< 24 December	26 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G11 by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonism[edit]

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

Either a hoax or a very non-notable philosophy. "Doctor Carbon Radio Hour" has zero ghits, as do "doctor carbon" + carbonism and "dr. carbon" + carbonism. Danger (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable original research. The article is about the unique theories of Doctor Carbon, and was written by a user called . . . Doctor Carbon. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant hoax of an ad from an SPA. Not only to I concur with Danger's points, but none of the supposed book titles listed come back at all in a Gsearch, and I can find no information about the Library of Congress being affiliated with any of this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/g11 slakr^\ talk / 05:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough Athletics[edit]

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

4-month-old local nonprofit. Fails notability guidelines for organizations. Danger (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7: no indication of importance or significance (organization). -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 23:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Appears to be notable now. Non-admin closure. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth North American blizzard of 2010[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)The articles for the first, second and third blizzards of 2010 pass WP:N, but I don't know about this one. It says it's supposed to happen in New England, but I can't find any sources stating this. If the article isn't deleted per WP:TOOSOON, it should at least be incubated until more information can be found. (And how is it a current event if it hasn't happened yet?) Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the weather models show a significant hit for the Northeast corridor. Winter Storm Watches have been issued and Blizzard Warnings are being seriously considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickD2010 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - as it stands right now, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. However, the storm is forecast for tomorrow (actually, it's supposed to begin in the DC area tonight, according to the latest models), so there may be some merit to it by Monday. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I feel too, but according to WP:AI, articles can't be incubated without going through AfD first (that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't make the rules). Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – long before this discussion will have run its one-week course, the forecast blizzard will have hit, so, even though there is currently really no stable material to report on, this discussion is moot. --Lambiam 07:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's wait to decide that until after the storm supposedly hits, hmmm? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia television stations are calling for blizzard conditions in that region, and they are near the southern end of the area that is expected to be affected. Snowfall totals are predicted to reach between 10 inches (25 cm) and 20 inches (51 cm), with wind gusts reaching 40 miles per hour (64 km/h) to 50 miles per hour (80 km/h), with snowfalls reaching 20 inches in Trenton, New Jersey and much of southern New Jersey. ^[1]Bill S. (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard warnings were posted by the National Weather Service prior to noon local time for northern New Jersey, New York City, Long Island and southern coastal New England. This storm has developed and this article should remain in place.Bill S. (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This storm caused a rare postponement of a National Football League game in Philadelphia, the outcome of which may affect the 2010 NFL Playoffs. The NFL rarely cancels games due to weather.Bill S. (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, retitle to December 2010 eastern North America blizzard (North America implies the entire continent, and December is more helpful than "Fourth"), and it is causing blizzard conditions. Although I hate to violate WP:NOTNEWS, let's wait to see how notable it is in the long run. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the fourth blizzard of 2010 and it just follows the naming convention of the first three blizzards this year. Usually there is only one true blizzard every few years, this year there were four in a year. I would suggest waiting till this storm is given an official name (such as Superstorm in 1993 or President's Day I and II). Boxing Day Blizzard comes to mindNickD2010 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is becoming quite a storm for NYC and the surrounding area. Some areas could get near-record snowfalls out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.165.31 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the blizzard really is quite dangerous (I've seen cars downed on the highway a mere hour ago). As the UC above says, it might be record snowfall for some areas. Given the road problems it's causing and the wide coverage at nj.com we can use for sources, I say keep. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Thundersnow, Freezing Fog, extremely low visibility. Clearly a significant and noteworthy storm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrusso99 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There was 3 feet of snow at my workplace in Yonkers, NY. This is definitely newsworthy. 68.199.120.132 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This storm is very notable and is affecting millions of people. Dough 48 72 03:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No question. Here in Ontario we've already had two major December storms (CNN reported on the second). We're looking likely to have a lot of articles in the coming month while the water is warmer than the air, and lots of lake-effect storms. I don't know whether either of our two have articles, but so far I've put information into a general list article some of which could be used in a full article. Regardless of that, this storm is notable and the article should be kept. CycloneGU (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I think we should merge all three articles together to create one big article entitled "North American Blizzards of 2010".-Vlad (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object to the idea of combining the articles. Each individual storm was unique — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickD2010 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somyot Srinuan[edit]

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

While this player a member of a team in a major league he (edit: appears to) meet the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL ~~without question but~~ he seems fail the general notability guidline.

