< 13 December	15 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gayly Oklahoman[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper. Google shows hits, but I don't see anything substantial from clearly reliable sources in the first few pages. Google Books can establish that it existed, but little more. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In looking over those links, I find they fall into three categories: Wiki mirrors, directory listings and the rare citation on an online resume. Nary a reliable source discussing this years-defunct publication in "significant detail" to be found. Beyond that, with the See Also links referring to a purported LGBT neighborhood in Oklahoma City and to the 2004 anti-same-sex-marriage referendum, this looks like a coatrack for Oklahoman LGBT topics. Ravenswing 15:20, 15 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) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fareham West[edit]

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

A scouting district that makes no claim of notability. All refs and ex-links are self-published. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero independent coverage. Z - E - R - O. EEng (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this local Scouting district. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 21 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) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factoryase[edit]

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

Factoryase (factory + -ase) is a portmanteau not used in any independent source (reliable or otherwise). Boghog (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Boghog (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Google schlar gives no hits. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note – the creator of the article, Betaclamp (see Talk:Factoryase) has agreed to the deletion. Boghog (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 21 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) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carvelli[edit]

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

Not notable Kittybrewster ☎ 21:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was unable to find any third party coverage in any google news or google books hits. The RIAA link provided by the article creator also revealed no content for the artist at RIAA. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC -- Alexf^(talk) 14:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable performer, appears to be self-promotion from his promotion company. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I cite offline published sources? There are published charity and chart placement information.Bmcglobal (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)— Bmcglobal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See Wikipedia:Citing sources -- Alexf^(talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local performer; article created and maintained almost exclusively by account whose name matches his corporate name, and admits she works for him. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and article created by conflict of interest user. Netalarm^talk 20:19, 19 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential[edit]

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

No secondary sources for this compilation album. Only sources are primary. The fact that several albums in this series have certified platinum means that those individual albums are notable but the series isn't. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 Biggest Hits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Hits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection — same reasoning holds up here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can easily be converted to a list of The Essential albums or a disambiguation page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same reasons as found in the AfDs for similar series as linked in this nomination. Individual albums within the series can stand or fall on their own merits, but the series has not achieved notability as an entity separate from the albums within it. Also, the disambig list idea is a pretty good one. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:25, 15 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) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federlandese (coin)[edit]

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

This article is a hoax. A google search returns only items that directly or indirectly came from this Wikipedia article. Had the coin been real, it would have been a highly notable subject. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this book on Goths that mentions the Federlandese in it's synopsis. Besides, this is clearly not an "obvious hoax", let's not punish people who may have obscure knowledge of coins by preemptively deleting their articles.AerobicFox (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I renew my objection. Although I can see how the word "Federlandese" may not receive any other results but it's German equivalents "fædreland", "fædrelandet", and "fædrelande" all do receive many results. It's not too hard of a stretch to imagine Federlandese just being a poor English translation attempting to avoid using the "æ" character.
  Nonetheless, without the user commenting back I think the below evidence pointed out fairly adds too much questionability to this article for it to be kept without references. AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Fædreland" and equivalents in other Germanic languages simply means fatherland, so it doesn't contribute to the reliability of the information in the article. Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. The book above is a machine print of Wikipedia articles. Article is likely a hoax. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's literally zero reason to assume this is a hoax and not just a poorly sourced article on an obscure subject.AerobicFox (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well besides the fact that there are no sources on the web or in Google Books mentioning this coin, the article and photo were both contributed by a user with zero other edits (but who is somehow completely familiar with Wikipedia article-writing conventions). That's plenty suspicious enough for me. If sources turn up later, the article can easily be recreated. Kaldari (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had this "coin" been real, it would have pre-dated the oldest known Scandinavian coins by perhaps ~800 years, so we would have heard of it elsewhere. Also, people in Scandinavia didn't have a monetary economy 2100 years ago. Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That link's not working for me. Yes it is, now. Only mentions the word, not the coin. The article was created by someone who set up a userpage detailing their languages in one go, created this article (also in one go) and then disappeared. (I am assuming they didn't create anything else subsequently deleted, as their talk page was created today by Ten Pound Hammer - or an otter - and so there have been no warnings.) I would be interested to hear from Defroll77 as to their source of info, and where they photographed this coin. It is listed as 'own work' in the picture info. I would also like anyone to point out the runes on the coin. Also, I quote from Runic alphabet, "The earliest runic inscriptions date from around AD 150", which is about 250 years after this alleged Gothic coin. I can't see anything resembling the Elder Futhark or Old Italic scripts there. Not in enough quantity to spell out the coin's name. Another point is that at the period in question, the Goths were probably still on ring money - and their coins when produced later were imitations of Roman ones. This coin reminds me of something, but I couldn't say what. Referring to "obscure knowledge of coins", I would say this user's knowledge is so obscure as to constitute original research. One last thing - I would not normally quote Yahoo! Answers, but I found this: Q "What is "Books LLC"? Publisher? I have noticed they have compiled some articles from Wikipedia and have published them as books. Can anybody do the same thing?" I think we can say goodbye to that source as showing anything more than commercial mirroring... Peridon (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Books, LLC, or User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources#Wikipedia mirrors, instead. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again I am very inclined to think this is a hoax - and one of the best I've come across so far. As a hoax, I'd give it 9/10. The dating is wrong, and the 'own work' picture lets it down too. Peridon (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the image at least: if you take a closer look on the "two" coins you will see that this is one coin (or whatever), mirrored, only the inner part is edited. At the outer part all is identically, all shapes, all damages, all rust. So the image at least isnt real. For the article it is quite obvious that this is a hoax. E.g. the claim of coining in northern europe in 1st century BC can not fly. A vague suspicion is the it.wp connection of our user Defroll77. The only other hit for that Fedelandese thing leads to a troll image in it.wp added by a user Cam22 with similar editing pattern short before on November 25 2009 (that image is a copyvio too). --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out though, the "two coins" are actually just supposed to be one coin, front and back. That's why they're the same shape...AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed Martin H.s point. You could tell from the two images that they were originally one and the same image. That image had then been mirrored in photoshop, after which the obverse and reverse design features had been added, also in photoshop (or something similar). Alfons Åberg (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, at least one side of the coin is not existant, its only a mirrored and edited variant of the other side. Supposably the back side is fake, it contains a Langnese heart logo and a smily face. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, thats funny now. Cam22 added the Federlandese troll image. 93.48.97.181 added it in it.wp. 93.48.97.181 also edited the article nds-nl:Pigazzano, that article history here in en.wp, Pigazzano, leads us to an deleted image, deleted on Commons because of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Federlandia. Obviously there already was some crosswiki vandalism with hoax articles resolved. This is only a comeback. --Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleted the image since it is obviously a fake, and thus out of scope. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so many gross historical inaccuracies that this qualifies as an obvious hoax. In fact I wonder why the "speedy" was removed from this article (and am even more surprised by the "rescue" tag). But then again, I only became aware of this after the image was deleted, so I can't say whether the picture may possibly have made the hoax more believable as I haven't seen it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peridon made a good case for this being an obvious hoax. You can't have a coin that uses writing that wasn't invented until centuries after it was made. Dream Focus 18:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hoax is obvious to some, but not others. I've unspeedied more than one article tagged as hoax by adding refs to show it was real (and ended up referencing a Norwegian article in one case - I went there for refs, they hadn't got any, so I found one or two). I would be unlikely to spot a hoax concerning American football (if it isn't all one anyway...), or Turkish politics. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well, but that is also why I refrain from unspeedying articles on those subjects, I know I am not qualified to make that call. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the picture making it more believable - yes, it did. It must have done. This article has been on here for 12 months. Only when it was looked at closely did it fail. I've seen real subjects that at first sight looked much more hoax-like than this - Bobble-head doll syndrome was one that sounded fake from the word go. But it wasn't. What I immediately didn't like about the coin was the lack of visibility of the claimed runes and the presence of a Mr Chad-like face (see Kilroy was here. And others obviously didn't like it either... But only after the nominator had brought it to our attention. (I must have missed its appearance - I patrol New Accounts - but with it being a single edit creation, that's very possible.) Peridon (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some one can provide a WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 19 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. L Faraone 23:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap paradox[edit]

Advanced search for:
"knowledge paradox"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

Advanced search for:
"information paradox"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

Advanced search for:
"bootstrap paradox"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

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

Note. I've moved the article from the old title Ontological paradox to a new title Bootstrap paradox. --Lambiam 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel knows that this is not a serious problem discussed in any depth anywhere. No scholarly reference could be found, and this article is purportedly written about a scholarly subject. That's the challenge for someone who wants to keep this article afloat. Godsoflogic (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has seriously studied the philosophical problems of time travel (including people such as Michael Lockwood) would know that the real problem with this article is simply its name, and that the name used in the literature is information paradox/knowledge paradox (more rarely bootstrap paradox). Anyone who was experienced with MediaWiki, furthermore, would know that simple exercise of the page move tool and the editing tool can fix this problem, deletion tool not required. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I have not read this article sufficiently closely or have mistaken it for something else. I thought that the article purports to be on a different problem than the information paradox-one that deals with material objects instead of information. I agree that the information problem is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsoflogic (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about the "seriousness" of this problem, but it appears notable in fiction as is seen by the extensive list of examples here. Maybe rename to List of fictional portrayals of time travel paradoxes or something.--Pontificalibus (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that last. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is most definitely not the way to go, here. Uncle G (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge/move to information paradox or some list of paradoxes related to time travel. I think paradoxes in general are interesting enough to warrant a mention and a short explanation on wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Can be found in the physics as well as the popular literature, e.g. Krasnikov, S. (2002). "Time travel paradox". Physical Review D. 65. arXiv:gr-qc/0109029. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65f4013K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.064013., Päs, H.; Pakvasa, S.; Dent, J.; Weiler, T. (2009). "Closed timelike curves in asymmetrically warped brane universes". Phys Rev D. 80 (4): 044008. arXiv:gr-qc/0603045. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d4008P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044008., Dyson, L. (2004). "Chronology Protection in String Theory". Journal of High Energy Physics. 2004 (3): 024. arXiv:hep-th/0302052. Bibcode:2004JHEP...03..024D. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/03/024., http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/2058/1/dissertation.pdf, Toomey, David M. (2007). The new time travelers: a journey to the frontiers of physics. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 259. ISBN 0-393-06013-6., Matt Visser (1995). Lorentzian wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking. New York: American Institute of Physics. p. 213. ISBN 1-56396-394-9., George Musser (2008). The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory (Complete Idiot's Guide to). Indianapolis, IN: Alpha. p. 131. ISBN 1-59257-702-4. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable topic. --Monterey Bay (talk) 23:32, 19 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Kane[edit]

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

Lack of sources, not quite notable enough Glimmer721 ^talk 17:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not properly completed by the nominator. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub with some plot and naming of the appearances, no indication of WP:NOTABILITY. If there was a series article on the Mighty franchise, the character should be merged/redirected there. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 15 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Caldwell[edit]

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

Fixing malformatted AFD. Rationale by nominator was "No sourcing for over six months, article is little more than a biography of a fictitious character of questionable notability. No real world context. Also see deletion arugments presented above." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator would be me. Original deletion discussion was part of a multi-item AFD, see here Doniago (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion or evidence of independent notability substantiated by citations to significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original nomination and User:EEMIV. Dismas|^(talk) 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Ocean's Trilogy characters. The same should be done with Danny Ocean and Rusty Ryan in their current state. Short sections on the main characters would be entirely appropriate there (and can also be expanded with some real-world info if available), but otherwise I agree with nom than fictional biographies alone do not make for a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article seems to have many of the same problems that Linus Caldwell is currently experiencing, actually. I'm uncomfortable with merging an AFD article into an article that currently looks like another potential AFD candidate. Doniago (talk) 14:20, 15 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 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man Cave, LLC[edit]

