The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sagoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable individual being spammily recreated. Afd will allow speedy deletion in the future. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable guy, google only turns up social networking, the "official website", and a youtube mention of the Asian awards. Doesn't meet WP:N for BLP. The Arbiter^Talk 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Asian Awards is also up for nomination, but that will probably survive the AfD. However, I don't see any evidence that Pauil Sagoo has notability independent of these awards. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 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. Fails WP:SYN, cannot find the term in any WP:RS LFaraone 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding national myths and symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologistic name for a non- (or not-yet-) notable branding concept or theory. No identifiable Google results or independent coverage of this concept. Contested PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that a search tool doesn't match "Branding National Myths and Symbols" anywhere in the body of Sitki's thesis certainly lends weight to the conclusion that contrary to the article no field of research with that name is defined by xem. The thesis abstract at the NLA gives no indication of an intent to define a new field of research, either. Uncle G (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument below has satisfied the one concern that I had that was holding off a decision. I suspected that 121.127.204.107 (talk · contribs) might have been Sitki xyrself, and that the apparently false statements in the article about this field of research, that is not in fact defined by the source cited, were rather Sitki's further extension of xyr ideas (which wouldn't have been acceptable here without publication, of course). Clearly 121.127.204.107 is not Sitki. And both that and xyr handwaving below, trying to evade the point that no such field of research as this has in fact been defined at all, by Sitki or by anyone else, has convinced me that the outcome here should be delete. This quite clearly is improper novel synthesis being done directly in Wikipedia itself, as evident from the arguments made by 121.127.204.107. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with edits/wikification :-) I feel the theoretical basis for the term 'Branding national myths and symbols' can not be rejected simply because it does not show up on a Google search. A major portion of peer reviewed research is not published in a form that that makes it easily amenable to internet searching. Research of the concepts and theories of 'Branding national myths and symbols' (BNMS) have been researched and published. The title 'Branding national myths and symbols' describes the overarching concept of the research and not the exact title of any particular paper. See the following link to Deakin University, http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/view/DU:30027456 where the PhD thesis 'Myths, symbols and branding : Türkish national identity and the EU' researches the concept and components of BNMS extensively. The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9

  The title of the thesis includes the phrase 'Myths, Symbols and Branding' and the words 'national identity', I don't believe you can argue that every wikipedia article title should exactly match a name or phrase from a particular reference but rather it should concisely communicate the intention of the article.

  If you have any suggestions to reference the material in a manner that will be suitable for a wikipedia entry as well as any editing that is applicable to the text, then please make them.

  I believe the concepts and information contained in the article make a worthwhile contribution on the subject.

  David Cameron

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to UncleG

  The National Library of Australia does not have a copy of the thesis in paper or electronic form, they only have the abstract details, so it is no surprise that you can't find a match.

  David Cameron

  Query to Jimmy Pitt and A Macedonian, a Greek

  Do you have any suggestions concerning the referencing and textual content of the article, it is difficult know where alterations need to be made without some reference point. :-)

  David Cameron

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-22 05:57:42

  • I didn't use the NLA to perform the fulltext search on the paper, kid. Notice the word "either", there. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query to UncleG

Please advise how you determined that 'Branding National Myths and Symbols' was not present within the body of Sitki's thesis?

David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.204.107 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I could find on Sitki's thesis is this, where Hatice Sitki: Myths, Symbols and Branding: Turkish National Identity and the EU is listed under Postgraduate students by Research. I doubt this meets WP:RS standards... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to A Macedonian, a Greek