When searching his name in English Google returns next to nothing other than generic team rosters. The query ["Somyot Srinuan" -wikipedia] (without brackets) returns 28 results at the time of this AFD nomination, at least one of which is a toolserver tool. Bing doesn't do much better, with only 5 results for the same query. Searching for his name in Thai is much more successful with over 28,000 results on google, however most of the results seem to be a peripheral mention on various rosters. I can't seem to find any reliable source independent of the subject that gives significant coverage. No other wikipedias have any articles on him as far as I can tell, though the Thai wikipedia does have his name redlinked from the main Thailand Premier League title.

Due to this I don't think that the article has any significant chance of being expanded. As it stands right now there is nothing that couldn't be merged into either a list or into the main thailand premier league article. Looking at the creator's contribs it appears he created articles for most of the players on the team from the data on the team's website (such as on Prasit Kotmaha). I did note his account is indef blocked for unreferenced BLP stub creation. nn123645 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted, it is for exactly the opposite reason to the nominator. Saying that he "meets the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL without question" because he is a "member of a team in a major league" shows absolute ignorance of the guideline in question, which states that "a player who...has not played in any games...is therefore not generally regarded as being notable" - basically, being on the roster is not enough, you have to actually play to become notable. Do we have any evidence that he has played in a fully-professional league? No. Therefore he actually fails WP:NFOOTBALL without question. Giant Snowman 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that he has played in at least one game, though due to the lack of sources this isn't really verifiable. Sportal.com.au lists all the players on the team with ? in for the stats. --nn123645 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he has played in the Thai Premier League, then he has played in a "fully-professional league", meeting the notability requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. It doesn't matter that he doesn't meet GNG if we can show he meets NFOOTBALL - which we can't. Giant Snowman 00:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact text of the relevant part of WP:NFOOTBALL is "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable". Generally != always. Regardless we both seem to agree that the article should be deleted, so I guess it is a bit of a moot point. --nn123645 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Giant Snowman, simply being a part of the team, without actually playing, does not give notability. With no sources to prove he has played a game, there is no proof of notability. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Giant Snowman and Eddie. --Kudpung (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CTJF83 chat 19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microphone stand[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOTDICT. Prod removed in 2006 by original author, with their second and final edit to Wikipedia Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this article is not a dictionary definition. It is a description of the notable thing itself, not the word, and is well beyond a stub. The fact that the original author is no longer active on Wikipedia is in no way a good argument for deletion. Improve and add references through normal editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google Books lists many references that discuss microphone stands in detail. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am perplexed. The article is nothing like a dictionary definition. Also, I cannot see any policy reason why it should be deleted. Talk:Microphone stand would be a more appropriate forum for discussion. Thincat (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Other then opening sentence which is a dictionary defination every paragraph has "use" in it, and describes which attachments and accessories to use for which application. Microphone stand is a dictionary definition and a user guide, and nothing else. Both of which Wikipedia is not the place for. Jeepday (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an intriguing line of thought. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I believe WP:NOTDICT is called a policy not a line of thought. Unless you are talking about my assessment of the article content which as we all know is just one opinion amongst many :) Jeepday (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review WP:NOTDICT, particularly [1]. The term "usage guide" in this policy refers to a usage guide for terminology, not a usage guide to an object described by an article. Refer to WT:NOTDICT for more guidance, for example here. I think you have become cofused with WP:NOTGUIDE, in particular "1 Instruction manuals" although this article does not infringe that policy either, it not being "how to" in nature. Regarding your article assessment, it is not unusual in articles describing implements for the character sequence "U,S,E" to occur frequently, for example in Spade. Thincat (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I did combine WP:NOTGUIDE with WP:NOTDICT, had them both listed under WP:NOT in my brain. I still believe the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, though this debate is moving decidedly to keep. If it will be keep, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could do some clean up on it and maybe add some references. I will assist in whatever way I can. Jeepday (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- That article no more resembles a dictionary definition than I do. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not perfect, not by a long shot, but deletion is not the way to fix it. The subject is notable, and worthy of better treatment. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The is an encyclopedic topic. Deletion is not the way to fix problems with the article. Use the talk page. --Kvng (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Timelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 17. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the third-party sources show significant coverage more so than last time. Also, I find it doubtful that the book by Erin Breeton would contain anything that specifically meant "The Timelines toy line has proved extreemly popular", since it doesn't seem to contain the word "Timelines". NotARealWord (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I suggest people read the previous AfD before voting, so they can be sure you're making the right decision. I'm more towards "delete" but you all can decide for yourselves. However, please make sure you're decision is the best one (or at least, what you perceive as best). NotARealWord (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to be clear and honest - The Breeton book specifically said the LANDQUAKE toy was popular. Landquake toy was a Timelines toy, so that implicitly says at least this a Timelines toy was popular. It also pictures the Timelines toy set from 2005 (but called them BOTCON toys in the text). Mathewignash (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if it says that Lanquake and a BotCon set were popular, than that's what the article should say. Implicit ≠ Verifiable. Plus, that again demonstrates my point on how people discuss BotCon, but not Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a collector of these toys myself I can attest to how popular they are, especially the 2005 set. Good year. Good times. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if they're all popular. Maybe a few are (like Punch/Counterpunch). Only limited quantities were made anyway, so it's not too hard for them to get sold out. Plus, it seems that BigBadToyStore took quite a while to sell the BotCon 2009 sets they had (those sets were even put on clearance sale). NotARealWord (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obvioulsy I am in support of keeping this article and letting it develop. It has third party sources, and it is an ongoing comic book series which will only generate more coverage over time. Fighting over this article would seem to be a waste of time, as it's only only on the cusp (I'd say past it) of establishing notability, but it will obviously generate more over time with each new issue and review. Mathewignash (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sprawling list of fan-created figures and fiction, largely cited to fan publications. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-created? These are professionals who run the fan club. I know some people involved were taken straight from the fandom instead of being hired because they were professionals (Chris Ho, Benson Yee for example), but not all of them. NotARealWord (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Fan-commissioned' then, for all the difference it makes -- "created by the Transformers Collectors Club", regardless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more of solely aimed towards fans. In the previous AfD, I argued that this is fancruft due to this stuff is specifically aimed towards a portion of the fanbase. With "regular" Transformers media, there would be a significant number of casual viewers/readers who would give it a try even if they're terribly unfamiliar with Transformers. The same cannot be said with Timelines. It's designed to be of interest only to the fans. NotARealWord (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are in error sir about Timelines being "fan created", Fun Publications is a professional publisher based on Texas. They even do more than Transformers, as they also do other licensed material. The artists and writers who work for them have worked major companies like Marvel, Dreamwave and IDW. Your deletion rational is flawed and your vote should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last bit of their vote (No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") seems correct. The ComicNewsi references only give minimal information and no third-party sources have a good plot synopsis (this one has a synopsis, but is not third-party). No third-party sources on the online stories from the club website either. So yeah, Hrafn's vote does have some point, even if not entirely correct. NotARealWord (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but delete. There are a few reliable sources, but none appear to address the actual topic in any detail. The book gives fairly limited mentions to individual toys; the New York Times piece doesn't mention Timelines; and the three independent sources [2] [3] [4] that offer a decent level of coverage seem to fail WP:RS by some way. Hence this falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really know how reliable they were, but I don't think any of them gave "extensive" coverage, considering that the sources on the comic books have no plot summary. NotARealWord (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Transformers wiki. This fancruft has no place on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers.wikia.com is pretty much inactive. The wiki that is active (tfwiki.net, run by David Willis) already has a lot of info on this stuff. Transwiki doesn't sound like a very good idea. NotARealWord (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki it wherever you want, it just doesn't belong here. If transwiki isn't a good option, then the next best one is to delete it entirely. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More notability - I just found out today that the Timeslines set from 2 years ago was reviewed in "Lee's Action Figure and Toy Review" magazine. I'm getting the magazine now, so I can add a good citation to this article. Mathewignash (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fanboy sites and minor comic reviews are not sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tarc.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reviews of items in this list. Pretty clearly meets WP:N. I don't think we can discount a source that otherwise meets WP:RS because it is a "fanboy site". 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)

