G (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of things that could have been done differently. Redirect to school district as per standard procedure. I'm glad the nominator invited us to discuss what we wanted, instead of taking the do-it-yourself approach. Sometimes, but not often, someone finds something notable about a particular middle school or elementary school. Mandsford 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [40] School gets mentioned for its accomplishments. How else would you judge a school for being notable? Dream Focus 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per standard a brief passing mention is nothing other than routine news coverage and not substantial coverage in any way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:Not notable is the weakest, laziest deletion argument, but you didn't listen the first 50 times this was brought up by others, but here's #51 anyway. Vodello (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect in agreement with DJSasso. One newspaper mention does not suffice. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trion City School District. The statement in this article's opening paragraph that the school is part of the Chattooga County School District appears to be an error. Deor (talk) 20:03, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. One local newspaper article stating the school was in the top 10% academically one year does not equal significant coverage from WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 10:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per precedent on middle schools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 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 Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Female Servants in 18th Century England. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Female Servants in 18th Century England
- Female Servants in 18th Century England (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 attempts to research statistics on the number of female servants in England. If necessary, any info should be added to other articles, but if we have separate articles on the statistics of every subgroup, we'll soon have Number of servants named George in England in 1812 and Number of servants that were both read haired and left-handed in 1900-1950 Travelbird (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is notable (apparently hundreds of thousands of people in a variety of occupations), although the time parameter makes no obvious sense. Why not Female domestic servants in England? "Named George..." is totally different since female servants overwhelmingly performed different roles than male servants, and were effectively in a different occupation. I think we should give this stub, created on October 13, a bit more time to evolve, and there are no policy-related reasons to consign it to the Article Incubator. It reads as an WP:ESSAY at the moment, though, which needs to be fixed.--Carwil (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy It's a notable subject, although perfecting on it in userspace allows one to research it in one's spare time. What sets female servants in 18th century England apart from those of other centuries is the changes in laws concerning compensation and taxation [41]. Mandsford 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Female servants" is equivalent to "servants named George," nom? Really? Roscelese (talk) 23:40, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Society for the Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George", for instance. Rmhermen (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userify I think it's got some potential. Nomination rationale is beyond ridiculous Vodello (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only real information is the number of servants, but they are not even in correspondence with the era of title. 1851 is 19th century, not 18th... The rest reads more like starting sentences from a thesis: "In order to achieve a complete picture of conditions of women in those days, it is necessary that all the significant portions of females in that era be represented" and "In order to understand the significance of learning the situation of bla, bla...." In this state the article doesn't say anything notable about the title. Joost 99 (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate While the current article is poorly written, the topic is encyclopedic and sources can be found. The nominator has no valid deletion rationale. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no sound reason for deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, criteria 3. Article lacks sufficient reliable sourcing to verify the notability of this topic and appears to contradict itself (offering 19th century data to describe an 18th century phenomena). Delete with no prejudice to recreation at some future date. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Socialist Party of America. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Socialist Party
- American Socialist Party (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 unreferenced article is entirely based on the party's own statements. There appears to be no independent evidence that it even exists, let alone that it is notable. It is written from the subjective view of a member, largely quoting party documents, for which apparently OTRS permission has been granted. Despite being tagged for weeks for neutrality, original research, inappropriate tone and several other issues, no attempt has been made to improve this article.