The thesis has been published by Deakin University and subsequently by VDM Verlag ISBN 978-3-639-15905-9
David Cameron
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.84.48 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found, see WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Santa Clause. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard the Arch-elf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced, unsourced and i have reason to believe a majority of the info is creator speculation. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:12 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• delete unsourced non notable fictional character unlikely to ever meet WP:N. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• change to merge redirect per MichaelQSchmidt Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find four references on Google News archive just by clicking, and that presumes the full title, "Bernard the Arch-elf". Given that level of success, I suspect there may well be more. While those four references appear to be trivial mentions in the actor's resume, there may well be more. Regardless, the films are well known and notable enough that a merge or redirect seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the four mentions on Google News is remotely relevant to establishing notability for the character. All they say is that this character is one of that David Krumholtz's best-known roles. If anything, the implication that the reader must be told that this is "the guy who played that one character in that movie franchise" detracts from the presumed notability of both the actor and the character. 70.179.116.63 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The only problem I have with that is that he's only a minor character in the film series, and the only one with his own film page. Why does he have one and Scott Calvin doesn't? The column about his absence is definetly fan speculation. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:21 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to The Santa Clause per research and reasons of User:Jclemens. I might point out to User: Rusted AutoParts that the Scott Calvin character might well deserve an article, as he is the primary character and mentioned in detail in the plot sections of all three films... and the character not currently having a seperate article would seem more a reason to turn a redlink Scott Calvin to blue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can see no apparent benefit in providing the world with a list of things that a particular character does in each of the three Santa Clause films. 70.179.116.63 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a reasonable search term, and will send those Wikipedia readers who actually might wish to know about this character to the place where his might best be mentioned in context to the films in which he was a part. No one (so far) is implying he has notability for a seperate article. Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by The wub.

Spagurpuldinkualization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a made-up word that is not yet notable. The creator is not notable either. T3h 1337 b0y 20:30, 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 delete. LFaraone 02:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yurlyageni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:SUBPAGENAME))|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete No references. Maybe consolidate this and other Category:Nigerian Names into a common article. (Nominated by User:Slayer4x4)
• Comment As there are 9 ghits for this name, four of which are Wikipedia based and connected to this article, I'm not so sure about the popularity of the name. It could be that the vast majority of the Yurlyagenis have avoided internet mention and live quietly in little grass huts still waiting to be discovered, but I doubt it. The article is hardly informative - are the bearers of this name male, female or either? Who are famous examples? (Who are not-famous examples, even?) Currently, this article takes minimalism to a new level. As the author's other edits (four of them listed) are to do with soccer in Tasmania, I'm not too sure about their expertise in African names, either. I agree with Ged UK that this isn't 'blatant', but could also agree with Slayer4x4 about the second part of the phrase... Peridon (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is a hoax. I can find no evidence for this being a popular name, and virtually none for it as a name at all - except for a football forum where the user is claiming to be Nigerian and located in Liverpool. (An admin of the forum suspects this is not correct, and states that the user's IP is based in Tasmania.) The only other edits of the author are in connection with soccer in Tasmania. This article was created the same day as the name appeared on the forum. The forum (for Everton FC fans) can be seen at http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/22001-hi/ The user of the forum by this name hasn't posted there since. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 24 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 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ogden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references and seemingly no notability, just someone doing their job. Heiro 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Heiro 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no claim of notability and no evidence for it, would have been candidate for speedy deletion (and in my view the AfD should be closed that way even if no one else contributes). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find no entry for any "Jessica Ogden" in BGMI (Biography and Genealogy Master Index - heck, I'm in there). A search for "Jessica Ogden" and archaeology in Lexis-Nexis Academic (all newspapers, all time periods) turned up a potential candidate who graduated from Dartmouth and got some accolades (potential USA Today academic award?). In any case, those two proprietary sources didn't turn up anything that convinced me that this article should be retained. Mind you, someone developing software for ground penetrating radar has the potential for being famous some day, but nothing shows that that day is today. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete … Does not come close to WP:ACADEMIC or even WP:GNG … why are we still discussing this one? Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
• Strong delete. According to what seems to be her blog she's two years out from a masters degree, so clearly WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply. Potentially, WP:GNG could be used, if there were third-party sources about her, but there don't seem to be any. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likely just a student's vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hajime Hirasawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. No sources exist on the subject itself, no way to expand the article. Prime Blue (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless more sources are provided. He seems to be fairly important in his field (Star Fox is big). However without sources his notability is not established and there is very little for an article to say about him. Does he have an article in Japanese WP? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:27, 20 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) 19:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 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 merge to Banking in Armenia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deposits in Armenian banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed. Single source, close to spam, WP:N, probably also WP:V Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really not suitable for an encyclopedia. Obviously banks accept deposits. The topic of Armenian banks can have its article, if someone cares to start one. The detailed information on deposit policies would only be of interest to a person doing business with one of the banks. In that case it would be better to get the info first hand from the bank itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is too detailed for Wikipedia and arguably fails several aspects of WP:NOT. I'm also worried that the material in the article will never be as up-to-date as that on the banks' own websites, which are a much better place for people to look for this type of information. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm changing my opinion to selective merge with Banking in Armenia as a result of the discussion below. I didn't realise that the latter existed until now, and there is probably something that can be salvaged, sourced and merged. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that if Banking in Armenia hadn't existed, then this AfD's finding should've been "selectively trim and rename to Banking in Armenia". (Kitfoxxe was almost there with the first !vote, it's just that s/he didn't find the right title, and seemed unwilling to actually write an article in the big empty space called Armenian banks—which, incidentally, I'm about to redirect to Banking in Armenia.)