If by "fanboy site", they meant, "Ben's World of Transformers", then that one does not establish notability. It's run by one of the writers for this stuff. A lot of the other references only give minimal information on this stuff. Notice how a lot of them don't even use the word "Timelines". The notability requirement (WP:N) needs some third-party source(s) which give lots of detail on the subject. At least one source must give a lot of information on this all on its own. I don't think there are any sources on this subject overall either. No references give the most basic information on Timelines, i.e "Timelines is the umbrella name used by Fun Publications for their Transformers media and toys". NotARealWord (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it had poor notability and lack of good sources the first AFD I see no visable improvement the second time.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- why are we here? The consensus at the last AfD was to delete, and at the DRV there was no consensus to overturn. Fansites and more or less trivial mentions of individual toys do not establish the notability of the line. Reyk _YO! 05:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot (all?) of the third-party sources proide only minimal information on the subject. Refs no. 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are directly from the club itself, so they're straight ahead out. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 20 are from "Ben's World of Transformers", run by one of the people who wrote this stuff. 4,5,6 and 24 are from a book which gives only minimal information on this subject. Plus, as pointed out above, it's not even referenced correctly. The way it's used now, it seems to suggest somethin along the lines of "year after year, Timelines toys sold out really well", even though it only said the BotCon 2005 set and the Landquake toy were popular. Landquake was a free giveaway to people who subscribed to the collector's club magazine. Seriously, that book cannot be used to prove that Timelines toys have proved themselves popular the way it's suggestin since, it was pulished in 2006, and there hadn't been a lot of Timelines stuff yet, back then. The bcskids source (23)is only a preview, not really extensive coverage. Plus, Alzarian16 pointed out that it was unreliable, along with no. 10 and 22. Both of which don't really provide much information on this subject. (Also, in the previous AfD, I used the current source 22 to point this out as fancruft.) 21 and 18 are mainly about the convention. The toys are named (in 18) and mentioned as stuff available for purchase there, but that's about it. Not really that much info regarding Timelines specifically. Not much info on the toys mentioned either. The word "Timelines" appears in neither of those sources. The Tomopop ref (19) is only a preview of one toy, not much information. I guess if the ones Alzarian16 mentioned as non-reliable, then I guess the Mikethepod.com source (8) is also unreliable. NotARealWord (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANOTHER SOURCE - Tomart's Action Figure Digest, No. 164 did a cover story on the 2008 Timelines toy set. You can see the cover here: http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/conventions-15/botcon-2008-shattered-glass-box-art-revealed-164648/ Mathewignash (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maritimer English[edit]