As it stands, it is simply an advertisement for this dubiously notable alleged party; it has no place in its current form in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy as not apparently even making a nominal assertion of notability, and having no references (checking the NYT et al) to support an independent claim thereof. Note that this party is not the circa 1916 party of Debs, but a new version not appearing to be a proper direct heir to that name. Collect (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Socialist Party of America. I am finding scant evidence of their existence, but nothing of note in WP:RS. Most recent coverage is scaremongering in blogs and newspaper letters to the editor. This is, however, historically the name of a political party that existed from around the turn of the 20th century through the 1970s. What remains of this party is now known as the Socialist Party of America. As such, it is a possible search term and redirect seems the better option here. Redfarmer (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a redirect for several years. But last month, the redirect page was turned into this "article". RolandR (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that any such party exists. The webiste calls it "America's Socialist Party", which is different from the name of the article. TFD (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep/merge article is notable, may need improvement but improvement is not equated with reasons for deletion. That said as the above reccomends it can be redirected to the other such name (unless the 2 are distinctly different from each other.(Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Merge usable content to Socialist Party USA. This seems to be a dissident group in Indiana trying to split from the Socialist Party USA. What they have so far is a Socialist Central Committee, Ltd. Previously this group led by Ronald Haldeman was called the Greater Indianapolis Socialist Party and is still listed on SP USA web site. Restore original redirect to Socialist Party of America. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Socialist Central Committee, Ltd defines itself as "a not-for-profit corporate structure".[42] Can it in any way be regarded as a socialist political party? RolandR (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Each state has its own respective laws regarding how or what type of party can exist. A party can exist as a not-for-profit or as an organization of people. Some parties exist based on voter turnout or voter registration or even petitions signed, while other state only need a listing, see American Socialists Political Party that is the DBA (Doing Business As) American Socialist Party. Within Florida (just one state alone) there are several other classifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Socialist Central Committee, Ltd defines itself as "a not-for-profit corporate structure".[42] Can it in any way be regarded as a socialist political party? RolandR (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank and redirect to Socialist Party of America. Zero hits for "America's Socialist Party" on NY Times, Washington Post and not even on the Huffington Post. Google and Yahoo! search brings up some random social networking sites, blogs, home-made web pages and forums. After all the unsuitable material was removed from the page there is nothing left to merge. Veriss (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Biased and limited sources, to say that there "Cannot be any new group" or that, "All that was is all that will be" leaves no room for improvement or other types of movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 08:28, 28 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) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Left political history is actually my main topic of interest on Wikipedia... This is a non-notable organization at this point, forcing a merge into SPUSA, as suggested above, is wrong. I favor an ultra-inclusionist policy regarding political parties, and thus have no bias against recreation if this can be demonstrated to be a valid, actually extant organization. But it's not, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Carrite, this is his speciality.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, but do not merge into Socialist Party of America. And if it gets turned into an article again, WP:SALT it. I agree with Carrite's rationale, this is a non-notable organisation and should not be merged into an unrelated article. However, it is conceivable that someone searching for the Socialist Party of America article to type in American Socialist Party, especially if they're not familiar with the actual name, so a redirect should be retained.--hkr Laozi speak 13:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect precisely per hkr. This is a plausible search term for "Socialist Party of America", so should not be a redlink. Protecting the redirect is an option.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect per hkr. No sources are provided in this article other than the party's own website. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided that this party is competing in any elections (or, for that matter, that it has intentionally rejected electoral politics). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most minor parties never run a candidate and base on this person opinion, all of them should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, they do in fact have a standing here. Most minor parties only run a handful or less of candidates, including the SPUSA. Again, based on this strawman, should SPUSA also be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.148.253 (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010
- Well, I would say that never running a candidate for office is often a good sign that a party is non-notable and quite possibly should not have a Wikipedia article. (A party that intentionally refuses to participate in electoral politics may be notable if it otherwise meets the general notability guidelines. But that's not the same thing as a party that never manages to find someone willing to run or never manages to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot anywhere.) Running a handful of candidates is a sign that the party is at least somewhat active; the Socialist Party USA does meet that standard. The SPUSA has also received some news coverage in reliable sources, even in mainstream media -- not much, but enough to be found via Google. By contrast, the party under discussion here not only has no candidates for office, but it also hasn't been shown to have received any coverage in reliable sources for anything else it has done whatsoever. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Per Redfarmer.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tetrafusion