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

Non-notable company, advertising, db-corp tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 19:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally requested speedy. Was planning on AfDing eventually, so thanks to Corvus for saving me the hassle. Grsz 11 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just spam for a non-notable company. Peacock (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a product list for a non-notable company. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 15 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} 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jody L Millard[edit]

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

Dubious notability and factual accuracy; no record of this guy playing football for Florida State or the Seattle Seahawks; article likely created by subject Jweiss11 (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm okay with speedy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the Speedy request because I found him on IMDB. So not a hoax, though there's no record on NFL.com of his playing for the Seahawks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw his profile on the IMDb as well before I created this AfD; see [1]. His TV and film appearances noted there appear to be mostly, if not all, uncredited. This guy probably falls into the "unabashed self-promoter with low credentials" category. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 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} 20:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic ten perspective[edit]

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

There are zero Google hits for this term, looks like something WP:MADEUP. The originator of the article removed a PROD and PROD2 tag from the article without explanation. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I was the initial PRODder) -- has absolutely zero coverage or significance that I can find, probably made up. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention anywhere. EEng (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed it again just now to see if it's as much incomprehensible doubletalk as I remembered. It's not. It's even more incomprehensible than I remembered. EEng (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another vague business method built up around yet another list of glittering generalities and abstract nouns, claiming to be a very comprehensive, robust and rigorous framework which can be used for in-depth analysis of business cases, scenarios and real situations. I removed a link to the website of the business this article was meant to promote. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:04, 15 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 List of county roads in Putnam County, Florida. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida)[edit]

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

This article has previously survived AFD, and PROD, but has not been improved at all since then. The article is an orphan, and makes no statement as to why it passes the WP:GNG. Admrboltz (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The statement that the article makes no claim to notability is false; the route is a former state road and states as such in the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because its a former state road does not make it notable. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also U.S. Roads WikiProject notability guidelines. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Improved refs. I personally have no problem with having the article redirected to a list of roads, but the existing Florida state roads list needs much improvement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that this article meets WP:GNG. Yes, it might be a former state road, but I don't think that is an automatic pass to meet GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The article is a former state route, which gives it grounds for notability, but the article needs improvements. I could easily add a route description, junction list, and infobox to make this a decent article on a former state route. Dough 48 72 20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add a history of the roads through my apartment complex, complete with junction lists. That doesn't make them notable either. Imzadi 1979 → 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In terms of notability, I would draw the line between state routes (no matter when they existed) and county routes for having their own articles. Since this is a former state route, it can warrant an article. Had this been the 1960s, we would not even be having this discussion. Dough 48 72 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't the 1960s, and we are having this discussion. Even if this were a current state road, it still might not be notable on its own. My rule of thumb has been: state highways are notable until proven otherwise, county road are not notable until proven otherwise. Just being a former state road isn't enough to tip the scales towards notability, so I vote delete. Imzadi 1979 → 20:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Putnam County, Florida. Dough 48 72 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere or delete. Might be notable, but not for its own article. --Rs chen 7754 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I think would be best for Florida is for someone to create a list of former state highways in Florida, as has been suggested for months at Former State Roads in east central Florida. That way, all of these ex-State Roads that don't appear to merit individual articles - such as this one - can be covered somewhere. For now, this should be redirected to List of county roads in Putnam County, Florida. – TMF 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Putnam County, Florida, although if somebody can create more lists of former state roads in other regions of Florida, I'd consider a redirect to there instead. ----DanTD (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that page exists already? Then Redirect to List of county roads in Putnam County, Florida, and I'll see if I can shake the time tree to get time to do a former state roads list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can be improved with an infobox and navbox. The infobox would display the basic information on the right side of the page, and the navbox would make it not an orphan. Linda Olive (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it can be improved. But is it notable? --Rs chen 7754 05:12, 17 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} 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Barfield, 12th Baronet of Linlithgow[edit]

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

Inheriting the title of baronet is not, of itself, notable. The article appears to fail the WP:BIO guidelines. PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Note baronets are called "Sir", like a knight, but are considered a commoner and a baronetcy is not a peerage. Fæ (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but make text available if anyone requests it to write an article on Linlithgow Baronets. Individual holders of Baronetcies are not automatically notable although the titles themselves are. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. Peerage.com is used as a source, but does not mention this family name.[2] There appears to have been an Earldom of Linlithgow (attainted in 1715) [3] and a Marquess which belongs to a different family name than the one claimed in the article.[4] Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no substantive claim of notability for the individual, also as an unreferenced BLP. Leigh Rayment's complete baronetage page lists no baronetcy for this family name [5]. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does not add to the plausibility to see that the first version of this article refers to "James Barfield, 12th Baronet of Kirkliston". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable at best and hoax at worst. Google Books and Google Scholar return no relevant hits for the search terms Barfield Linlithgow or Barfield Kirkliston. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a baronet would not make him notable, and anyway there is no evidence that he is one: none of the cited sources mentions him, and neither "Barfield of Linlithgow" nor "Barfield of Kirkliston" appears in the List of baronets. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 19 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} 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boss Level" in Ancient Literature[edit]

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

See WP:NOT for the many and various reasons for deletion of this ESSAY WuhWuzDat 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout this semester the class has constantly talked about […]" is fairly revealing. Yes, this is someone's thesis, presented as a class essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a report. One of the sections even has question marks all over the place. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmmm... interesting concept, but not the stuff of encyclopedias until it is discussed in secondary sources... and then it will probably be under a more general title. Borock (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Was tempted to close this as a speedy, but none of the categories fit. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but fails WP:OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 15 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 and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nagging[edit]

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

Contested prod (I also tried redirecting to wiktionary but was reverted). This is a dictionary definition that's already adequately covered in wiktionary here. Basically, just juvenile humour verging on vandalism - see Talk page. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY andy (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a definition. An uncited definition. And examples. But only examples of the idea (with no ref actually using the topic-term for it) not of the term itself. So...WP:OR analysis of a WP:DICTDEF, and I don't see a direction that it could expand to contain any more than cited material that would be part of a wikt entry. DMacks (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article's creator has now been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. andy (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary (as Andyjsmith previously attempted). It is dictionary content supplemented with tenuously related examples of what one has to assume are meant to illustrate people who engage in the practice. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the original author is blocked I'd be happy to go with a soft redirect. andy (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition because it does not have a lexical focus. It is obviously possible to write more upon this topic as it is commonplace and so has been extensively studied. For some sources see:

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Oh for goodness sake! It was written as an act of vandalism, it doesn't go beyond a very poor dicdef, so what exactly do you want to keep? Why not simply write a whole new article to replace this one - and do it yourself rather than saying that someone could do better? Anyway you've forgotten disambiguation - we need to be able to differentiate nagging as scolding from nagging as niggling pains or nagging as awkward memories. You'll find more in the subject in wiktionary (?!) andy (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous technical errors in your argument.

This is not a WP:DICDEF because it has no focus upon a particular word - no etymology, spelling, grammar &c. That policy explains that editors are often confused by the shortness of an article but that this is no reason to consider the item as a dicdef.
The complaint that you are making is instead WP:PERMASTUB - that the article is not able to be expanded. But this has been rebutted by pointing to sources which demonstrate such potential.

Actually, the article muddles up the dictionary definition and the behavioural phenomenon of nagging. It's the latter that might be worth an article - but this isn't it.

You say that the article should be written afresh. But this is not our editing policy. We do not keep deleting articles until someone gets it right. We keep them in mainspace so that numerous editors may slowly improve the article over time. This early draft has made a good start by citing the nagging letter from an Assyrian wife. This is supported by a citation of the BBC, which is a reliable source, and is easily confirmed - see A history of the ancient Near East. This sourced material should be kept, as advised by our editing policy.

It's not an early draft. Mostly the purpose of the present article is as a vehicle for juvenile humour - e.g. on the talk page the author refers to his "jackass links" and the "cheap shot" about Hilary Clinton. He describes the article as a laugh and himself as a smartass. Remove the rubbish and what is left? A single quotation which is not set in any kind of context. Let's face it, not every article can be rescued.

You describe the article is vandalism. This description fails to assume good faith. It seems that this editor has been bitten before and so has something to say about this on the talk page. But the article itself does not editorialise in this way and, even if it did, this wouldn't be vandalism. The most one might say is that the article is tongue-in-cheek. But we have lots of articles like this and we commonly feature such an article on April 1st. See wife selling for a similar example. This was thought so ridiculous that some mainstream media described it as a hoax. But it was 100% accurate and so the joke was upon them. Don't let this happen to you.

I did assume good faith, right up to the point where it became clear that the author was a vandal (now blocked for it). andy (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you challenge me to do this work myself. Be careful what you wish for...