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

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for this article, fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod removed with comment "sources don't have to be entire books and gbooks often rarely has canadian books which this is likely to be....for such a well written article I think afd is better than prod"[5]. Jeepday (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Canadian Maritime English, and mention current name as an alternate. There are a number of Google Books references that discuss this dialect using the longer name. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, :) yes you are correct the number is Three. I did not find those. Jeepday (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources (more here) so this should be no more than a debate about the article's name.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone can sort out a redirect for the other possible title (I got in a mess with the last one I did, so don't look at me...). Otherwise, stick some sources in and it's fine, Peridon (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the debate closes (looking like keep), I will make the move if the closing admin does not. Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the move to Maritime English, but it should be noted that a common term for the dialect is "Maritimer". I haven't read the article (yet) but am aware of a sharp difference between Caper, Bluenoser, South Shore, Island, and New Brunswick - are they all considered the same dialect, or are they a group of dialects?Skookum1 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Grace Marsh[edit]

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

Well-sourced article, but questionable notability. Let's decide here. bender235 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As tragic as this is, she is simply not notable. In this day and age, I suspect many parents in this situation setup Facebook and Twitter campaigns. The article also reads like an advert for various charity campaigns. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts because Wikipedia is not a memorial. My condolences to this child's family and supporters, but she is not considered notable according to our well-established standards. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial as she isn't very notable and I think she is being honored on a Wikipedia article that isn't notable. WAYNESLAM 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates every principle of Wikipedia coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HealthAccessRI[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rd232 Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. The only reference provided is a mention on a talk show. This appears to be yet another in the "Jonathan Bertman" series of promotional articles. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, no indication of notability, no decent references. PhGustaf (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that the content of Social conservatism in Canada should really belong in Conservatism in Canada and the content of Conservatism in Canada should belong in Conservative Party of Canada, but this is something outside the scope of AfD and can be decided through further discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism in Canada[edit]