  What I don't understand is how one could get from this content to a "delete" !vote; that just seems bizarre.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was concerned that the material verged on a guide or directory, and that it may be inaccurate, and hence thought that readers were better advised to consult banks' own websites. However, if the merge is selective and the material merged is sourced, I have no problem with that option. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You all three appear to be opining on the basis that what is written here describes one bank's individual banking practices. But the article itself states in the introduction that what it is describing is what is required for all banks by the country's legal system and central bank regulations. The article's author has even tried ineptly (This is xyr first article.) to point to the Central Bank of Armenia as a source. As such "This can be looked up on the bank's own WWW site." is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of banking as much as it is an encyclopaedia of anything else, and the legal requirements for banking in Armenia, imposed by government/by central bank regulation, are a perfectly valid topic. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine; however, we're not discussing a general topic, we're discussing this particular article. If someone wants to write about the topic, that could be ok -- but that would mean a complete re-write from scratch, with a different title, which is basically the same as delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. This particular article says outright that it's discussing that general topic. It does so in its introduction. Have you not read it? Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err... I take your "Wrong" as "Idiot!", so I'm not gonna talk about this anymore. I may also presume that you are one yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personal attacks are pretty much always a sign of not having a valid argument to use, as is the deliberate and blantantly obvious mis-reading of the word "wrong" as meaning something other than "wrong" just to create a straw man. Now go and read the article to see what it quite clearly says that it's about in its first few sentences. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incomprehensible fragments of... something. EEng (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw from the Bank of Wikipedia. Banks accept deposits, sometimes pay interest, and are regulated. This is not something unique to Armenia. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively merge into Banking in Armenia. Uncle G's got the right of it: the legal requirements for banking in Armenia are a perfectly valid topic and there is a useful attempt at providing a reliable source here. I agree that this material can't remain in this precise form, but all the issues mentioned by the "delete" !voters are fixable by a trim and merge, so per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, that's the way forward. N.B. If the closer finds this article title is to become a redlink, rather than to retain the history under a redirect, then the closer will need to perform a history merge in order to comply with our content licences, so it's noticeably simpler to keep the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 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) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties Throughout History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has several issues, including

1. By title, it should address worldwide political parties but actually only discusses the United States.
2. Its content duplicate other articles such as List of political parties in the United States and History of the United States.

This article was changed to a redirect on December 11, and then submitted to RfD by another editor on December 15. To avoid any appearance of a backdoor deletion, the RfD has been closed, the article restored, and this AfD discussion opened. I personally favor deletion of the article for the reasons stated above. –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) –Grondemar 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm the one who originally turned it into a redirect. I understand the rationale for taking it to AFD. It's an essay, the term isn't common enough to worry about leaving a redirect behind. tedder (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I opened the RfD) an essay duplicating the list linked above. If it is thought that a history of worldwide political parties should be created, it should be at History of political parties, though I don't know if this even should be moved there if such an article is deemed suitable. —innotata 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if it didn't look like someone's elementary school project, it both duplicates information elsewhere and is not actually a history of political parties (either in the USA or elsewhere!). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Rumble Adventure Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable company with only minor mentions in the press marking the opening of the two centres. Notability is not asserted by the article and having just two centres does not make it a chain. Simple Bob (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any kind of novelty crazy golf gets my endorsement, but sadly this business is not notable yet. Come back when you've expended a bit further and got a decent amount of media coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:31, 22 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 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seldom Seen Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails notability. This is a single character in the book. There is no reason for separate orphaned article. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no indication of this character's wider relevance than in the book. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term, not suitable for a redirect. I am skeptical whether the work in which this character appears itself meets WP:BK. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 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. LFaraone 02:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the nom states, this group has not received enough coverage in order to be consider notable according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unremarkable bike club. article does not assert notability --Biker Biker (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this deletion discussion might merit wider attention.