- Tetrafusion (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:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, also a WP:COI user has been creating/editing further articles regarding the band's albums [43] [44]. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not yet notable - insufficient independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpeedy Delete fails WP:MUSIC, blatant WP:COI, and the record label they're "signed" to doesn't even exist. 2 says you, says two 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does not outright fail WP:MUSIC, to my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[62], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [63], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[64] and interviewed on a few radio stations [65]. As for the WP:COI, I was under the impression that if it exists, it simply meant that an editor must exercise extreme caution when editing articles, and be especially careful to maintain a neutral POV, and the article seems to show that that was done, and if it wasn't, the article should be edited, not deleted. Lastly, I believe the record label does exist. [66]. GrizCakes (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of your sources appear to not be reliable, which is one of the main criteria for WP:GNG....plus a lot are not even in English, for me to verify CTJF83 chat 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aiming for more sources are better than less, 5,7,8,10,13,17, the Magazines, and the Radio interview are the ones to focus on, as for the sources not in English, doesn't the fact that the article is covered internationally strengthen the case for notability? GrizCakes (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the coverage is non-trivial...I can't check to see how trivial the coverage is on non-English sites. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They all appear to be album reviews, which appears to go against WP:BAND #1 exceptions CTJF83 chat 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 17 and the radio interview appear to focus on the band, I believe there was also a News Network interview (ABC 33/40), and some other radio interviews, but I'm having difficulty finding verifiable proof. GrizCakes (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I brought it here....lack of verifiable sources. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult for a band of their size and time of being active to have entirely reliable sources. Album reviews, magazine articles, and radio interviews are all they have, which are completely independent sources that state information about the band as a third party. The band is definitely above water in the industry, with albums for sale at Best Buy, albums charting on Bestsellers charts, etc. WP:COI doesn't really apply as the articles are created to benefit Wikipedia in the sense that when media focuses on the band, they can have an entirely, objective source to draw information from, rather than relying on bias and subjectivity from other opinionated columns/interviews. This page has been active for quite awhile and only seems to be edited with strict, appropriate updates and appears from the editing logs to be used entirely for logistical reasons.AllMusicReview (chat 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 17 and the radio interview appear to focus on the band, I believe there was also a News Network interview (ABC 33/40), and some other radio interviews, but I'm having difficulty finding verifiable proof. GrizCakes (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aiming for more sources are better than less, 5,7,8,10,13,17, the Magazines, and the Radio interview are the ones to focus on, as for the sources not in English, doesn't the fact that the article is covered internationally strengthen the case for notability? GrizCakes (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of your sources appear to not be reliable, which is one of the main criteria for WP:GNG....plus a lot are not even in English, for me to verify CTJF83 chat 06:32, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral administrator endorsing keep close. Cirt likely forgot he !voted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I did indeed forget, my apologies. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out my original Keep close, in favor of the one by Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I did indeed forget, my apologies. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Siren (magazine)
- Siren (magazine) (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 defunct Canadian magazine. No references at all. Contested PROD, removed by User:The De-PROD Meister during his October 11 reign of terror. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources since 2006. Lionel (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added one source reporting on the magazine's demise.[67] This article does provide some evidence for the magazine's significance during its brief existence. I also note this 1999 report from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that used this magazine as a source.[68].--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd note that this article was created (by me, full disclosure) in 2005, when Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were much more "make it up as we go along" than they are now; the magazine itself had only just recently ceased publication and was still a relatively fresh and current topic. It's true that there aren't exactly a ton of strong sources that can be added today, but for what it's worth, that's because our notability rules have tightened up over time and not because the magazine was never notable enough to meet the inclusion standards as they stood at the time. Arxiloxos' referencing improvements do demonstrate that the magazine did have some relevance in its prime; whether they attest to enough notability to make the article keepable under current notability standards, however, is for other people to decide. I will note that the magazine is also archived by the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, which may or may not also be a sufficient criterion to confer notability under WP:NMEDIA's criteria #2 and #5 for newspapers, magazines and journals — but that said, if I were doing this now, five years further removed from when the magazine was active, I'd admittedly be much more likely to give it a brief subsection it in an omnibus article on Toronto's historical gay media than to give it its own article. No !vote. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, I was thinking about just that possibility while reviewing this article. There is information here that seems significant, and that I would prefer not to see lost. Is there an appropriate article about gay media, or gay life in Canada to which this content could be merged? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Seems to be cited just adequately and is notable. Bearcat, if you want to sandbox and work it, that's great. --CompRhetoric (talk) 01:14, 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) 02:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some more small things to it, including references. I would be more comfortable with it though if some other stuff can be found. Just one other news article would be fantastic. But I do believe that it meets notability, if just barely. SilverserenC 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better (and thank you), but I'm still not totally convinced. Find one more, even two, and you'll have my support. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:37, 30 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) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, again. Feminist Bookstore News is a blurb-I also wonder if there are any COIs. The other sources are mentions. The Xtra piece is the only legitimate source. Apart from that, there is nothing especially notable about this magazine.Lionel (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements by and reasoning of Silver seren. There is valid, verified, worthwhile content here, and in the absence of a likely merge target, I think keeping the article to preserve the content is the better course of action.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:NOTE, good quality improvements by Silver seren (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources found by Silver seren. Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heteroflexible
- Heteroflexible (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)