No, I do wish for it. Please be my guest. If you can turn it into a real article I'll withdraw my nomination. andy (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best we can hope for here is a dictionary definition, at worst this will end up being a basket of sentences where people give examples of what they see as nagging. A redirect to wiktionary would be acceptable as well. AniMate 10:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, by WP:DICDEF, this is not a dictionary definition. And "basket of sentences" is an empty criticism, not a policy-based argument. See WP:RUBBISH. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments for deletion appear to be two-fold. Firstly that the article was written by an editor now blocked, as an act of vandalism. But even if true that would be irrelevant so long as the product was good. Secondly, that this is now and could never be more than a dictionary definition, which as CW has demonstrated above is patently untrue. Nagging has sociological and psychological effects on the nagger and the nagee, something that would be outside the scope of a simple dictionary definition to explore. That no editor has yet stepped up to expand this stub is not an argument for deletion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now is fine. It is more than just a definition. Google book search shows many books have been published about nagging. Dream Focus 17:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article can be and has been rescued with the addition of more reliable sources from scholarship on alcohol abuse and related topics. Thanks to Colonel Warden. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a disparate scattering of uses of a term (and in one case, non-use of the term) demonstrates neither notability nor that the topic is a fit subject for an encyclopaedic article. You could as easily come up with such a grab-bag of sources for an article (NOT a disambiguation page, Colonel Warden) on People in history named Robert, Brown dog, Things that smell like strawberries, or who knows what else. As WP:IINFO states: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the Google book search results that have "Nagging" in their title, and which are clearly about this concept? Dream Focus 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What about all the Google book search results that have"... brown dog ..."in their title"? I would note that the 'nagging' titles use the term more frequently in terms of either "nagging sense of...", "nagging questions", "nagging, pleading, and threatening", "nagging, nit-picking, & nudging", "Yelling, Nagging and Pleading", (and even in one instance as a metaphor in computer searches) than baldly -- meaning that there is considerably less than full clarity about the concept, which appears to bleed into a wide range of related concepts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This sounds a little bit like original research to me. This "rescue" process has taken a dictionary definition, emptied the article of all content except for the title and rebuilt it in a manner that supports only one out of several meanings of the term from a psychological perspective. What about a linguistic perspective, for example? The fact is that there is no single such thing as nagging. And btw that's all in wiktionary in a very succinct form. andy (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we have an article on nagging can we have articles on pestering or bothering? AniMate 12:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we (i) turn nagging into a disambiguation page, (ii) move this article to nagging (behaviour), and (iii) allow nagging (doubt) and nagging (question). Clear WP:Systemic bias, don't you think? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in article and above. Content of article extends beyond dictionary definition and into academic study of behaviour. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? This is one (Western, psychological, anti-feminist) aspect of "nagging". A proper treatment would start with disambiguation and then consider a far wider range of academic interpretations. Personally I find the emphasis in this article on the alleged female aspects of nagging as offensive and POV, so much so that if this particular AfD fails I'm inclined to relist it in order to tackle this discrimination. andy (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your original objection was that this was just a dictionary definition. Now that it isn't just a dictionary definition your ground seems to have changed to its alleged anti-feminist bias. But bias is not a reason for deletion, rather it ought to be a motivation for improvement. It would be interesting, for instance, if you could come up with any equivalent of the scold's bridle that was commonly used on men. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you're welcome to address alleged bias by editing the article to introduce well-sourced opposing viewpoints. But the topic itself is not inherently discriminatory, and AfD is not the venue for cleanup, content disputes, or resolving ideological arguments. Either the article falls into one of the reasons for deletion or, as in this case, it doesn't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thinking about it, Nagging should probably be a disambiguation page between an article on something like Dysfunctional social behaviour (or any other more encyclopaedic topic covering 'nagging somebody') and Anxiety ('nagging doubts', 'nagging question', 'nagging sense of..."). The unforeseen consequences of attempting to 'rescue' a WP:DICTDEF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We generally pick article names on the basis of their usage in reliable sources. The sources unearthed so far for this article uniformly refer to "nagging", not "dysfunctional social behaviour". If it really bothers you, a rename to "Nagging (behaviour)" would probably be the minimum necessary to disambiguate, and redirect nagging there until such time as other articles are created. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Reliable sources appear to indicate no significantly greater usage for 'nagging' (behaviour) than for 'pestering' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), 'bothering' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), 'nit-picking' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) or similar synonyms. (ii) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. As such it attempts to articulate, in formal terms, broad scholarly themes, and uses redirects and disambiguations to link buzz-words & informalisms to these. (iii) As I indicated, I have not particular attachment to 'dysfunctional social behaviour', but suggest that an article needs to be framed by a title stating a scholarly articulation of the broad issue, not an informal word for one aspect of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted, not what it ought to be called. Malleus Fatuorum 05:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, despite your links I can't see any evidence of significant discussion of pestering, bothering or nit-picking rising beyond a definition sufficient to found an article, whereas we have that discussion for "nagging". - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with more sourcing and more text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a significant social psychological phenomina and is related to Criticism#Hypercriticism which mentions nagging as well.--Penbat (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nagging is a very specific form of criticism, distinct and common enough to warrant an article. It appears that it's also a scholarly research topic. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. SnottyWong ^babble 17:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The amount of research available on the subject of nagging shows that it is notable and also shows that it is a subject that encompasses more than just a dictionary definition. I have added some more references to the article, formatted it, and overall expanded the article a bit. I hope it clearly shows now the notability of the subject. Silver seren^C 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just spent some time going through the "rescued" article and I'm depressed by the mediocrity of the writing and the references. There are some major unjustified assumptions and elisions that are very misleading, in particular the assumption that nagging is a social or psychological issue. The references on the other hand tend to see it as a speech behaviour which can best be understood through sociolinguistic analysis. That is not at all the same thing, and anyone who doesn't understand this point should not be contributing to the article. andy (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to keep changing your position. In any event, "mediocrity of writing" has never been a criterion for deletion. If it was, wikipedia's 3 million or so articles would be decimated. Nagging is clearly a social psychology issue, and anyone who doesn't understand this point should not to be contributing to the AfD. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recent removal of references by Andy was completely against policy and had nothing to do with the expressed policy of WP:ELREG stated in the edit summary, which only applies to external links and not to references used in an article. Thus, Malleus Fatuorum was completely correct in reverting him. I believe Andy should take a look at WP:PAYWALL and please not try and remove references/information from the article again. Silver seren^C 01:33, 21 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 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Daniel Edwards[edit]

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

Questionable notability, no sources cited; a cursory web search on subject returns nothing relevant, the Colorado State Rams football media guide lists no Edwards in their list of all-time lettermen Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is significantly changed and sources are found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced BLP, fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ATHLETE. Being a candidate for college football awards, a possible NFL contender but never played, and simply a Bronze Star are all not enough, even combined. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - lacks reliable sources for verifiability and is seemingly non-notable as a Bronze Star winner per WP:MILMOS/N (which only affords notability to military personnel awarded their nation's highest award for gallantry). Anotherclown (talk) 02:19, 18 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} 20:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good News About Sex and Marriage[edit]

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

I prodded it because no evidence of notability was given in the article, and a Google search brings up mostly catalog entries. The original creator removed the prod without otherwise improving the article, so I'm bringing it here for further opinions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
kEEP Referred to on Journal Linacre Quarterly Issue Volume 74, Number 3 / August 2007. Pages 213-229, Online Date Tuesday, January 29, 2008. Alan347 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences quoted. Wow. EEng (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one reference is not significant coverage and insufficient proof of notability. See WP:NBOOK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a short book review. Nothing significant in the article or about the book. --184.97.70.198 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and others, Sadads (talk) 01:34, 17 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Karnak[edit]

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

Not notable on any level. Some random project on a random wiki, made with wikimedia, is the only reason it's on here. No sourcing. Not notable. Unremarkable, and deletable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an interesting art / media experiment but not one that has been covered in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 16 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) 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Anniversary[edit]

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

This game does not exist^[1], so this article should be deleted. Enough said. MathMaven (talk | edits) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Oliver, Tristan (October 18, 2010). "TSSZ News: Sonic Anniversary Claims from Gamefest 2010 Madrid Disputed Clarified". TSSZ News. Retrieved December 14, 2010.

Delete - Agreed. Even before that source, it was never formally announced, and by wikipedia standards, probably shouldn't have existed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally agreed. I have no doubts that this game is just a false rumor and it's not real. Giusex27sc (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Mata[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE; cannot verify any Olympic appearance. ... discospinster _talk 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP autobiography with no proof of claims. Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2026 FIFA World Cup bids[edit]

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

Article of pure speculation, contravenes WP:CRYSTALBALL Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. This article is based entirely on speculation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too early for such an article as it will be based entirely on speculation. Camw (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL article is pure speculation. Mo ainm~Talk 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the general article on the World Cup. Keep, article seems to be developing with sourced information, and will no doubt continue to do so (but should probably be renamed simply 2026 FIFA World Cup). --Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to FIFA World Cup. Per WP:CRYSTAL. —Half Price 18:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect and lock Until the bidding process starts proper. Semi-plausable search term given the current stories around the preceding World Cups. Lugnuts (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not based on editorial speculation at all. All the material seems either sourced, or able to be sourced, to me. I'm not a fan of the sport, but this article is clearly a notable topic that already has source and can only have more. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article should exist until either the bidding process starts or at least a country formally announces its bidding.--Echetus Xe 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While speculation has worked its way into the article regarding prospective bidders (with the exception of Colombia, which is sourced), there is enough information to know that countries from Asia and Europe may not bid under current FIFA rules. As the bidding process draws closer and closer, more countries will consider making a bid, and the article will grow. There is already sourced talk about it (see the section on Colombia). It's merely a stub for now, but this article will definitely grow as time goes by.Bethereds (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But not per WP:CRYSTAL as I don't see where this article fails under that policy. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is allowed to include reports on verifiable speculation. Instead, I'd like to see this go under WP:NOT#NEWS. This article is based only on "routine news reporting" - that is, interviews, press conference comments and blogs. When formal bids are announced or the nature of the bidding process is announced, this article will overcome this limitation. Given the nature of the article, redirecting to FIFA World Cup would seem appropriate. Pretty Green (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No bidding process has opened so who is to say the 2026 World Cup will even take place? This is simply crystal balling and pandering to news reports not factual knowledge. Brad78 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the article is 100% factual knowledge. The second part is documentation of countries which might put forth a bid. I can understand that some people want to remove the article because no one has yet declared an intention to bid. This will change. Even so, I think that we have enough knowledge to know which continents the bids may be limited to (unless there is a rule change), and various soccer officials have suggested possible bid candidates.Bethereds (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from football associations leader and authority should be reliable enough to back up the speculation, but a statement from a non-national team coach and a national team coach who probably wouldn't be coaching that team in 2026 should not be included in this article. Also Australia's and United States' bids need references. The existence of this unreferenced and unreliable speculations didn't help your argument to keep the article. — MT (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2026 FIFA World Cup, until formal bids are officially announced. Giant Snowman 18:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There have been no official bids for the 2026 World Cup yet. In fact, the bidding process hasn't even opened yet. This article is pointless at this stage. – Pee Jay 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is pure speculation. Recreate when a country actually makes a bid for the tournament. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all citing WP:CRYSTAL[edit]

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

World cups are notable. As long as there is no Apocalypse between now and 2026, the 2026 World Cup will almost certainly take place. Speculation is pretty well documented... see the sources in the article! Bethereds (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bids for the 2026 World Cup will almost certainly take place, but the article as it stands is just saying that certain countries are thinking about it. This a load of speculation about who might bid, made up from articles to fill sports pages rather than anything solid. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal specifically allows for articles which contain well documented speculation. However, WP:NOTNEWS states that routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. All that this article currently contains is speculation from routine news reporting. If, and when, either a. a formal intention to bid is announced or b. the bidding dates and process is announced, then article would be appropriate. At the moment, none of the examples included fit into this category - the closest is Columbia where the claim 'Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said his country would bid to host in 2026' appears to be supported by the statement "This nation ... aspires to be the future seat of the Panamerican (Games), the seat of the Youth Olympics, the seat of the world championship of football". Aspiring to bid is not the same as announcing an intention to bid. Absolutely none of this content is anything more than routine news reporting. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted[edit]

Can the information within the article be merged into the FIFA World Cup article?Bethereds (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against that. There's no need for it in the article. Quite frankly all that would be needed is a comment saying "The next unallocated FIFA World Cup will be in 2026. The process for selecting a host has not yet been announced". There certainly isn't scope for adding Sam Allerdyce or Tony Wanker's musings into a featured article. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:06, 16 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. G7 would apply, both primary contributors have voted !delete here Courcelles 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Lombardo[edit]

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

I am the subject of this article and I would like it removed due to privacy concerns MusicNewz (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and delete this. I am a friend of the subject who has contributed a majority of the data. Zeppelin4Life (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment How do we know the nom is indeed the subject of this article and what is the WP policy on someone wanting their bio removed? Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of wether or not the nom is indeed the subject of this article. There is no notability here. The award is not major. Nothing else is a claim to notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 16 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Classics[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful reference page. The notability of the page is rooted in the notability of the collection - which is based on the noteworthiness of the films included in it. ntnon (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete now more than ever Notability is not inherited. Pure spam. EEng (talk) 06:04, 16 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. sinc e this is a BLP and the consensus is the sources are for someone else we can't really give this s tay of execution for a relist. Happy to take reps on my talkpage Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. The previous nomination ended in a Keep after sources were provided, but on review, these sources were for Abdul Salaam Alizai, not for the article under discussion. If there is sufficient evidence that they are the same, this article should be redirected: if not (and I don't think there is clear evidence for this), this one should be deleted, as there are no secondary sources about him, only hearsay from primary sources. Fram (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding sources that fulfill our basic requirements WP:BASIC, WP:BIO, WP:GNG seem to have failed. Writing BLP's on WP:PRIMARY and insufficient sources is quite a no no. IQinn (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request -- I request a relisting, rather than closure, as the sheer volume of recent ((xfd)) has left me without enough time to respond to this one. Geo Swan (talk) 12:23, 20 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Leakspin[edit]

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

Recentism. An article about an organization that isn't. Only self-published sources used. Damiens.rf 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Don't Merge. Operation: Leakspin's goal is to reinforce and protect and to bring more interest to the articles that Julian Assange has leaked on Wikileaks. Operation: Leakspin has been on the news countless times. Every Operation must be strictly embossed onto Wikipedia, never to be withdrawn (unlike most other companies). Operation: Leakspin isn't supposed to make an immediate impact. It's purpose is to preserve the articles for the world to see. It is a major phase in Anonymous's support for Wikileaks. Even now, there are hundreds of videos uploaded to YouTube of people reading summaries of Wikileaks documents, as a PART of this Operation. There has been an impact, it's just not meant to make large news. Operation: Leakspin is a small phase, yes, but it is still largely significant to this conflict between Wikileaks/Anonymous and the government(s)/companies. Do not delete this page, ever.