  I found 13 significant 2 unique news articles on Temple Riders, but all of them argue that the group is remarkable because they defy the "biker stereotype" that "Bikers are supposedly foulmouthed, freewheeling, hard-drinking highway desperadoes", and instead they are law-abiding, sober, well groomed and clean, and they proselytize their religion. The first problem with that claim to notability is that Google News archive has perhaps 3,400 articles about various groups that also "defy the biker stereotype": many of them religious, some oriented to women or law enforcement or the military or retirees or just regular people who like motorcycles. There are news articles dating back 30 years, at least, announcing the remarkable existence of motorcyclists who are not stereotypically thuggish. It's clear that non-stereotypical motorcyclists are not remarkable at all. There is a significant body of writing about the myth-making involved in spreading the biker stereotype, which is covered somewhat in the WP articles Outlaw motorcycle club, Motorcycle club and Hollister riot. This coverage could be expanded, obviously. How and why a media myth exists is notable and well documented, but how does that make Temple Riders notable?

  What if we just accept the news articles at face value, and say that Temple Riders are notable because they are motorcycle club that obeys the law, and does not flout social convention. The problem there is that the reason Hells Angels, Bandidos, etc. are notable is because they break the law and raise hell. How can motorcycle clubs be notable for being stereotypical bikers and also be notable for not being stereotypical bikers? Does this mean motorcycle groups are notable no matter what they do?

• Keep - changed my entry to keep for two reasons. One I think Dbratland shows the organisation receives a good amount of coverage and two, I honestly think this is an attempt by a Mormon to censor anything Mormon-related that the church might not agree with as this same nominator is trying to do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Fellowship. Wikipedia is not censored and all attempts to do so by those who have vested interests should be resisted. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Delete- First, Biker Biker need to WP:Assume good faith and not assume all LDS members are the same. If you ask any commenter at Talk:Undergarment#Time_to_review_Temple_Garment_image I am active in trying to maintain WP:NOTCENSORED when It comes to LDS article. I nominated this article for one reason, and I still feel it fails Notability as stated.

Now to the real issues I think this group fails significant coverage from secondary sources, Notability is not temporary, and WP:PROMOTION. I feel for the following reasons.

• "13 significant 2 unique news articles on Temple Riders" dose not establish significant coverage.
• The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, and MormonTimes.com statues as "secondary sources" when It comes to LDS articles is disputable. There entire focuses of those papers is LDS related stories. They are not "independent of the subject" It would be like stating that the 700 club is a "secondary sources" when it come to Christian news. After all Deseret News and MormonTimes.com are OWNED by the LDS church and the The Salt Lake Tribune was started by Elias L.T. Harrison and John Tullidge who disagreed with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'.
• That leaves only the last six articles. All from pre-2000 and based on the same AP article. Notability is not temporary and if you do a Google News search on this group "Temple Riders" you get ZERO results.
• It also fails WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is two line and a link to the website of the group.

As to "How can motorcycle clubs be notable for being stereotypical bikers and also be notable for not being stereotypical bikers?", Wikipedia has nothing to do with stereotypes. The Hells angels are notable because they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't see this being true of the Temple Riders, or the Azuza Street Riders a Christian bikers group who dosn't have a Wikipedia page.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Even though I object to the idea that notability based on nonsensical reasoning -- that non-thuggish bikers are in any way extraordinary -- I think probably we should follow the notability policy somewhat blindly and accept that not only LDS-associated media have covered them, but also the Los Angeles Times, Fort Worth Star - Telegram, Orlando Sentinel, and others have picked up and reprinted the stories that the Salt Lake papers were pushing. Yes, it's lazy journalism, but journalism nonetheless and it indicates that the MSM finds Temple Riders worth talking about.