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

WP:OR. This could be a fine article, but it needs to have proper sources. Anything usable would have to be re-written. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed thin on sources. I have now added numerous recent RS and added details. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Conservatism in Canada, I should think.—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article on Conservatism in Canada is all about the Conservative Party in Canada and related parties and their electoral histories, and has almost no overlap. This is more about non-political attitudes. Rjensen (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it should have overlap, because it's called "Conservatism in Canada" and not "Conservative Party in Canada".—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of actual usage, "C"onservative refers to a specific party, whose policies may or not be "c"onservative. (indeed, the Conservative party in the last 50 or 100 years rarely has supported social conservatism.) The two meanings are quite distinct, but there is confusion because all Wikipedia article names are capitalized. Since the terms are very distinct two distinct articles are called for., There is no benefit in merging them. Rjensen (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the difference between kinds of conservatism. My position is that the two separate articles dealing with each distinct aspect should be Conservative Party of Canada and Conservatism in Canada, that much of the present content of Conservatism in Canada really belongs in Conservative Party of Canada, and that the content we're considering at this AfD belongs in Conservatism in Canada, because it's about a kind of Canadian conservatism (with a small "c").—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I agree with Marshall. However, the Conservative party in Canada has had several name changes, and the current name Conservative Party of Canada is actually quite recent, and will not serve for a historical article. Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Socialism is liberal not conservative Eret2 (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to revert this vote for being part of a disruptive campaign of vandalism, but it's just too hilarious. I'm sure the closing administrator will give it weight equal to the thought put into it originally. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject is as worthy of an article as most other political movement articles. It has been around long enough and edited by several editors, so IMO calling it "original research" is a stretch. Most importantly, sources provided since the AfD nomination help greatly. PK T(alk) 19:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. I was able to a find a ref to state the obvious about this org. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian International News Agency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be a non-notable "news" agency. Really, it seems more like a political outfit (see Assyrianism). The article lacks any secondary sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that a previous AfD on this exists where a block vote from WP:ARS appears to have taken place, I'll point out it was just ridiculous. Having a few passing mentions in The Christian Post, Crosswalk.com and similar outfits (United Press International --the new one-- says AINA translated a letter? OMG!) doesn't even come close to WP:N. I'd like to hear what editors not canvassed by the ARS rescue tag have to say. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand based on the number of incoming links. It is hard to find articles on news agencies since their own articles give so many hits. Try winnowing articles on any news agency and you will see the problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should keep it "as is" because we can't find sources, despite the rather dubious NPOV and WP:N issues? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even their web site aina.org is extremely sketchy. Based on their services page it hardly appears to be a typical news agency. I cannot find any substantive "about us" type of info. Their contact page is a bare HTML form. They seem to hardly qualify as WP:RS for use in articles, never mind WP:N. I think WP:WEB is the more appropriate standard to hold this org to. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an excerpt from one of their "news" reports: Obama and Islam: Considering the long history of Islamic extremism, the militancy of Islamic religious texts, and the justification that such texts provide for modern jihadist movements, the president's fawning rhetoric may be confused for mere ignorance. But as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer forcefully argue in their new pamphlet, "Obama and Islam," Obama's Islamophilic outreach represents something far more disturbing than naïveté: a conscious effort to appease Islamic supremacism in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, and an energetic willingness to pander to the Islamic world in general. How many news organizations refer to Obama's "fawning rhetoric" as a fact? Maybe Fox News? Even for that one you'd be hard to pressed to find "news" like this. And I haven't even bothered with AINA's editorial's section, although they have that as well. This is precisely the issue with writng an aritcle with no independent coverage: you either have to take the primary sources at face value, or engage in WP:OR to write anything beyond a claque. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if it is a political outfit as the nominator says, it should at least have a brief article on Wiki that indicates such. This kind of article and knowledge can be very informative to the reader.- KeptSouth (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zorek Richards[edit]

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

BLP with poor sourcing and no evident notability. Was speedied previously, but there is at least a claim of significance. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable independent sources to back up those claims. RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no credible source. (not counting Facebook and others) --Stone (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find anything either. --Triwbe (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This autobiographical article lacks reliable sources, does not establish notability and violates the neutral point of view. User has established a second account for religious advocacy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:BIO. His nearest brush with fame appears to be the time a U.S. Senator delivered a personal put-down that attested to the subject's non-notability. Qworty (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow (2010 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still non-notable film which is still to be released. Corvus cornix_talk 02:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To politely disagree with the nominator, the film had releases in Poland (Polish Horror Festiwal) and the US (Vermont International Film Festival) in October, 2010. The search parameter as set by the findsources above is useless. Looking to the article itself, one sees that it has enough genre coverage, specially for a non-US film, to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of Wikipedia:Notability (films) does this film meet? Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being released and having significant coverage. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand that an independent horror film by a Polish filmmaker would have the same coverage as does big-budget highly-touted blockbusters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and yes, I opined a "keep or incubate" at the no-consensus keep AFD of last July as we had no reports of it being screened but production was getting coverage. With the expected release, that has now changed, and I can feel firmer in my keep this time around. It had coverage then,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and has even more now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writer (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- And yes... since opining, I have been addressing some of the article's issues per Film MOS, to fix reference formats and to make it more encyclopedic.[12] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - erroneous nomination? Seems it has been released, and has been discussed in multiple sources, so I don't see the problem.--Kotniski (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Would be a textbook WP:SOFIXIT keep, but the delete side raises some valid doubts about whether the problems can be fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of social software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced list. AFD closed as "keep but source" in December 2007 and as usual, no one's been arsed to fix the damn thing so it's just sitting around rotting. I really don't think this list serves much purpose if no one can be bothered to even touch it; what's more, the definition is nebulous on the social software article, and the list lacks focus. Another user tried to nominate this but didn't finish the process, instead appending their !vote to the last discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I see no reason to delete it. Tag age is irrelevant. The social software page is cited and so is notable; having a nebulous definition on that page is no reason to delete the list. Rather, it's justification for improving the social software page. Try improving the page yourself.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With what? I see nothing to improve it with. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, perhaps you could start by modifying the definition to be more concise, and cite it accordingly?—RJH (talk)

delete the "keep but source" conclusion of the last afd (based on what 3 !votes?) has as pointed out, resulted in "keep but not source" which is a violation of basic wikipedia guidelines WP:V. WP:LIST. If no sources have been found in three years, those claiming that such sources exist really need to WP:PROVEIT. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some sources. Perhaps you can spend two minutes to locate a couple more?—RJH (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:SOFIXIT. This navigational list is encyclopedic and I've added two more references myself. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor and delete. Everything this page tries to do can better be provided by ~~categories,~~ Social software and links to lists of specific types of social software. --Pnm (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor examples:

Create Category:Social software underneath Category:Social media.
Blogs: Create List of blog software, merge to Blog software, or delete. (The list of blog software seems absurdly incomplete.)
Social bookmarking: Split to current redirect List of social bookmarking websites. Use Category:Social bookmarking for the rest.
Personals: Merge with List of online dating websites and remove.
IRC: Remove. Already mentioned at Social software. In Social software, link to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
Instant messaging: Remove. In Social software, link to Comparison of instant messaging clients.

--Pnm (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While categories would be a great addition, per WP:CLN such navigational lists are still not redundant to categories. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the bit about categories (which I think was confusing). Also, I populated Category:Social software and made some more edits to the article under discussion. I still think individual lists linked from Social software will be more helpful. --Pnm (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Textbook WP:NOEFFORT nomination. Obvious and strong navigational aid of notable software, list is not indiscriminate and has a clear cut selection criteria. Requiring editing is not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. We do not have a deadline so the list can stay aeons in this state and everything be jolly good: we're a voluntary project where people pick up stuff if and when they want it. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingy lord of the cats[edit]

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

Not a real article. Hiroe (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G3 applies. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Nonsensical jibberish. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Baumwoll[edit]

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

Delete. Person is not notable. Wrote two books, which do not appear to have received critical acclaim. She appears to support herself by teaching, where she has apparently won some awards. A fine person, I am sure, but just not particularly noteworthy or notable. Presence here seems WP:SPAM for the books. Student7 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly suspect the books in question are self-published or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has had several segments on national television ([13]), she has a chapter on her in the book "More Best Practices for Middle School Classrooms: What Award-Winning Teachers Do" (google book, chapter 30), Apparently news crews have come to visit her classroom (cant find any clip, but evidence of such here), she has had an article about her in the The Star-Ledger, cant find this article online but it is quoted here on the bottom of page 16. Seems pretty notable as far as teachers go. extransit (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the article describes her, not as a "noted teacher" but as a "children's author." While it is nice to have multiple talents, most people don't. She is either a "notable author" which she doesn't seem to be, or she is a "noted teacher." While teaching is noted in her article, it doesn't seem that prominent. Student7 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of her books is in zero US libraries, the other is in two. This is not even remotely notability DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor Characters in Kushiel's Legacy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thelesis de Mornay[edit]

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

Once again, no real-world notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to minor characters article, as noted in the mergeto template already in the article. --Jayron32 05:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge as suggested above. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Everything out there is either self-released or fansites, also searched with her Japanese name, ルシファ・ラセス・ヴィオルヌ, without luck. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO —J04n(talk page) 07:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 07:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 07:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable, secondary that I can find a variety of searches. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Staab[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. The Allmusic credits page for the album that he states on his website that he was nominated for a Grammy for, Sacred Spirit, Vol. 2: More Chants and Dances of Native, does not list him. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. —J04n(talk page) 07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am also unable to find reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sources in order to meet GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AllMusic does list him, assuming that the article's claim that he is "The Brave" is accurate. However being the engineer for a Grammy nominated album is a very weak claim to fame (if it was nominated in a technical category it may just squeak by, but there's no indication of that.) Pburka (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For notability, sources are not required to be added to an article; they merely must exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Breaker[edit]