Delete: no indication of notability. --Neo139 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no deletion - information is relevant since it's closely related to the wikileaks-thingie, It's not an organisation (doesn't claim to be) but an initiative. Since the name leakspin is in the news it's usefull to have info on what it is, what its aims are.

off topic: it seems like everything vaguely related to wikileaks-matter is being stamped out nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.163.148 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, don't delete, we need to improve this page, not destroy it, Operation: Leakspin has a larger background, and has done more than it is credited for on this page. do some research, and add to it instead of taking away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.90.226 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question – What has Operation Leakspin accomplished so far? Operation Payback DDoS'd an unprecedented amount of websites. Significance is generally determined by the degree of impact or influence. Has Leakspin made an impact yet? I believe in what Leakspin is trying to achieve (freedom), but Wikipedia doesn't accept or reject articles based on how worthy the cause is. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Operation Leakspin we have just started, however we will in time accomplish our goals. Deleting this page would hurt our efforts. In time, this operation will life off, and in the future it will have it's own page anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.185.15 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, but expand the article, give it time. As this whole issue is one of openness and internet censorship it would be wrong to delete this page. Operation Leakspin is another facet of this developing event and forms part of the whole story. mulletsrokkify 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulletsrokkify (talk • contribs)

To IP users. I suggest you first to create an account. This article will probably get deleted. I just put a mirror here User:Neo139/Operation_Leakspin. In case the article gets deleted, feel free to continue editing there. Maybe the article shows notability in the future, and we can move it to the main section. --Neo139 (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received a significant amount of coverage in multiple different secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article isn't about an organisation at all, it's about an event. It has clear sources that pass scrutiny at other articles. The articles does need expanding, but a nomination for deletion is premature. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Operation Payback - And if kept, rewrite so we don't sound like incompetent fools. CompuHacker (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

don't merge w payback, they're 2 different organizations. Leakspin hasn't DDoSed anyone, or had large protests, but they have helped spread wikileaks articles all over the internet, and are continuing to do so, they're the first example of peaceful hactivisim, which i believe is very not able Also, they have given birth to the idea of "crowd Journalism" (an idea worthy of it's own article) and their impact has drastically changed wikileaks format, from cables, to an easier to acess, simpler format closer to that of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.90.226 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@the anon above: See Wiki journalism, Participatory journalism, Collaborative journalism, and Wikinews. "Crowd journalism" is an old idea, and Operation Leakspin isn't the origin of such an idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable new development. If it comes to nothing it can be reconsidered and perhaps merged, but that's unlikely - for now keep.87.231.185.157 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Although this is likely the result of the hype surrounding WikiLeak, there is enough reliable news sources to warrant an article. I just hope that the article will eventually state Operation Leakspin's actions and impact rather than simply stating its goals. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add these "reliable news sources" to the article. Currently, there is none. --Damiens.rf 12:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A simple Google search shows notability; I think a quick close WP:SNOW is appropriate as well. 69.137.88.166 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yug (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Don't Merge. It is about a totally voluntary movement of rebeljournalism, that was actually Wikileaks original intent, which for some reason didn't happen. But now as Wikileaks is being seen as being attacked on all fronts, people have started to actually do what Wikileaks was meant to do in the first place, as envisaged by its founder(s). With absolutely no influence from Wikileaks but just from Anonymous, it seems. This situation in itself is an interesting enough phenomenon to argue as a case for keeping it. It is just fascinating to see that the future(Crowdjournalism&Wikileaks) that someone somewhere envisage/calculated, has in effect become reality(RebelJournalism&Wikileaks-LeakSpin). But the events that led to it were quite different from expected/calculated. As long as Wikileaks was functionable, people were satisfied to just appreciate it and say 'Bravo'. But once it found itself in a soup(unfairly), people from near and far have risen to the occasion. Fascinating enough to warrant mention somewhere.So its reference is need. In addition, it has already been useful to me, when I came to check it out over here. Since it was useful, its necessity has already been proven. Why remove it?

Don't Merge - It has no similarities to Operation Payback. This originated as a long-term alternative to it. This is a totally non-violent form of not only showing support, but basically people forming a Reporter's Club and quite passionately involving themselves in it. Only those involved can properly document it, but I don't think this is in anyway similar to Payback. aruna (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. --Samer.hc (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously notable, as a significant phase of the so-called Operation Avenge Assange organised by Anonymous. Suggestions that this article breaches WP:RECENTISM are short-sighted and simplistic. That said, it needs improved referencing. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 09:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Knotrice (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge with Anonymous (group) It is information that will be looked up. As long as it can be kept neutral and without any self-promotion unlike its current format. I don't believe that it is shortsighted to consider this article to be in violation of WP:RECENTISM as it currently stands. --Travis Northrup (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A search I performed on Google News today showed perhaps over 1,500 articles on "operation leakspin" - strong keep. Just add secondary sources like others here have said. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:43, 18 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. let me know if you find sources and we can undelete this then Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saekson Janjira[edit]

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

Contested prod back in 2008, the reason was notability concerns. As those remain and there are no sources, I am procedurally listing the article here. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 08:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, leaning towards Keep The claims, if verified, would certainly make him notable. His bio at usadojo.com backs up the claims, but I don't know if that's a reliable source. Having trouble finding other reliable sources, but he seems well known in Muay Thai circles. Astudent0 (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added some additional info and sources to the article. It's hard to find reliable sources on him, but I found him mentioned in articles on several other fighters that fought him--"fought former Lumpinee Stadium champion Seakson Janjira". Those aren't what I'd call reliable sources, but it adds support to the claim. Papaursa (talk) 20:54, 3 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) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not found any reliable sources for this article. Notability is not inherited, so even if the subject has trained champions, the most this would warrant (in itself) is a mention in articles on those people. I agree that some of the claims would make the subject satisfy the notability requirement, if they could be supported by reliable sources. I am certainly open to changing my opinion if further information comes to light. Janggeom (talk) 14:18, 8 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) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete I can't believe I can't find reliable sources for a 7 time world and Lumpini stadium champion. At least I can't find them in English and I don't read Thai. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 14 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.

Twanda Carlisle[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Thomas (watch merchant)[edit]

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

This is not a biography. I'm not sure what it is, and by its nature it isn't exactly WP:BLP1E, but it's certainly a non-public person known only for one thing. Perhaps rework as an event article, but I'm not sure what it would be called or if it would be notable enough to justify that. Rd232 ^talk 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and everything he said. --Jayron32 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. PhGustaf (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rd232 Brothejr (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although it's flimsy, an interview in a 2005 book suggests persistence coverage of the person/event. Location (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes in that book are from a 1994 interview with Thomas. Risker (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A chapter in a book by Paladin Press does not notability make; the publisher isn't exactly known for strict editorial control. Risker (talk) 05:46, 19 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} 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superchips[edit]

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

Article subject seems to fail GNG. I did a Google News search, including the archives, and was unable to turn up any reliable sources covering this company. Most of the hits were for general technology articles about computer chips. There were also some hits for court documents related to this company (not adequate to establish notability), and to press releases on random websites which are primary sources (and can't be used to establish notability). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wouldn't fully rule out the possibility that the company may turn out to meet notability, but this article is too much like an advert. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form, use strict standards in assessing notability (i.e. still delete unless documentation meets fairly high standards) if more sourcing is found. Sourcing for this type of product is usually informed at some level by marketing and PR from the vendor, which makes it not really independent of the subject, so there should be a high bar for inclusion. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ For two reasons: firstly they meet the basic notability bar for a small company (which just isn't that hard). Secondly, and far more interestingly, they invented the concept of after-market tuning of engines, just by swapping EPROMs in the ECU. That's a big market these days, these people were the first to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is good enough to make a claim of notability which takes away the possibility of a speedy deletion, but I don't find any reliable sources discussing this company, either generally or as inventors of the concept of swapping EPROMs. Per WP:N, multiple, reliable, third-party sources are mandatory, otherwise it's just WP:OR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Delete - I've just read the article again. It's not worth keeping. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dont see a sign of notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is unquestionably an interesting company, and probably considered significant in its field, the sources presented are primary and not primarily about the company, and Professor Google is not terribly helpful in providing sources which are. Maybe even in this day and age there are proper print sources we're not seeing? Car tuning magazines? Autocar? Guy (Help!) 18:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that when I tagged it the sources here were indeed not independent, being the company's own WWW site and a press release. The sources now are rather different, and seem to be the "proper print sources" that you're talking about. Two of them are books by MotorBooks International, for example, one of which is indeed about engine management tuning (according to its title). Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I noticed those over the weekend, but I don't do Wiki on the weekends. :-) I guess my question regarding these books is: are they actual books intended to be read, or are they just trick and tip tuning guides, similar to Chilton's or something like that? If they're real books, not directories, are these just small mentions or do these books dedicate chapters or at least multiple paragraphs to discussing this company and/or their products directly? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read them yourself and tell us. Sources are cited to be read, after all. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would but I don't own them... could whoever added them please let us know? I'm perfectly happy to AGF of whomever added them if they'd just give us a little more info. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What about all of the book sources that the ISBN at the end of the citation links to? Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I will adopt my usual policy of deferring to Uncle G. My impression is that the coverage in these manuals is as a kit of parts thing and not as substantial coverage, but I don't have the books, only summaries, so I cannot in the end judge. Uncle G is rarely wrong and equally unlikely to go to bat for something not worth saving. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I also argue frequently that multiple people double-checking independently at AFD is a good thing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 21 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 with thanks to those who edited the article to fix the problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

31st Golden Raspberry Awards[edit]

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

How is this possible to announce results for something that has not happened yet from 2011? This seems like a hoax. -- Cirt (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling this was created from a copy/past of last years article, though why the nominations were added I have no idea :P 83rd Academy Awards exists, so I see no issue with this existing either. I cut out the nominees and cleaned up the text to reflect this as a future event. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a hoax here, since this event almost certainly will happen. More likely, it was just confusion about tenses because the creator hadn't checked their work properly. Either way, delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Korruski^Talk 16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside - the academy awards example cited by Errant is interesting but, in my view, not a fair comparison. People are already talking about films as being likely contenders for academy awards, and speculating as to possible nominees, so the next event is notable long before it has happened. This is simply not the case with the Razzies.--Korruski^Talk 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original article was hoax, current article is WP:CRYSTAL violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, that is incorrect. WP:CBALL specifically states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The 31st Razzies have been scheduled. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Razzies are a notable annual event and it is common practice to create and keep such articles before they happen. The event will occur, the nomination announcement is only a couple of months distant, and there is no reason we shouldn't provide scheduling information, etc., for Wikipedia readers now. Peacock (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Jarkeld (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, that is incorrect. WP:CBALL specifically states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The 31st Razzies have been scheduled. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The crystal-ball stuff is now gone, and the incorrect dates (which had been copied from the previous year's article) are now changed to the proper scheduled dates as sourced from the razzies' website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Baseball Buggs the article is now a valid sourced stub for an upcoming event which violates neither wp:HOAX nor wp:CRYSTAL, so I do not see any reason for deletion remaining. Yoenit (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the user Errant made most of the changes, stripping out the bogus crystal ball stuff except for the dates, which I changed as per the website and also hedged as they are scheduled but not firmly (they apparently don't even have a venue yet). All these changes were done since the nomination, so the nominator needs to review the article again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Razzies are notable, 31st Razzie awards have been scheduled,[6] and article issues have been addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:44, 14 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toledo Thunder[edit]

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

Minor semi-professional team of questionable notability. No significant coverage from independent sources - no sourcing at all, to be frank. PROD was contested, so discuss away.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no soruces, no significant coverage, weak notability, violoates POV, borderline OR, ...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:47, 14 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Woking[edit]

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

Not Notable ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if its a duplicate. Thanks Jragon &#124 PHP isn't just a language, its a way of life. (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Keep Look it will NOT take long until we add pictures more info ETC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16 December 2010[reply]

AS it stands the article sould stay!