Neologism. Initial Google returns are Urban Dictionary and mentions in Salon, but nothing substantial enough to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition with somewhat sketchy sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that there should be something we can merge this into. bd2412 T 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree that there is insufficient third-party coverage for a page. In terms of merging, perhaps something could be included in the page on pansexuality and/or heterosexuality. Leoniceno (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what about all the Google Scholar results? Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Okay, it's no FA, but I at least turned it into an appropriately-referenced stub. There are dozens more functional sources out there; this could actually become a really good article with concerted effort. It certainly didn't need to come to AFD. As a procedural note, assuming this AFD closes keep, it should be moved to heteroflexibility, over the existing redirect there (to situational sexual behavior), in order to satisfy the manual of style preference for articles to appear under their noun form. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -
Delete - Non-notable neologism, information already covered in bisexuality. Best suited for Urban Dictionary.Visions of the South Park boys in Metrosexual garb flash in my head. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) See below. Changed: Carrite (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense intended, but did you base this !vote on the state of the article when nominated or its current condition? As it is now referenced to nearly a dozen sources, primarily scholarly journals, dating back to 2005, I would neither consider it a neologism nor "best suited for Urban Dictionary". Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Journal of Bisexuality in 2006 indicates: "Some sexuality educators have coined two very descriptive terms: heteroflexible for those who self-identify as hetero- sexual but have same-sex attractions and/or behaviors; and homo- flexible for those who self-identify as lesbians or gay men and have other-sex attractions..." At what point does a neologism become an accepted part of the language? Still a neologism. That said, running the phrase in Google scholar does indeed indicate a reasonably widespread use of the term, so I'll flip my recommendation accordingly, being Deletoflexible here... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense intended, but did you base this !vote on the state of the article when nominated or its current condition? As it is now referenced to nearly a dozen sources, primarily scholarly journals, dating back to 2005, I would neither consider it a neologism nor "best suited for Urban Dictionary". Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Whatever this article might have been at the time of nomination, it has been fixed now. References are entirely appropriate and extensive. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the article appears to be well referenced, and complaints of neologism appear unfounded. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it gets coverage in gnews, gbooks and academic articles in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. It is clear that the individual this article is about is not notable enough; I'm not sure how much there is to merge, but redirecting seems sensible enough. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin Dyer
- Edwin Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT, sad though it is. This article is a result of a few news articles, and there is no article on any kidnapping or larger event of which this content could be a part. As WP is no a memorial and WP is not the news, this article should be deleted --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to January 2009 kidnapping in Niger (or something along those lines) and convert to an article about the event. The event seems to scrape by with notability, if not the individual. I'd also agree to a merger to Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb if others deem the event unworthy of an article. I believe that the previous discussion bears this out. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - happy for the article to be moved per Bahamut's suggestion, but I doubt anyone is going to write the article anytime soon so as it stands the current subject is non-notable and should be deleted. Anotherclown (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:38, 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) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: seems a reasonable solution. I agree with the nominator, though, while an unfortunate situation, the subject does not qualify for a stand-alone article. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan International Bank for Investment and Development(KIBID)
- Kurdistan International Bank for Investment and Development(KIBID) (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 bank has very little coverage in the media. It makes a claim of being the largest private bank in Iraq. However, if one looks at the ref, it says, "According to ... the chief executive director, it is the biggest private bank in the country with about 2,000 customers." Now, I have searched the phrase "largest private bank in Iraq" and found many making this claim: Commercial Bank of Iraq, Rafidain Bank, and Al-Warka’ Bank. So this page should be deleted for lack of WP:Reliable Sources. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article was already the subject of a recent speedy deletion request WP:CSD A7 by another editor.--Kudpung (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article is promotional, uses hype (dubious claims), lacks reliable sources (WP:RS), and fails notability at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages.--Kudpung (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems mostly straightforward description of major bank. Edit to remove the few words that are promotional language. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 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) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't enough content there for a separate article. It does merit a mention in both List of banks in the Arab World and List of banks in Iraq, though, so I don't think the outcome should be that this title is a redlink. A redirect seems optimal to me.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 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 no consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milíon
- Milíon (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 non-notable album that does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC; the reference to allmusic asserts that "the album, released in 2000, didn't do as well as many had expected, moving only about 40,000 units" and is therefore not more notable than other albums. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any coverage for this album. Mattg82 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Then why does it have info here then (in fact, this has been placed on the aticle. Special Cases Spit out your comments 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found info here:
[69]
and
[70]
and
[71]
and
(in German)
Special Cases Spit out your comments 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Charting album, according to AllMusic.com. Needs additional citations for verification. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godfather Buried Alive
- Godfather Buried Alive (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 information that I could find about this particular album are from unhelpful lyrics databases such as metrolyrics. Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Can't see a problem here. As stated in the article it reached #3 on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold by the RIAA plus there are a number of professional reviews. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Also the album has plenty of mentions on google news archive. Mattg82 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline keep, leaning towards a merge. Article can be easily expanded, but I wouldn't oppose a merge to Shyne discography.--hkr Laozi speak 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being that successful on the billboard charts, makes it notable. Don't merge or delete. Dream Focus 11:14, 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) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Voice