  While we don't have a page for Azuza Street Riders, we do have Bikers for Christ, Tribe of Judah Motorcycle Ministries, God's Squad and Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, all of which barely, if at all, pass the bar for notability, and none of which includes much critical thought, in violation of the neutrality policy. It might be better to think about merging all of these motorcycle ministries into a single page that summarizes the redundant information about them, along the lines of Christian metal, Christian hardcore etc.

  A merged page would also give room to talk more plainly about the practice of infiltrating and co-opting subversive cultures for the purpose of proselytizing, in much the same way that Harley Owners Group has been an extraordinarily effective marketing tool by co-opting the outlaw biker style in the name of commerce. --Dbratland (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out a merge of some kind, I would be more than happy to agree with you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the how is pretty simple: A main section that describes the common characteristics of these ministries, followed by brief sub-sections that describe what is unique or notable about each individual ministry, leaving out most of the trivial details. I don't think the how of such merge is much of anything; for me it is the when -- I have an ever growing list of such projects and less time than ever. But I think it's worthwhile to keep the article and add a merge of the motorcycling ministry articles to the to-do list for the Motorcycling WikiProject, or one of the religion WikiProjects. Also, FWIW, there is at least a book or two out there on the subject. --Dbratland (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Temple Riders is not a ministry of any kind; instead it's merely an association of people belonging to the same religious denomination (LDS Church) that have a common interest (motorcycles) where they take LDS themed group trips together (to LDS Temples). If they were actually doing some kind of active ministry/outreach/proselyting to the motorcycle sub-culture(s) they might be slightly notable; as it is, they are no more notable than any other hobbyist group that travel together. Novelty does not impart notability, notability is not temporary, and having a couple of silly season/filler articles that got picked up in the media echo chamber means very little. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This does appear to have had significant coverage from secondary sources like the Los Angeles Times, the Arizona Republic, Associated Press, the Salt Lake City Tribune and more. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 23 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! 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbulences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD was contested, opening up AFD. With no press release or officially released information, all details are speculative. While it's possible for an album article to be created before its release, the claims on Turbulences are not verifiable. The entire article is being sourced from an alleged setlist posted on a user-generated wiki-style website. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found this article, [8], which seems to confirm the album's release. However, the setlist seems to be as unreliable as can be, so I would suggest deleting that section until a better source can be found. As I have seen with new album releases, info on new albums leaks out slowly, so if this article is deleted, then it'll need to be recreated in a week or two. Angryapathy (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If details about the secret shows and the setlist are removed, you're essentially left with the same information that's at Rise Against#Turbulences (2010–present). Why have a separate article for this? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because then it would be a stub from which verifiable information could be added as more info about the album is released. Angryapathy (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in my experiences, unless someone is willing to take the time to re-write an article down the road, pages created in this fashion end up as dumping grounds for speculation and minor announcements. The track listing being based on an alleged set list is a prime example. It's best to wait until there is something genuinely concrete to say about the album before it's deserving of it's own article. Generally for upcoming albums, Wikipedia likes to wait until either the title, release date and full track listing have all been officially confirmed, OR one could document the writing and recording in a well-structured multi-paragraph article, such as this revision of In Rainbows created about ten months before its release. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This title is not confirmed on the band's official website or by their management. They said they were completing the new album, but they never said it would be called Turbulences. Alex (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There has not been enough information confirmed by third party sources for this to become an article... If anything, keep it in userspace until a cover, release date, and tracklist can all be confirmed. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~

• Comment – According to a new article by Spin[9] the new Rise Against album will be titled Endgame, and they're not even finished recording it yet. Also, none of the song titles in the Spin article match up with the setlist being hailed as the "official track listing." As of now, all of the information/rumors on this page have been proven to be completely false. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just moved this article to a new page, Endgame (Rise Against album). Alex (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Turbulences was only a rumored title, it wouldn't really make much sense as a redirect page. It should still be deleted. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:51, 24 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 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darkorbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails the WP:WEB and WP:NSOFT guidelines. After removing forum links, the only remaining sources appear to be either tangential mentions or game reviews that could be found for almost any computer game. Note, this article has previously been created and deleted under the name Dark Orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fæ (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:47, 20 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) 19:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not locate any independent, reliable sources for verification. Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 23 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 G2, test page. Largely a duplicate of Markus Persson. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Minecraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This may very well be an A7 article. The "sources" provided are to blogs and such; there's not indication that this person meets WP:GNG. Reads more like a vanispamcruft or a resume than a valid encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but the title is way off. Renaming to Markus Persson, per coverage at locations like this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 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. Courcelles 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reposted article about a Christian hip-hop record label; no independent sources. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Some of the label's artists appear notable, so the label name is mentioned in passing in sources about the artists -- but no substantial coverage of the label as such. Large number of GHits, but once such passing mentions are subtracted -- along with blogs, twitter/myspace/facebook links, commercial links for purchasing records, and content mirrored from this very Wikipedia article -- there's virtually nothing left. I can't find any independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and 1st AFD. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ThemFromSpace 12:49, 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 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