Delete Hello, I think that these small pages will just anger people, because there is not much information on it. The information is just gathered from other sites which is plagiarism - And as ThePaintedOne said, Woking is a very small place and does not need its own article about tall buildings, you may as well just make an article on tall buildings in Surrey. Thanks -- Jargonia (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I know this person above. He is doing it on purpose with no right reason. He is making it up. Please ignore his comments. Jargonia.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Who keeps adding duplicates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokingrocks (talk • contribs) 21 December 2010

They aren't being added, the edits to remove them are being reverted. The reason the votes have been struck through is because Willrocks10 has 'voted' keep three times, and he should only have put up a 'vote' once. Not that it really matters as AfDs aren't actually decided by voting anyway.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Duplicate) Surely part of the appeal of Wikipedia is the information relating to subjects that maybe of little interest to many people but maybe of interest to a minority and I see no reason why this article should cause "anger" as you put it, to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Duplicate) Hi I think this article should be kept because Woking has some of the tallest buildings in Surrey. I think it would be unfair and a waste of MY work on this article. I want people to know what's tall in Woking. You never no ever YOU may find it useful. THIS IS WHY I think it should be kept. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woking doesn't have the tallest buildings in Surrey. Export house, the tallest, is at best the seventh tallest building in Surrey at present and will soon be a lot lower. The Tolworth tower near Kingston is 80 meters and Croydon alone already has five that are taller, one more under construction, three more approved and another proposed. Even ignoring the approved and proposed, that will make Export house the 9th tallest building just in Surrey (and I've not even looked elsewhere than Croydon and Tolworth, so it could be even lower). Never mind the rest of the buildings in this list which aren't even that tall. This whole obsession with Woking as a skyscrper metropolis is just nonsense.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this is at all notable. Woking is a minor provincial town. By this I mean no disrespect, I live there and like it, but it's a relatively small town. Equally, none of the buildings themselves are particularly tall or notable, and certainly not notable for being tall. So this just ends up as a short random list of miscellanious information. I initially put a prod on, which was removed without explanation or discussion, hence the AfD.

I added in the list of buildings category to the article so as to give some context here. There are other pages which are 'list of tallest buildings in XXX', but they are all for major world capitals or whole countries, not for towns--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article VERY useful. A big thank you to the creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokingrocks (talk • contribs) 21 December 2010 Comment My pleasure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

CommentI can't help but notice that the user Wokingrocks only created thier account today, and the only editing they have done to date is to comment in an AfD and post a thank you message on the user page of Willrocks10, the article creator. I would invite the reviewing admin to take this into consideration when considering thier judgement.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really do not understand your problem with that! He must like Woking a lot. So he/she must have looked on the category Woking, to find this page and he/she must of been able to workout that I am the creator of this page! Thanks, Willrocks10

Comment User:Wokingrocks has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Willrocks10. NtheP (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom links to a number of 'list of tallest building in XXX' articles for the UK, but they are all for cities significantly larger than Woking. The fact that Export house is the tallest building in Woking is included in the page List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement, which I think covers the only vaguely notable fact here adequately, and removes the needs for a distinct page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, I just realised that it was added to that page today by the same editor who created this article and the Export house article. The criteria for inclusion on that list is a town population of 100k, and Woking only has 62k. I think this underlines the lack of notabillity here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi,

As somebody who is on Wikipedia a lot trying to extend the site to help people with, for example, Homework/Project's I am very passionate about adding pages. I do NOT think this page should be deleted as somebody may be doing a project, or something like that, on the history and environment of Woking. As a Wikipedia user I know there is already a page on the History of Woking. It does not refer to the building and structures of Woking much.

I should think you understand that it is a new page that dosen't have lot's of infomation on it. We will be adding infomation to it for people's reference. I also think it SHOULDN'T be deleted because there are other small pages, smaller than my/our, I'm doing it with somebody else, Wikipedia page. Some of them are less significant than our's aswell. I hope you take this into consideration.

Thank You, Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Cut and pasted from article talk page on behalf of Pbl1998 --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note

On this link shows the population of WokingWoking's population according to Woking's council — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, that debate is actually taking place on an unrelated page and is not really relevent to this AfD. However, the page you link to specifically states that is the population number for all of Woking Borough, and the page you keep putting the number into is specifically for Woking town. The Borough has a seperate page, which already has the quoted population listed.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Page Woking refers to the whole of WOKING!!!!!

From the first line of the article "Woking is a large town and civil parish that shares its name with the surrounding local government district". The borough population, which is what you are quoting, is already present on the page Woking (borough) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I see about your note on Woking's population, I did NOT do that. It was one of my friend's who is also on Wikipedia. He is a amatuer. I did say to him Woking has ROUGHLY 65k people. I'm sorry for any inconvinience. I will change that soon. The U.K. settlement's page bit on Woking's Export House was also done by my friend, again I'm sorry. I DO understand what you mean. On the OTHERHAND I don't understand you about it being a completely random page. It is(Export House) pretty much, if not the, tallest building around the area-Guilford for example. It is also, in a way, Woking's landmark. This I THINK is another VALID REASON.

Thank You, pbl1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've both edited the same pages at similar times so I got mixed up.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and not useful. Also unreferenced and shorter than a list. Is only reinforcing already pronounced building height bias - as if it would be the only notable attribute of buildings. --Elekhh (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands, the article will have to go - however I think that the basic information should definitely be put in the main Woking article somewhere, as it is very interesting information. I live near to Woking, and I have always wondered how tall each of the buildings are, so it would be good to keep the information somewhere. It could do with sources of course, but presumably the author has the soure of the information somehwere. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry to say this to you Arriva436 but all you care about is buses so this article should not bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks very much for that wonderfully friendly and nice comment. Where do you get the generalisation that "all you care about is buses". I live in Surrey so take interest in the related articles, and so this article is of interest to me. I am perfectly allowed to comment on an AfD for any article on Wikipedia, even on an article about some animal in Australia for example. Anyway, I have a number of interest, not just buses. Just because transport interests me doesn't mean I do not find anything else interesting. I merely commented that I would like to see the content of the article kept, and moved elsewhere. I thought that was a reasonable thing to say to be honest, as there is no way that an article on just tall buildings in Woking is notable. Your attempts to decive, by creating mulipule accounts, does nothing to help the matter. There is not even one source to show that is an important topic for an article. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Duplicate) Sorry Arriva about that although I don't understand why this article sould bother you.

Delete Not a notable subject, and the very short article currently has no sources. The information can easily be moved elsewhere if needs be. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am terribly sorry Arriva436. The comment my 'friend' put is out of order. I can see that you don't care just about Buses. I'm sorry. If you look on 'our' page we are making changes. If you don't already have it on your Watchlist i advise you put it on your Watchlist. Please accept the greatest of apoligies from me and hopefully 'my friend'. He can be like that sometimes. Pleas look at how 'our' page is developing everyday.

Thanks, pbl1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're missing the point. The article is not being considered for deletion for being too short, or for needing more details or pictures, the problem is that the subject itself is not notable, or least you have not demonstrated this with references. Personally I don't think you'll be able to find any, but that's what you need to do to keep the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any harm done with this article. However, please try to find reliable sources for the info about building heights (perhaps in local newspaper articles or the like). Esn (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I got the info from skyscrapernews dot com. I also got the info my friend who works in the council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Of course articles about non-notable topics do harm as any form of spam. --Elekhh (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does no harm, but it's not notable. Woking is a relatively small town and none of these buildings are at all unusual or even particularly tall. By it's very nature the page can't be more than a very short list of four buildings, two of which haven't even been built yet. If we have an article for this we'll end up with similar pages for hundreds of other small towns around the world that have a vaguely tall building. I think the singular fact that Export House is the tallest building in Woking (not Surrey, it's not even in the top five. There are five taller buildings in Croydon alone, plus the Tolworth tower near Kingston is taller as well) is probably worth having on the Woking page, but it really doesn't need a whole page devoted to this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'll have to speak to my friend first BUT we COULD do a list of tallest buildings in Surrey-That might be a possibility!? Still, Export House is the 6th tallest building in Surrey-That's got to be notable for something, Hasn't it!?

Thanks, pbl1998

P.S. Please post your views on this idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be more notable, but I'm not sure it's needed as there are already articles on the tallest structures in the UK, and the tallest in Croydon (which is where most of them will be). there are various architecture groups on wikipedia, and I imagine they have existing thoughts on how to approach this issue, so the best place to float the idea would be there. To be honest though, as new editors I think you are over-reaching with your desire to create lots of new pages. Without wishing to be rude, it's fairly clear that neither of you are all that familiar with how Wikipedia is setup and works, especially with regards refs and notabillity. I think the best thing to do would be to work at improving existing articles for a while. For example, when you added Export House to the Woking page, that was a reasonable and constructive edit (but it needs a cite). If you spend some time doing improvements like that, I think you'll find it a lot easier to learn the ins and outs of how wikipedia operates, before taking on creating new articles. Also, most existing articles have 'resident' editors who watch over them (as I am for Woking, which is how I came upon this in the first place) who will usually help you out with the edits you are making. Whereas new articles have a tendancy to fall into AfD pretty quickly, especially for newcomers who haven't got to grips with notabillity, which is an altogether less friendly place to be. You are of course free to edit as you want within the rules, and being bold is a virtue here, I just think you'll have a more positive and constructive experience working with other editors rather than in striking out on your own.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC) (By the way, when you make a comment press the signature button at the top of the edit window, it looks like a pen writting. That will put your name after your comment as I've done here.[reply]

Hi,

I am perfecteley aware of how Wikipedia works. Thank you for your help but I am aware of how to use Wikipedia. I and my friend have set this page up for the reference of people who may need it. This page does not need to be deleted-We WILL add to it.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't as you consistently miss the point of notabillity, citations, didn't know how to do inline cites, until recently never signed you posts, your friend keeps making disruptive posts which are essentially vandalism and you don't listen to consensus or advice. None of this is how wikipedia works. I've tried to help, I've actually put some effort in to improving your other articles which are of marginal notabillity but not as bad as this one, and provided constructive advice on how you could proceed. Never mind, we'll see how the AfD pans out. In the meantime I strongly suggest you talk to your friend about his vandalism posts, as he's going to get banned if he carries on like that.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exuse me painteone I will get You banned if you carrie on like that. I found that comment above quite rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I find your post quite rude. I DO KNOW how to use Wikipedia. My 'friend' is 100% rude -I know that. I have tried to talk to him but he just dose NOT listen. Anyway, don't use these way's to get our page deleted-We've put alot of effort into these pages.

Comment[edit]

OH THANKS A BUNCH Peter! You call me rude? Well actually your being rude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

As I mentioned earlier we could do a list of tallest building's in surrey. We COULD also do something like 'Infomation on buldings and structures in Woking'.

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We are NOT copying of other websites-Please don't assume we are. We are also putting sources. We have done it 100% ourselves.