- This Voice (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)
UNRELEASED. Poorly sourced. Should be merged into artist article and deleted asap. Fixer23 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 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) 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Brooke Hogan. Since this album was never released, it is not notable enough for its own article per WP:NMUSIC. Could serve as a useful redirect. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michele Boyd
- Michele Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rileah Vanderbilt, after performing an extensive Google search I found less relevant results (Dana Michele Boyd popped up after the first 5 pages) and failed to find any reliable sources. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:24pm • 10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this qualifies for deletion. She's an actress in some notable shows. IMDB is not a reliable source, but it does point to some reliable sources: the shows themselves. If all else fails, the article can point to the credits of the shows themselves. Remco47 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing to the show's credits is not a reliable third-party source, sources used on an article that are affiliated with said subject are frowned upon. 27.32.62.87 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) — 27.32.62.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Actually, a show's credits are perfectly fine for verification that the actor was in those productions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing to the show's credits is not a reliable third-party source, sources used on an article that are affiliated with said subject are frowned upon. 27.32.62.87 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) — 27.32.62.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I don't think this qualifies for deletion. She's an actress in some notable shows. IMDB is not a reliable source, but it does point to some reliable sources: the shows themselves. If all else fails, the article can point to the credits of the shows themselves. Remco47 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ENT. The article asserts and sources that she has had significant roles in multiple notable productions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - be that as it may, no other reliable sources can be found and that is the reason why it's here at AFD. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:27pm • 03:27, 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) 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Not a strong case of notability, but she's done enough.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While adding better sources will clearly improve the article, preponderance of the evidence shows that she has been involved in enough notable productions per WP:ENT. Doczilla STOMP! 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - actually, when this was created, there was a conflict of interest editing by the subject or her agent. However, it now appears that she's notable enough. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Falls Away
- Falls Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is virtually nothing of note on this article. Fixer23 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This information should not have it's own page. The information could be used on the artist's page. Housewatcher (talk) 02:25, 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 merge to Berri Txarrak. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eskuak/Ukabilak
- Eskuak/Ukabilak (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:NALBUMS. gnews coverage merely verifies its existence. [72]. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Berri Txarrak. The notability guideline on albums states that: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article."--Friendly IP (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus, default to delete. . The subject's notability is marginal, and the "keep" side has not made a convincing argument that he is clearly notable. The BLP problems push it over the edge, especially the idea that it lasted so long. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Molitor
- Chris Molitor (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)
While the subject may be barely notable, the article history shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP. Absent some means of ensuring compliance, deletion is the only sensible option. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think the article history shows what the nom says, however, I'm not convinced that 15 minutes of pro-playing time makes a person notable. Location (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 5 games in the NBL is 4 more than needed. A little bit of vandalism is not a good reason to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid reason for deletion stated. "Barely notable" = "notable". That an article has been vandalized is no reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 5 matches in a failing basketball league isn't notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources either. These articles are impossible to maintain because no-one watchlists them. It is more than "a bit of vandalism". This had badly non-compliant material sitting in the article for months. Why did it sit there? Because it is an article about a non-notable person that no-one attends to. Therein lies the foolishness of allowing these stubs to proliferate. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where your claim of a failing basketball league comes from. I have no real interest in basketball but just watching the news I see more than I want about the fortunes of queensland nbl basketball happenings. This article has only been edited 10 times (one being a bot). Far from being a target for vandalism. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at the history. Look at every edit. And then look at how long the edits remained without being reverted. There lies the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While looking at the history should I look at this edit? a positive and constructive edit. In the history I see One problematic act of vandalism. Yes, it's wrong that it stayed there for two and a bit months, things could be better. One real problem is not a target for vandilism, and is not IMO an article history that shows that we have not able to keep the article compliant with WP:BLP, especially now that the problem has been removed (and should have been removed earlier, one wonders why it was left intact here). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at the history. Look at every edit. And then look at how long the edits remained without being reverted. There lies the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where your claim of a failing basketball league comes from. I have no real interest in basketball but just watching the news I see more than I want about the fortunes of queensland nbl basketball happenings. This article has only been edited 10 times (one being a bot). Far from being a target for vandalism. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Mkativerata in that Wikipedia shouldn't be a depository of thousands of barely-"notable" sports figures whose realistic chances at becoming anything more than a flash in the pan are slim to none. Yes, there are criteria for inclusionism, but a core Wikipedia policy is that common sense should trump any guidelines or rules. In this case, I strongly believe the common sense decision is to delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is presumed notable by meeting WP:ATHLETE#Basketball criterion number 1 as having played in the NBL. Yes, he may have only played during cleanup time, but that's irrelevant. Content satisfies WP:V. As DGG indicates, "barely notable" does indicate "notable"; an AfD isn't the place to arbitrarily rewrite an established notability guideline, but to apply it, and arguing the contrary borders on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. As for the problem of no one watching the article and reverting the vandalism, that is not a reason for deletion. There are protection options available, and, in fact, I'll personally add this article to my watch list. Problem solved. --Kinu t/c 01:39, 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Sayenga