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

Movie with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bone Breaker is listed for filmmaker Sergio Esquenazi at Argentina Films,[14] but not at IMDB[15].., but then IMBD is not the best source for all films ever made, and the topic is searchable.[16][17] I suggest input from Argentinian Wikiedians with access to hardcopy sources to supplement what is available online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is weeks old now, and has had a PROD, a speedy, and an AFD removed, yet still does not provide any references or other claim of notability.--Dmol (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pardon me, but being "weeks old" for an article not in violation of WP:NOT or WP:BLP is not a valid deletion argument. And as Argentinian sources exist allowing a presumption toward notability (they need not BE in the article), are we now not allowed, per encouraged efforts to counter systemic bias, to even allow the least bit of patience that an Argentinian Wikipedian might stumble upon this article in en.Wikipedia and then decide to improve it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- You are missing my point. I mentioned the age of the article to illustrate that the original editor has had plenty of time to add references that show notability but has not done so. The tags for speedy, Prod, and AFD all make mention of the same need for notability to be shown. We do not keep non notable articles that someone might come along to later and decide to work on, especially when the article does not even claim any notability, and indeed, even says that the film was poorly distributed.--Dmol (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response The article makes an obvious claim to notability in its asserting to be a film from a notable director. Your assertion seems to be that the topic must somehow automatically be non-notable simply because available sources have not yet been added to the article. That is not per guideline. What guideline encourages, is that with an availability of sources, a "presumption" of notabiliy might be made, and newness of an article is not the sole deciding factor. And yes, per guideline, we can indeed choose to keep sourcable articles on notable topics so that editors may address issues through regular editing as they are able. And my point in turn when addressing your concern addressed at a new editor, is that while these tags might mean something to experienced editors, they mean next to nothing to a new editor with but 13 career edits, and a newbie not knowing how to edit and expand and source articles is perhaps forgivable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Theodoulou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. The problem here is that while the name is certainly out there, it's all bylines and such, and not anything substantial about the subject rather than by the subject. And when I Google the name, the first ghit I get is an unrelated podiatrist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been unable to identify any sources or factors that demonstrate that this topic falls squarely within the inclusion guidelines. However, as noted at the previous AfD (I will be notifying the previous participants of this nomination), coverage of journalists is notoriously light. Worse such coverage is particularly difficult to find given the prevalence of search hits using the journalist's name—the more prolific the journalist, the more bylines (and bylines don't always conveniently take easily excluded forms such as "by X"). A Google books search for "Michael Theodoulou" will demonstrate that his articles have been cited reasonably often in serious works by independent authors, and he has been interviewed as an expert on at least one occasion (I suspect many more).

For the record, I have attempted to find any awards or honors received by the subject, and have been unable to do so. ^Bongo_matic 00:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Videoconferencing. (and delete original contents) Courcelles 05:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3D Videoconference[edit]

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

blatant spam describing a single product, just read the first line of the 2nd paragraph. speedy declined WuhWuzDat 17:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a 3D videoconference is possible, or will be soon anyway. It is not so clear that it will be a notable topic as distinct from plain old videoconference. This article mainly talks about the technology of 3D video, a topic that should be covered in other articles already. Borock (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined the speedy delete on this. The article does seem to focus on a single implementation, but doesn't actually name a company or product. Its a copy and translation from the Spanish Language wiki es:Videoconferencia 3D. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. Article is not promotional, it's in the process of being converted from Spanish language wiki to here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(borderline) Keep - I looked at the article first and felt that I could not justify speedy deletion. It does need serious cleanup though, particularly on context. Deb (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this entry is about a particular attempt at 3D conferencing, with no evidence of notability. Appears to be only a research project at the moment. Appearing on the Spanish language wiki is not evidence of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the promotional intent. Although this appears on several Wikipedias, it was written (at least substantially) by the same user on all 3. Looking over the article, its just not worth saving: it has very limited notability, it is largely unsourced (and perhaps unsourceable), and it isn't written in encyclopedic tone. Even if (and this is a big if) the subject were notable it would still need a complete overhaul. Them From Space 18:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Videoconferencing. Per Hairhorn, it's unencyclopedic: it's about a specific theoretical implementation. There's no evidence of WP:N or WP:V. --Pnm (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2010 UK student protests. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jody McIntyre[edit]

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

Seems to fall into both WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is a disabled political activist who was manhandled from his wheelchair by the police during a demonstration and dragged along the ground. He subsequently received a less than sympathetic response from some members of the media. This article seems to have been created in rsponse to a BBC interview conducted on 13 December which received a raft of complaints because of the tone of the interviewer, an article which appeared in the Daily Mail, and the subsequent media furore this has created. The article was PRODded for deletion earlier, but I feel a discussion is probably more appropriate as there appears to be at least one other incident he has been involved in. I would personally favour redirecting this to an appropriate article if we have one as he clearly has some notability, but he doesn't seem to meet the guidelins for his own article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually I've just found 2010 UK student protests which I feel is an appropriate place to redirect this, so I'll withdraw the debate and do that. The information can be added to that article as the incident itself is notable and worthy of mention. If Mr McIntyre becomes notable in other respects then we can always restart this article later. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the tag's still there, I've taken the liberty of reopening, especially as a contested PROD. Basically, the nom has summed up my reason for prodding it in the first place; McIntyre is simply not notable enough, as a living person, to warrant an article. Normally with people notable for one event but the event is notable in itself, we focus on the event, not the person. An example is the Death of Ian Tomlinson, as Tomlinson wasn't notable, but his death was. However, I don't believe there is enough information to warrant a "dragging of Jody McIntyre out of his wheelchair" article. The alternative is to merge to 2010 UK student protests, but that article already contains information about McIntyre and any more would disrupt the [[WP:WEIGHT|[[ of the article. Hence, we should redirect the article, at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with you. I actually added what I thought was relevant of this to the Student protest article (which I wasn't aware of when I opened this afd), so I think that might be the information you're referring to. Much as this generated a lot of media interest because what happened to him is a disgrace, and the behaviour of the police - and some in the media - leaves a lot to be dsired, I don't think he's notable enough for his own article. But as I said, the event itself is noteworthy of mention in the context of the student protests. I closed the debate because I thought it was resolved and had been the one to start it, and redirected the page to 2010 UK student protests, but it seems the article's creator had different ideas. Having said all that, I've no problem if people want to keep this debate open for a few days and add their thoughts. For the record I'm still in favour of a redirect. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just watched a new interview on the Guardian with Jody McIntyre, and came to Wikipedia to find out who he was. I'm American, and although I was vaguely aware of an incident with police roughing up a man in a wheelchair at the education demonstrations, I appreciated finding a succinct article explaining who he is. A redirect would probably explain the subject, but the present article seems more worthy of Wikipedia than gigabytes of irrelevant self-promotion to be found in this site... :) Nimmolo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