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Woking. NtheP (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to Woking, I can't see much interest in an article on the highest buildings there. London, New York, Manchester - OK. Possibly add the highest to the Woking article. Being 'harmless' isn't a reason for keeping as such (although the converse does apply...). You could have a very harmless article on the Highest Buildings in Downby-in-the-Swamp (currently the highest is Mrs Fenton-Soghi's house ever since the church spire fell down and demolished the then second highest as well). Look - we're not trying to put you off creating articles. We want ones that fit a certain standard of notability and are not just listcruft (there's a reference for that that I can't remember, sorry). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary to Woking. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

If you look now we have made some good ADJUSTMENTS. Small things like pictures and info on other buildings and structures in Woking that are defintaly notable. I, by this I mean no offence, find that the church spire falling onto the second tallest Building/Structure quite funny. PLEASE don't take any offence.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I hope you noticed the name of the lady living in the tallest building - the hyphenated part of her name is pronounced as an Italian word... (Downby-in-the-Swamp is one of my minor creations.) Peridon (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Change, it's good to see that you are trying to improve the article, but I don't think these particular additions help. None fall within the scope of the article you've created (list of tallest buildings), so the article is now wandering into a general list of notable things in the Woking area. You could rename the article to something along those lines, but it's going to end up being very vague and duplicating other pages. Two of the four already have an article, and all four are listed on other pages.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:05, 20 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} 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McManus (Scottish footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE, having only played as high as Division 2 in Scotland and the Maltese Premier League. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has had two spells with Raith Rovers, who are a sometime fully professional club, but he played for them when they were in the mainly semi-professional Second Division. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:22, 21 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. WP:CSD#A7. An unsourced "he is predicted to be... " claim is not enough to avoid A7. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajinkya Joshi (Bodybuilder/Actor)[edit]

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

No significant coverage to be found from either Google, Google News or Google News Archive searches. proposed deletion was contested. -- Lear's Fool 11:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. In fact in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion (CSD A7). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the phrase "He is predicted to be the first Indian to win the IFBB Mr. Olympia by many bodybuilding experts" as a claim to significance, and thus didn't nominate for A7. -- Lear's Fool 11:57, 14 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 keep. No remaining arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 02:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Mehra[edit]

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

Both Google News and Google searches return a reasonable number of passing mentions, but no coverage of sufficient significance to satisfy the general notability guideline. None of the mentions suggest anything that might meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. -- Lear's Fool 11:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having spent more time looking through search results, I have discovered a number of sources that I should have seen before the nomination (some of which I have added to the article), and am satisfied that their volume probably just barely meets the general notability guideline. Accordingly, I am withdrawing my nomination. If anyone else still feels this article should be deleted, please say so, but if no such arguments come forward in the next day or so, I'll probably close as a speedy keep. -- Lear's Fool 02:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos to the nominator himself, as his own work is indicative that this one can best serve the project by remaining and being improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 15 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 appropriate article sections (done). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lulamba Primary School[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages as other non-notable primary schools listed on List of schools in Zambia:

Unlike high schools, primary schools are not automatically presumed notable. They must meet WP:GNG, so unless there are reliable sources indicating that this school is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It's been standard practice for a long time to merge and redirect primary schools to their schools district page or locality, wherever possible. See WP:WPSCHOOLS. The schools project is a bit short staffed at the moment, and the bots have been down for a long time, otherwise these uncontroversial merges would already have been carried out. --Kudpung (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They fail WP:VERIFIABILITY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Jacobs[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability of this self-published author. I mistakenly PRODed this but it was PRODed twice before. There is a significant conflict of interest as the article creator seems to be the subject. Clubmarx (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR as I can only find mentions of his name in passing after a Google source. And you're dead-on about the article being an autobiography (User:KerryJacobs). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - as per nom and Erpert. I had already done a lot of research when I originally tagged the article for COI and multiple issue, and PRODed it, and found nothing (the tags appear to have been removed). --Kudpung (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's simply quite non-notable, fails WP:AUTHOR. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced BLP; spam autobiography; no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline -- Rrburke (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons. Racconish^Tk 06:59, 16 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keiko Holmes[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable person. jonkerz ♠ 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, the first source (The Japan Times) claims that Holmes participated in Anglo-Japanese reconciliation efforts, for which she was awarded an Order of the British Empire (1998). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering "[t]here are more than 100,000 living members of the Order throughout the world."[7] I doubt being awarded the O.B.E. establishes WP:BIO's notability criteria per se. jonkerz ♠ 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the information. I think this person and her activities are notable enough for Wikipedia [8], [9], [10] etc. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:06, 7 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, -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 14 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. However, the "Lines" section will be blanked and listed at WP:CP as there are clear copyright problems in respect of this source. Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Rapid Mass Transit System[edit]

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

Nothing to claim as notable above other transit systems as far as I can tell; the refs used to verify any of this are dead; and the article borders on WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 06:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no policy or guideline requiring a claim that this transit system is more notable than other transit systems. I have repaired one link so that only one is now broken. These links, particularly this one, support the claim of notability and provide suitable reference for discussing future developments, as required and allowed by WP:CRYSTAL. However, the close similarity in wording between parts of the article and here is concerning. In-line citation should be introduced and some re-writing undertaken. However, the copied material is largely in the form of lists of places so the concern is less than for creatively written text. None of these matters justify article deletion. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The old URL for the DAWN piece still works and it wasn't really necessary to change. (I have my suspicions that the old URL is less liable to break in the future than the replacement.) In fact, out of the 7 external hyperlinks in the article, only 1 is in fact a dead hyperlink. All of the others work now just as they did (presumably) for the article's creator back in August of this year. Where did the idea that the hyperlinks were dead come from? Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsensical AfD rationale as most hyperlinks to sources establishing notability, including Thincat's above, are working. Even if they weren't, hard-copy sources are just as valid. With a city of a population of about 10 million, this is probably the largest city's transit system I've seen up for Afd. --Oakshade (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep planned mass transport system in one of the largest cities of the world--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:35, 19 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. Consensus is that the coverage in sources is sufficient for the purposes of relevant notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

San Leandro LINKS[edit]

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

Its a shuttle bus, thats not worth of an article for christ sakes Haberquepasa (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)— Haberquepasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep. Seems pretty notable and well-sourced to me. But I find it odd that an AfD is the nominator's very first edit. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:CORP, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If my understanting of the sources in the article is correct (I'm not familiar with the area) then the article is lacking here. Yes, it is odd that an AfD is the nominator's (as a named account) very first edit, but they may have been editing as an ip (I was early accussed of being a sockpuppet after moving from ip to account) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is well sourced with multiple non-trivial sources, the links to scholar, news, and books reflect this.Thisbites (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a shuttle bus, but a shuttle bus system. Has had plenty of significant coverage from secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage here to meet the general notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:32, 20 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 keep: nomination withdrawn, with no one recommending "delete". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Rouse[edit]

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

With apologies to the muse: this poet does not appear to be notable. I have added to the article what I could find, which isn't much: a mention in a blog and a poem published in The Guardian. Especially the latter achievement is not nothing--but there is no secondary sourcing that I can find, neither on the web nor in MLA/LION. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, based on coverage in reliable publicaitons, her work for the British Council, association with the Royal Literary Fund and publications in the Guardian, The Independent, Observer, Atlantic Monthly and TLS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, given the good work done by Dr. Blofeld--how I didn't find any of that, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 14 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} 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Averages Game Simulation[edit]

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

Significant Copy/Paste from programming forum that asserts a incompatible copyright licence to WP. Single reference seems to be only way to assert it's notability, but is under a week old and a novel concept. Fails WP:GNG,~~WP:CRYSTAL~~,WP:MADEUP. Could potentially qualify for a CSD:G12 (of the single reference) but because there was enough differences and paraphrasing I did not feel that this was an unequivical case. Hasteur (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way CRYSTAL? Anarchangel (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked CRYSTAL because there's no "It could be big in the future" assertions Hasteur (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyright and tone issues. Nothing indicates this term is used anywhere, or that it's ideas are notable. Possible speedy delete due to copyright. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:56, 19 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 00:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Salvado[edit]

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

Unverified BLP, tagged for notability. I don't believe the subject is notable: Google News has nothing to deliver, and there is a surprisingly low number of Google hits for a "supermodel". Drmies (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete why you nominate Blofeld's article for deletion? is it really that bad, if the subject is not notable we will have to delete sigh...--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just enjoy tickling the evil one every now and then. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has a valid point based on lack of solid sources or indeed that she has done anything notable like model at a global catwalk show or appeared on a notable magazine cover. I started the article on the basis that we didn't have any articles on Guatemalan models. This one's a beauty! There must surely be a single notable model from Guatemala... I think I was under the impression that a listing in the fashion directory site inferred some sort of notability but actually in looking at it again she has no magazine covers listings or anything so is probably not meeting whatever our requirements are for models. Maybe not. I know nothing about fashion but I was sure modelling for Next is something.... But I find it astonishing that there is not a single model from Guatemala who is notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I agree. And she doesn't seem different (i.e., uglier?) than other models, though none of these are really my type. But even a regular Google search produced next to nothing... Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not credited with having done anything in the fashion model directory. Not notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:28, 14 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 00:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thursby Software Systems[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. "Thursby Software Systems" currently gets one gnews hit, appears to be a press release item on a relocation; plenty of google hits, but largely automated directory hits, a few discussions of software that happens to mention the publisher. Article as it exists appears to be WP:PROMO, written by a user IDing himself as User:Thursbysoftware. References used in article are largely Thursby-generated (including the "Crunchbase" material; note the use of "our software"). Forbes article has a one-sentence mention of the company. Previous article under this title fell to speedy deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Essentially spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just spam. EEng (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is Wikipedia policy not to contribute primary sourced information. This is along the lines of a person creating an article about himself. Groink (talk) 23:35, 19 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. My bad, I used the wrong search string. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Business Development Coalition[edit]

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

Declined G11 speedy. The article was initially tagged for an A7 but became promotional with expansion. No notability shown, and Google News returns little of substance. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:06, 14 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 as purely promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powerchip[edit]

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

No Third party sources found seems to fail WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure advertising page, not informative or educational in the spirit of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.189.201.98 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 110.189.201.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, likely biased autobiographical. Adds nothing. Delete Takai (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Takai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Not notable (and if it was, the owner of PowerChip would have to realise that he doesn't own the article - if it attracts legitimate negative comment, he'd have to live with it). AndyTheGrump (talk)

Agree re deletion. Biased and autobiographical and not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.168.129 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 203.143.168.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable, though it looks like they are a competing brand to these guys. N419 BH 07:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The automotive world is full of these devices that purport to improve fuel economy, power, etc... the vast majority of them are junk that do nothing. There's nothing to indicate why this particular device is notable and no third-party references provided. Fails GNG. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Non-notable, very little sourcing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect Not worth the drama even if topic is marginally notable. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are primary - company's own site and an interview with its owner. No reliable sources and no evidence of the marketing claims provided. Basically, no notability demonstrated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Yusuf Smith[edit]

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

Over opionanated blogger with no real importance. This web page should be deleted so as not to give him credit where none is warranted. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that Mrodgers2099 has a personal grudge against Matthew Yusuf Smith, as they have disagreed about editing other Wikipedia articles. The argument for deletion boils down to the fact that the nominator dislikes the subject. This isn't a valid argument for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular views on this article, but I would point people to the comments of Codf1977 - a retired user - about the subject's notability on the article's talk page.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent: I originally requested a delete for this article, which was declined on the grounds that this guy has been talked about in many other places. If that means the article meets the acceptable criteria and it's not just self-agrandising, then keep it otherwise chop it. I can see both sides, so it should be a transparent decision made on clear un-emotive criteria. Greyskinnedboy Talk 22:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing Mrodgers2099's contributions, it seems that this is a single purpose account which has been used for over two years only to make controversial edits related to Kesgrave Hall School, an article that Matthew Yusuf Smith has contributed to, and to closely related articles. Matthew Yusuf Smith is an alumni of this school, as are, presumably, several other editors who have participated in these debates. Editors are cautioned to stick to the neutral point of view and to disclose any conflicts of interest. I have no COI here, as I live in California and have never heard of any of these people or places until today. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 8 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) 03:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourced to blogs or to sources which don't actually name the subject. Abductive (reasoning) 12:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content puffed up by highlighting subject's blog sound-bite response to significant events. Award from one blog to another hardly helps. EEng (talk) 15:02, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erol Zavar[edit]