- Donald Sayenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially unsourced WP:BLP tagged as failing WP:BIO since 2008. I don't see coverage that would meet WP:BIO. I'm not sure whether any of his various accomplishments qualify. Sandstein 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really want to say keep here, since I think the story of the wire industry is of historical interest, and the subject seems to be of some repute in the field - the ASCE did choose him to edit their volume on it, after all. However, Gsearching couldn't come up with the requisite level of coverage we usually like to see. RayTalk 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not much in the way of sources, Notability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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 no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overseas Minangkabau
- Overseas Minangkabau (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 is a neologism and OR. There are zero references on google scholar: [73] (7540 references for simply Minangkabau). There is some useful content to be merged with Minangkabau people, but the article's basic thesis, that the Minangkabau diaspora (only 3 Google scholar hits, fewer than for say Batak diaspora) is somehow more significant or inherently noteworthy than any other (insert Indonesian ethnic group) diaspora simply isn't established by any of the sources in the article. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 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) 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any rescuable, cited sections into Overseas Indonesian. I agree, there are many ethnic groups in Indonesia, and this article does not establish how emigration by this particular ethnic group is distinct over any other.--hkr Laozi speak 13:40, 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 no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black Tide (album)
- Black Tide (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Article is largely speculation and fails WP:BALL Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 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) 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Further information about this album will be available in the future. The album had a release date set. This article has potential to grow. Housewatcher (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Key Responsibility Areas
- Key Responsibility Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem like a valid term; WP:OR and no sources.. Possible WP:DICT problem. — Timneu22 · talk 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KRA's are related to KPI's, so this page should maybe be merged with Performance_indicator page, as suggested for KPI's? Xtal42 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:58, 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) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essentially a WP:DICDEF that's WP:OR. Nothing worth merging anywhere. --Kinu t/c 10:12, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hull Zero Three
- Hull Zero Three (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. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or temporarily userfy. This is a significant work by a notable author. Although not yet released (November), pre-release reviews are already emerging. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author's page, with no prejudice against spinout when the book is published and once it meets WP:BK. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This nom was one of a bunch all at once by the nominator that even included novels by John Grisham. I don't have the time or inclination to look into yet another one, but everyone I looked at was a keep, and in the absence of a understandable basis for this nomination, we should keep this one as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Anticipated book, due Nov 22, by a notable author. Articles like this are a good way to entice new editors. This will be an article. It served no purpose to have deletions in the early versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 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) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isla Nena Air
- Isla Nena Air (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 listed or on Google. Deadlink websites and nothing comes up that is valid on Google. Whenaxis (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless any references can be added. Housewatcher (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Rock Dust Light Star. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Skies (Jamiroquai song)
- Blue Skies (Jamiroquai song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Claiming that it's going to chart or that it's going to pass NSONGS is WP:CRYSTAL. SnottyWong express 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rock Dust Light Star (the album the song will be on). The article clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS says that non-notable songs should be redirected. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should not be deleted as is upcoming single, has cover image, a video has been released and several references have been provided regarding it's release. It no longer fails WP:NSONG and therefore should not be deleted. -- User:DoctorMaster2010 User talk:DoctorMaster2010 11:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question NSONGS says, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable...". Could you elaborate on why you feel this song passes NSONGS? --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 15:09, 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) 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rock Dust Light Star. As mentioned by Deutschgirl, songs usually aren't notable enough for a separate entry, and should be redirected to a relevant article.--hkr Laozi speak 14:29, 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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BrowseAloud
- BrowseAloud (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'm not entirely sure if this program is notable in and of itself, or whether the article is just a puff piece for a non-notable program. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been a critic of this program for years (the day job): screen readers are good, but this is a bad screen reader. If it has any claim to notability, that would be based on their evident ability to convince clueless large organisations (many local councils, large utilities) that they ought to buy it. I would certainly never recommend it to either users with accessibility issues, or to site operators looking to achieve real accessibility.