He is now a regular writer for The Independent newspaper - http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/jody-mcintyre/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.30.56 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could make him more notable, although lots of people write for newspapers and we don't have articles for all of them. Taken together with the demo and the Palestine stuff, however, it's adding weight to the case for a keep. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unequivocal WP:BIO1E, little doubt he would have had zero attention had it not been for that incident. Also substantial neutrality issues, but that's secondary to the lack of notability outside of one event. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A clear WP:BLP1e at this point in time. However given that he is now a commentator for the Independent, my crystal ball tells me we should be open to article recreation in the not too distant future. Not merging now, however, would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per my previous comments. Still not notable enough for his own article, but may become so in time depending on what else he does. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should stay, but it's disappointing when contributions are deleted. I pointed to a blog written by the subject which doesn't portray him quite such a victim and found it deleted very quickly. If the page continues to be used as propoganda it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richeva (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure the page is being used as propaganda, but I'm concerned that the addition of the link has some agenda attached to it, particularly with the comments you made. As I've said, we're not a news service, and this article was seemingly created because of a news item. If you wish to editorialise about this subject there are plenty of forums where you can do so, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. His blogging and other writings, alas, do not qualify him per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InSTAR[edit]

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

Unsourced and no indication of WP:notability. High school program specific to a single high school. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. T3h 1337 b0y 20:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is lacking. Them From Space 18:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudpung (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabilis (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can find no reliable sources to verify the article. A previous AFD resulted in keep due to meeting one criteria of WP:BAND. I don't think passing WP:BAND is enough as they are not generally notable. Mattg82 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having members from the notable This Ascension and the less notable The Machine in the Garden isn't quite enough to pass WP:BAND on its own, which was the reasoning for keeping in the first AFD, but this one probably scrapes through on coverage: Allmusic review, Re-gen: [18], [19], [20]--Michig (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and Michig. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Boat[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:ORG Spatulli (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. This article has seven references from a variety of boating publications. The main problem is that all are by the same author. A lesser problem is that the references are not formatted and presented in accordance with Wikipedia standards. That can be easily corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Google News shows articles in 1962 from the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal about Chris Craft's purchase of this company. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There are many mentions of this company in Google Books going back over 100 years. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is harmless company history for a longstanding company. It would be better if it was named Thompson Bros Boat Mfg Co, which appears to be the corporate name. My only concern is that all the references are to articles by the same author, all in what may well be fairly ephemeral boating magazines, rather than the best academic sources. However, that is a not uncommon problem in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is going to need some work to bring it up to standard, but the required level of coverage would appear to be available. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. If the assertions in the aticle check out (such as Thompson's dominance for a while as a maker of outboard motors) suspect that it will probbaly be possible to demonstrate notability for this company. However, notability has not been demonstrated so far. Lots of articles, but all by the same author, and is this person independent of the company?
I'd give it the the benefit of the doubt and say keep, but can't decide whether that's just because I love wooden boats, so I'll sit on the fence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CST32 Theory (Currency Space and Time)[edit]

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

Completely original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there a speedy criteria for this? This is just unacceptable, whatever it is. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. A Google search of the Web for "CST32 Theory" found Wikipedia only. Google Scholar and Google Books searches found nothing. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a personal essay. 65.93.12.65 (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay about a non-notable topic...and written in the first person (with question marks, even). Looks like it's a white Christmas after all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and, apparently, WP:SNOW. Ezhuks (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I see snow outside. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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