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

Appears to be only the subject of coverage by advocacy groups for his release, has long been unreferenced and page view statistics suggest he may have been the product of momentary celebrity with no long term relevance Sadads (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awful to say, but a non-notable case of injustice with no coverage outside of advocacy group. EEng (talk) 17:26, 14 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 Orbit Showtime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Comedy[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a television channel that may no longer exist. Even the most basic information, such as in which country it is airing, is lacking. The article about the network supposedly carrying it, Orbit Showtime, does not mention it, and the generic name makes a Google search unhelpful. Essentially, this article fails WP:V. Sandstein 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orbit Showtime. Super Comedy is verifiably an Orbit Showtime channel, but I'm unable to find any evidence of its independent notability, and the article doesn't provide any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not interested enough in the subject to look for sources, but would like to make a couple of points about the nomination: firstly, whether or not this channel still exists is irrelevant to notability, and, secondly, satellite channels do not broadcast to individual countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeecFW[edit]

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

notability not demonstrated Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not assert that the topic is notable and does not provide evidence of significant discussion in reliable independent sources. I have been unable to find any such discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:38, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Cooper[edit]

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

A small hill in a park, with no official status as a placename and with no particular social or historical signficance Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how come I can find this "unofficial" placename used on the Bundoora official WWW site and in geological reports from the Royal Society of Victoria from the early 20th century (Jutson & Coulson 1937, pp. 47, 51, 52, 55) harv error: no target: CITEREFJutsonCoulson1937 (help) ? Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jutson, J.T.; Coulson, Alan (1937). "On the Age and Physiographic Relations of the Older Basalts of Greensborough and Kangaroo Ground, and certain Basalts at Bundoora and Ivanhoe". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 26 (1): 45–56.
- ...and in real estate agents' windows. Official placenames are here. The Mount Cooper in Victoria is in Gippsland. Doubtless, refs could also be found for Apollo Parkways, Grace Park, Partingtons Flat, Green Hills etc in the neighbouring suburb of Greensborough but articles would not be justified. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep Uncle G has demonstrated the topic's notability. Officialdom is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True; but there are 350,000 official places listed and probably a million places in Australia which would show up on a Google search, Apollo Parkways with many hits as an example. We dont need articles on all of them and if they are not official names we should have a good reason to retain an article; a section on Bundoora Park is quite justified in the Bundoora article mentioning Mount Cooper. It is one of the best places to see large kangaroos in Melbourne, and it is possible to climb Mount Cooper without noticing a serious slope!(Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:34, 14 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) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —(Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Is this article causing any sort of harm to Wikipedia? It does not seem likely to become a WP:BLP problem, and it's not taking that much disk space. Is the mount spamming us or trying to promote itself? Is it using peacock terms to exaggerate its height? Has it become a coatrack for an indiosyncratic point of view? Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Jehochman. Uncle G has demonstrated notability. Its marginal, but this article, as Jehochman notes, lacks any complicating factors that may make me lean towards delete. There's no coatracking, its not a spam magnet, and its not got any BLP problems. Thus the weak keep. --Jayron32 13:41, 15 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 Kingdom of Kashi. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasi Kingdom[edit]

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

This article is just a collection of quotes from Hindu texts. There's another article which deals with the exact same subject. Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you see duplicate articles then Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 7 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) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kashi is about the historic kingdom of Kashi, the present city of Varanasi, while Kasi Kingdom of Ancient India, is one that finds mention in ancient Hindu texts, as the intro and the subsequent texts mention of both clarify and are thus distinct. Needs disambig note on top that's all! Ekabhishek^talk 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- An article consisting solely of quotations from Hindu epics is non-encyclopaedic; they should perhasp be in Wikisource. I do not know Hindi or Sanscrit, but strongly suspect that the differnece between the two names is a matter of transliteration. Accordingly, both should be in the same article, with a short narrative of what the epics say of the mythical ancient kingdom, followed by a further section on the historic one. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingdom of Kashi. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the problems are huge. Here are some concepts here:
- As user:Ekabhishek says, Kasi Kingdom is being used to refer to a legendary city found in ancient texts. The dates of this kingdom are near the time or Rama and long before, so around 7300 BCE by Hindu thought.
- The Kingdom of Kashi refers to the same geographical location during the rule of some people less closely affiliated with ancient texts. This was around 1100-1800 CE, so thousands of years later.
- Varanasi is the current international name of the city at this location, although local people call it Benares and most Indians elsewhere call it Kashi.
- Kashi is also the present day name of a specific district in Varanasi.

This Afd is for Kasi Kingdom, and the article is poorly sourced and lists a lot of mentions in sacred texts. As user:Peterkingiron says, the article needs huge reform, but there does exist a huge body of primarily religious texts describing these places and literally centuries of commentary about this place. In addition, there is an advent of modern-day scholarship about what Kasi Kingdom is supposed to mean to modern-day Hindus.

A lot needs to be done to this article, but deletion or merging is not among those things. Blue Rasberry 21:59, 21 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Business Charter[edit]

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

Non-notable airline, without any references or sources given (as the website redirects to Dietz AG with no information on the airline) or to be found on the internet that would establish notability per WP:CORP. It isn't even to verify that the comapny still exists. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not assert the airline is notable, and does not provide any sources establishing its notability. My good faith searches have also failed to find significant discussion in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 14 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. even the keep sie agrees policy says delete. I'm happy to userfy if someone wants to transwiki it Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironfist (Transformers)[edit]

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

A non notable Transformer character yet again supported by fansitses as information sources which is unacceptable and a volition of wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A good start to an article with the start of some sources. I'll go look for more. Mathewignash (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash. ----Divebomb is not British 09:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Divebomb is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yet another bad Transformers article "sourced" to fansites. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance. Reyk _YO! 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wreckers (Transformers)#IDW Publishing . NotARealWord (talk) 06:44, 10 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) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Look, policy supports a delete - there is no significant discussion in reliable independent sources, at least as far as I can see - but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say we should keep this regardless. There is obviously a very high level of discussion about ANY Transformers topic in sources that aren't technically reliable - blogs, wikis, et cetera - but are generally reliable as to their fandom, and Transformers articles in general on Wikipedia are actively scrutinised and maintained by an enthusiastic corps of editors. I don't think there's value to the project in trying to smack these individual character articles down faster than they spring up, especially given that the majority eventually get recreated with sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

How is the closing admin gonna even care about your vote if you admit it's against policy?
Why is "it's gonna get recreated with sources anyways" a rationale? It's not like we the people who vote "delete" are against recreating/restoring the article if there are better sources. NotARealWord (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because theoretically policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; i.e., it describes current practice at AfD rather than legislates it. Also because ignore all rules is policy, and because the purpose of ALL of our rules is to create the highest quality encyclopaedia we can, and I believe keeping the article pursues that goal better than deleting it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article can be good, No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. This isn't even a very important character. Plus, i don't really agree that the "corps of enthusiastic editors" are/have been doing a good job. TF articles have been criticized for being generally terrible. See here and here. Also, this is a bunch of issues with TF articles I generally find. Some of those problems are terribly obvious. So yeah, I don't find your !vote a very good one.

That's all right, you don't have to. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's up to the closing admin to decide, anyway. NotARealWord (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance. No sources, no relevance. Pasupgalo (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 03:44, 20 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daran Norris[edit]

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

Minimal notability. All voice acting credits are one-or-two-shot characters or "additional voices" (except a primary character on T.U.F.F. Puppy). Only live action roles are one-shot characters. Only source in article is IMDb. Search on Gnews turned up only links to TV.com or articles that said "Character X, voiced by Daran Norris..." and nothing else about him. This article has been around for six years without a single secondary source, and was tagged for notability and sources since February 2009. He utterly fails WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that say anything significant about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while many of the roles are "minor one one-or-two-shot characters" he voiced the main character in Bastard!!, a major character in Fushigi Yūgi, and a major character in The Fairly OddParents. Edward321 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the utter lack of sources and biographical info supercedes WP:ENT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know specifically I have come to his wiki page, looking to see what he was in, if i did hear him in that thing, etc. Just because he is a guy who stays out of the media spotlight somehow translates into he isn't notable enough? I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about wikipedia policies to cite a reason that this page should not be deleted - but please, someone should. 206.211.157.158 (talk) 11:37, 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, Courcelles 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never a good idea to send to AFD simply due to WP:NOEFFORT or to force WP:CLEANUP by others. Nominator made an unfortunate mis-statement when saying "all voice acting credits are one-or-two-shot characters or additional voices". This is patently incorrect, and this individual meets WP:ENT through easily verifiable [11][12] and quite lengthy career[13] with numerous significant roles roles in multiple notable productions stretching from at least 1977 through 2010. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this fellow never turns down a job. Among his several hundred television, film, and video game projects, I note his being a major character in 44 episodes of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, recurring in 17 episodes of Veronica Mars, and voicing characters in 18 episodes of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack, 22 episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door, and major characters in 50 episodes of The Fairly Odd Parents and the several The Fairly Odd Parents movies, and 71 episodes of The Replacements. The nominator may have simply missed them when he thought to only mention T.U.F.F. Puppy and called these others "one-shot". Meeting ENT is easily verifiable. Time now to further expand and source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have found that he is searchable under at least seven different permutations of his name and under at least seven different pseudonyms. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you found differnt names for this actor, but where did you find the names? Since you added all of them to his article, shouldn't they be sourced? —Mike Allen 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed in the various sites being used to WP:V his career, and as I found each, I added it to the infobox per instruction at Template:Infobox person#Parameters. It is always strange when an actor chooses to use so many pseudonyms... but it happens... and having them there and here could certainly aid in searches. However, if it is found that any particular one does not eventually lead back in some way to he and his work in voice-over, it might certainly be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. This person has multiple roles in things, and if you source the credits this does meet notability and passes WP:ENTERTAINER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, he has preformed multiple roles, but since his filmography does list the roles he played, its impossible to determine if the role were significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR without doing a lot more digging. Looking through [14], the roles listed there all appear to be of the "extra voices" variety. —Farix (t | c) 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Farix: You're looking through the wrong end of the scope, as Wikipedia does not judge an actor by the least of his roles. Sure, in his career, and like most actors, he has had minor roles... and yes, as a versatile voice artist with a 33-year career, he has lent his skills to "other voices", as well as to significant characters. But so what? WP:ENT instructs "significant roles in notable productions", and does not instruct looking at only insignifcant roles instead. Or is it that you asserting that his significant (lead) roles in (multiple) notable productions can be ignored because he has also done minor roles? Even had he done nothing else ever (harumph), his being Gordy in 44 episodes of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, being Cliff McCormack in 17 episodes of Veronica Mars, Buddha Bob in (so far) 4 episodes of Big Time Rush, qualify him meeting guideline... and his being Dick Daring in 71 episodes of The Replacements from 2006 through 2009, and his voicing Mr. Turner, Cosmo, and Jorgen Von Strangle, for the The Fairly OddParents franchise from 2001 to present... including 50 episodes of the television series, six specials, and seven TV movies, as well as voicing these same chararacters in the related Jimmy Timmy Power Hour trilogy: The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour, The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 2: When Nerds Collide, and The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 3: The Jerkinators, are icing on the cake of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You missed my point entirely. The article does not describe any of Daran Norris roles. All it does is list a series of films and tv series that he appears in, regardless of whether he portrays a minor or major characters. And if one checks the sources, all they see are a bunch of very minor roles. If there are any major roles, they are affectingly "buried" in the text wall. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. Understood. I have begun expanding on and sourcing some of the major characters to "unbury" them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The entire filmography section should list the characters he has played in accordance with WP:LOW, "* Title (year), role – notes", with significant roles in bold so that they stand out more. —Farix (t | c) 23:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actor has minor notable roles and is not an innapropriate person to have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.86.222 (talk) 19:43, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas D. Stauffer[edit]

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

Has published a few books, but only real claim of notability is being a "featured speaker" on radio programs. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. I suspect a conflict of interest as well given the page creator's edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the published works are hardbacks and two of them are over 400 pages each in their fifth printings. Along with being on over 100 radio stations nationwide, being selected by Oxford University Press, something that many other parties found on wikipedia cannot lay claim to, is quite significant. Some of the material produced is certainly controversial and those most anxious to criticize and delete would probably like the material removed because of their conflicts of interest.