- So should wiki cover it? We do regard debunking snake oil as within our encyclopedic remit. I would support coverage of it on that basis, as the world at large ought to be warned off using it. Puffery is never a reason to delete an article though, as it's easily fixed by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good or bad, there are sources covering it]. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sourced. The Eskimo (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
River of Ruin
- River of Ruin (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. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author page no sense in deleting the content, the article just doesn't prove it's own notability, Sadads (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This nom was one of a bunch all at once by the nominator that even included novels by John Grisham. I don't have the time or inclination to look into yet another one, but everyone I looked at was a keep, and in the absence of a understandable basis for this nomination, we should keep this one as well. Nominator never even explained why he did the raft of nominations on his talk page when multiple editors queried.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable book by notable author, it has received reviews in reliable sources like Cahners and PW.[74][75] --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:42, 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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obsessed (novel)
- Obsessed (novel) (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. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per review already present and best-selling highly covered author, Sadads (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This nom was one of a bunch all at once by the nominator that even included novels by John Grisham. I don't have the time or inclination to look into yet another one, but everyone I looked at was a keep, and in the absence of a understandable basis for this nomination, we should keep this one as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to article on author. This is a feeble article on a seemingly humdrum book by a seemingly minor author, citing just one review in a minor periodical. There's nothing damning about any of these factors; there's no need to delete, but yet there's also no need to preserve in the current state. If/when any editor thinks they're able to make a worthwhile article out of this, they'll be able to salvage from the history what we see now and add sources and all the rest to it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Shadow Government (novel)
- The Shadow Government (novel) (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. non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I adjusted the title and author according to worldcat,. (should be: The Shadow Government (Hukumat al-zill : riwayah) (Arabic: رواية حكومة الظل) and author (Mundhir al-Qabbani, also known as Mundhir Qabbani). The book is real enough. I found & added several Arabic source to document it further, by searching for the Arabic characters in Google. I was able to find a specific reference to best-seller status, and to the comparison with Dan Brown. And here's the translation of the page in the Arabic Wikipedia (I added the interwiki link): [76], from which I added a plot summary. The Arabic sources I found were not ideal--I'd have preferred a major newspaper--but I am willing to accept the judgment of the relevant language Wikipedia in cases where we cannot really judge for ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 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) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, There are good refeences. Rirunmot (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This nom was one of a bunch all at once by the nominator that even included novels by John Grisham. I don't have the time or inclination to look into yet another one, but everyone I looked at was a keep, and in the absence of a understandable basis for this nomination, we should keep this one as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has room for expansion. Housewatcher (talk) 02:21, 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 merge to Fairfax, Minnesota. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Eagle Extra
- The Eagle Extra (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:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMOTION. Article has multiple issues. It unreferenced and shows no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It is a very promotional article. Lastly the articles creator is the owner, editor and publisher of The Eagle Extra, Kevin Michael Schafer, who has a clear WP:CONFLICT. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Given the changes made by Eclipsed I agree that a Merge to Fairfax, Minnesota is now best.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - small town free weekly. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not free, it costs 50 cents. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Small town paper with little information included in the article. Housewatcher (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fairfax, Minnesota. Promo material removed, leaving behind a very small stub. Some secondary refs found, but not much more then listings. Notability, in reference to other Minnesota Newspapers, is still in question. If paper is of same level as the community papers listed on Template:Minnesota_Newspapers, then keep. But latest online figures show very small circulation of under 200. Only notable to Fairfax, Minnesota. Eclipsed ¤ 08:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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.