I am new to Wikipedia; however, I wish to "follow the rules and guidelines" when these matters are brought to my attention. It is a great source of information. This page was added by someone years ago and deleted in late 2009. I simply revived the page in order to show from where some of the source information is derived as I quote on other pages within Wikipedia. If anything is self serving, my desire is for it to be removed. 68.207.213.125 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 7 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) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable even if all claims are true. Not apparent notice of him by third parties. EEng (talk) 17:28, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Kovar[edit]

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

Found this on the "Random Collaboration of the Day" banner at WP:AID minutes ago. Good candidate, but only one problem: no hits at the Google Archive or the databases I've recently come to trust. Sad to say, not up to par with WP:BLP and WP:Music. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found very few useful cites online about this punk rock drummer. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 15 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 and move title to List of notable sites in Kansas City Mandsford 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of interest of Kansas City[edit]

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

POV and original research —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas City, Missouri. A list of sites is, by itself, not POV or original research. What makes them "interesting" might be. However, I don't see much problems with this list, but it's not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 18:52, 7 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) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of notable sites in Kansas City. It's clearly a list, it's clearly intending to list sites which are notable (and which therefore have a Wikipedia article) and thus it has a defined scope and potential value as a navigation tool, making it allowable per WP:SALAT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Good list, could use some copyediting... I like the suggested name from Dust...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I disagree that it is a list of notable sites, as several of the tours are never likely to become notable on their own. It is rather a list of tourist attractions and should be renamed. List of tourist attractions in Bangalore would be a good model for format. --Danger (talk) 18:35, 21 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 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Coll García[edit]

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

No relevant sources. Nothing substantial on google. This young composer, although I am sure he is very talented, hasn't made any substantial contribution to classical music and his career so far is the career of a student composer. The Ian Horsburgh Memorial Prize seems to be an academic prize awarded to students of the GSMD and his greatest merit, a piece played by the LSO, was performed within the scope of an educational program of the Orchestra. Karljoos (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 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) 23:59, 6 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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:11, 14 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 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bidlingmyer[edit]

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

Delete as nom. Seems to resoundly fail WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NSPORTS in general. Height of playing career was apparently being "a team captain" at small Siena College, and now his coaching career is as an assistant at a college that made it to the Sweet Sixteen once ever. Wknight94 ^talk 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant coaches are rarely notable as stand-alone articles, and this one is no exception. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:12, 14 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 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury (band)[edit]

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

Unsigned band, not very notable, no references Tom Morris (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUSIC for criteria. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claim to notability in the article is playing in the same event as more notable groups, which doesn't count. Difficult to search on Google because of the other obvious meaning on Canterbury, but by searching for individual members I only found minor coverage in very local papers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:01, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elda Dushi[edit]

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

As part of the Reference a Random Biography Drive. I came to this article. Can't find a English language source. If there is some one who can find a Albanian Source great. Seems Fail WP:GNG and unsourced BLP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 290 ghits, all seem to be mirrors, blogs, etc. pics abound, but no indication of notability. If she has any notability in albania, the albanian WP can create an article first.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.136.242 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she won the Albanian miss contest. That is reason enough to keep it.--Vinie007 19:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be enough if we had verification of that fact from a reliable source. I can find no such verification, at least from an online source in the Roman alphabet, which is used for Albanian. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added source that verifies miss world 2007 participation. Having trouble with Albanian sources, but am looking.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as a winner of the Miss Albania contest. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:28, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greeley Griswald Light Show[edit]

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

Contested prod. Okay, a family has put more Christmas decorations on the house than the average American. So what? Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is wanted as a page is because they work very hard to prepare the lights and music each year, it's amazing what they do, and to inspire people to decorate their own houses for the holidays. Plus, it should be popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funwiki12 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- … which has nothing to do with an enyclopaedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising billboard. We're here to neutrally systematize and summarize verifiable knowledge, not advertise good works. You must show that your writing is, truly, about things that are already properly recorded and documented parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search under both spellings of the surname resulted in zero results. The abundance of exclamation marks displays the lack of the neutral point of view in the writing. Wikipedia articles can be about fun topics, but "fun" is not, in itself, a valid claim to notability. Call me Scrooge, but this display isn't notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not assert the notability of the subject, and is unreferenced. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Too many exclamation marks! Too little notable information! Too bad! EEng (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. The "History" section is largely irrelevant to the subject and the rest is G11. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:50, 14 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 Lethal Weapon 3. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since October 2006, No mention of notability no references, fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod removed with comment "Undid revision 401763160 by Jeepday (talk) indiscriminate mindless tag dropping" Jeepday (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lethal Weapon 3. This is a movie soundtrack that hasn't achieved any notability independent from that of the movie itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Include the information on the film's article, as this likely will not be expanded. There are unfortunately a lot of soundtracks like this that were pulled off the film articles, and instead of supplementing the articles, there are numerous stubs that likely will not viewed/expanded as much as they could be while included in the film article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lethal Weapon 3 was a very, very popular film, the soundtrack was performed and composed by Michael Kamen, Eric Clapton, Sting, Elton John and David Sanborn, very, very, very notable artists. Is such a soundtrack article a natural PROD candidate for an uncontroversial deletion with the bogus claim "fails WP:V". Now it's at AfD. True, article has been tagged as unreferenced since October 2006, for this offense a bot could request it be deleted in order to improve Wikipedia. Because the artists are so popular though, some serios mention is likely. I quickly found two Gbooks refs and added to article. The first ref relates to Stings contribution to the title song, it's half a page commentary, the other book is only in snippet view, more can likely be found by editors more interested in this than I am. MrCleanOut (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lethal Weapon 3. Sure there are some big names on the soundtrack, but the soundtrack itself just didn't get enough notice as a stand-alone entity apart from the movie. The soundtrack and its contributors can certainly be mentioned at the movie's article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Kumar Misra[edit]

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

Fails WP:N for BLPs. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are actually plenty of sources covering his appointment to his current role (such as these) and assorted items where he's acting as a spokesman for the bank, but none of them address him in detail sufficient to write an encyclopaedic article about him, and therefore he fails WP:N for lack of "significant coverage". - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I think that sources on the web may be limited and not abundant in case of this person. However, there may be several other sources in print media. If possible, I will try to expand the article to give it a better shape. Being the chief of one of the premier banks in India with around 3300 branches in India and abroad is certainly notable, particularly in view that there may be only a handful of banks in the world with so many branches. We should not destroy the stub in its embryonic form and should not expect that in a day or within a few hours a good article can be created. I am not comparing the person with Abraham Lincoln. But, in two months, the article on Abraham Lincoln looked like this: [15]. We should remember the advice of Angela and try to understand the way in which the project is expected to grow: let us allow the stub/s to grow. To understand the issues in a comprehensive way, please read and understand User:Angela/Stubs. While creating stubs on notable Indians, I have encountered similar difficulties when I was hardly 3-day old Wikipedian and a web source appeared after many years: [16], and during my 6th year as a Wikipedian, I encounter the same difficulty. This indicates that our contents continue to be evaluated stringently which is really good for everyone concerned. Thank you. --Bhadani (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a misgiving that there could be a conflict of interests in this article as Bhadani himself is an employee of this bank. Using Wikipedia to get into the employer's good books is a bad idea. 117.204.94.121 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to the anonymous user, I would like to add that “conflict of interest” ... it is stretching the issue to a different tangent. Bank of India is an organization with around 40,000 employees like me; it is a corporate entity and not a grocery shop owned by a single person. If I try to stretch my imagination, I would argue: as a person has donated to Wikipedia Projects, she/ he has a “conflict of interest” in editing any of the Wikipedia Projects! Or, A chinese should not create or edit an article relating to China as being a citizen of China, he/she has a "conflict of interest". The point under discussion, in my opinion, is as regards the encyclopaedic significance of the article. And, everybody knows for years that I work for Bank of India, and I do not require any facade of anonymity to contribute and edit here. --Bhadani (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you find sources, but they're not there yet, and without them the article doesn't pass our notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And, thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 13:39, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chirptoons[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; unsourced jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:16, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bendixsen[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. very limited coverage [17]. much of the coverage i found is from ABC which is her employer so not third party. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The West Australian has an in-depth article.[18] and they are independent of the subject. Strange that it does not show up in a g-news search. Maybe something is broken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - referenced article about a host of a nationally broadcast tv show on a major network is enough for me. As for the article from The West not showing up in google searches, that is because they are partially owned by Channel 7, which owns/has a deal with Yahoo in Australia, so google simply ignores/downgrades the yahoo.com address in some searches!The-Pope (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE is subordinate to the GNG. If we were to rigidly apply WP:CREATIVE in all cases, we'd only have hit artists. That's not what Wikipedia is about. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT - get rid of the unsourced fancruft (possibly to be replaced by sourced fancruft from the West Australian article!) --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and yes... clean up any cruft. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is also [19] and some coverage [20]. Weakly meets the GNG but meets it nonetheless. –MuZemike 20:24, 20 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Birmingham Debating Society[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable student debating society - this Google search gives only 38 hits and I can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:N and in particular WP:CLUB. There are thousands of such societies worldwide - this one may be older and better than some of them but it doesn't require its own encyclopaedia entry. andy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not knowing the correct method of responding. The society does require its own encyclopaedia entry for a variety of reasons. Firstly the society is integral to the University, having been founded by the person who founded the University and because it has played an active role in Guild politics. Secondly it is a much more active society that most others with a history outlasting most others. The IV competitions it runs, the schools competitions it runs, the way its members engage with the local community and so forth means the society has a long tradition on having an impact not only on University students but also the Birmingham and international community. The unusually large impact the society has had is a very good reason for why the society deserves an encyclopaedia entry. Thirdly most of the information generated about University debating societies is by other societies and the Universities at which they are based. This means that the most common Internet reference to such a society is from other societies at the Universities - unfortunately any references to the society pre-2000 (when debating received a presence online) is all paper based. However this entry also has other sources such as the English Speaking Union an independent charity wholly seperate from any debating societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothingbutgreenlights (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost none of which is relevant. This is an encyclopaedia. Articles are not included or excluded on the bases of subjective notions of fame and importance (or, indeed, "impact"). It is only the question of whether the subject has been documented in depth by multiple published works, from people independent of the subject with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. It doesn't matter that the published works are in print. But it does matter that they exist. The in depth knowledge of this subject must already have been properly documented and published outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most UK universities, particularly older ones (and I include Birmingham in that category) have debating societies. Very few will achieve general notability in a global English-language encyclopedia without being covered in broader media. We are not talking about the Oxford Union here, which is a different kind of animal, but a student society which, as noted above, has not achieved the breadth of coverage we would normally expect to see here. Rodhull andemu 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this before, nobody objected, and it was deleted. The page has no independent secondary sources, and I can't find any with my own searching. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's third-party reliable coverage, it's buried in all the facebook entries and so on. If you want article to remain, please point to specific coverage demonstrating notability. EEng (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 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.