bloggy, prosy nn vanispamicruftisement Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides the article being horribly written, the subject fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References provided are controlled by the subject or her friend. A Google search reveals no independent references discussing this writer in any depth. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg_Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable Nitack (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lone contribution from User:GSteele112, most likely a fan of one of the many people in Faster Pussycat. Mandsford 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough independent notability for a stand-alone article. Anything he did of note with Faster Pussycat can be mentioned at their article. (Note that a musician with this name died in '09 but I can't figure out if it's the same guy. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 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 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

chatty and name-dropping, but nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of many articles about New York city station personalities, written perhaps with the idea that they were on the class AAA farm team for before being called up to the major league TV networks [10]. I note that the article of these was later blocked for sockpuppetry, but I think the real problem is that most of these weren't notable to begin with. These were made back in Wikipedia's days of trying to get as many articles as possible, so back then this probably met the standards. Of course, back then, a character in a single episode of The Smurfs was considered notable enough for an article. Mandsford 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Musical Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable holiday, was created this year, was a redirect but reverted several times. Hopefully this will stop it Delete or redirect and protect. Secret ^account 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically a promo for a website made for fun, something to the effect that if you celebrate it, you have to sing most of the day. It'll be on March 10. It probably won't be notable even on March 11. Mandsford 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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. treating as a soft deletion so can be restored immdiately if anyone finds another decent source Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Hamano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single reliable (but primary) source on biographical information. Article otherwise based on unreliable source (Wikia) and trivial coverage (composer credit). No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Page has been deleted before, too. Prime Blue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she qualifies as notable or I wouldn't have written the article--just because a previous article was deleted says nothing about her notability, only that it was not established in the previous article. The article is expandable, I've already added some further primary references. Commercial composers are no less composers because of the the usage of their work. Note that more traditional players of classical music like ensembles and orchestras are noticing the popularity of the Nintendo game music--I've added a couple of references to show this. Also, she is a woman successful in what is considered a man's field. She meets the following criteria from WP:COMPOSER:

• Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (These games are clearly notable, though I'm not a fan.)
• Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. (Okay, not single-handedly, but she's part of the success of the Nintendo game music.)
• Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (See list of game credits.)
• Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (See web search on her name for fan publications, and also magazines like GameAxis Unwired.) Pkeets (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable composition" refers to a composition which meets the notability criteria to have an article on Wikipedia, the notability of the games alone is not sufficient. Please give some reliable and independent sources to prove that the other criteria you listed are fulfilled. Especially the last point, since all the references you have listed in the article either do not mention the subject at all (e.g. GameAxis Unwired) or are only trivial coverage with a passing mention (Classicals: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases). Do you have any detailed interviews or articles on her that could help expand this article with biographical information and to establish notability? Prime Blue (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you confused Play! A Video Game Symphony with Video Games Live. As far as I am aware, Play! has not had a Metroid arrangement yet. Prime Blue (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, no interviews or puff articles. However, I've been doing a number of composer biographies and these are quite often unavailable for low-profile composers in non-English speaking countries. Most living female composers market their compositions quite actively, but are reticent about personal information. Hamano's birth date, place of birth, city of residence and employer are all covered in the article. It's not necessary to include privacy sensitive information about her family, background, activities, etc. Is expanability one of the criteria for notability? Also, perhaps the orchestrated music isn't clear in the article? It's Legend of Zelda in Play! and Video Games both. Pkeets (talk)

P.S. I've added a link to the Video Games Live concert in Singapore. This is serious music; however, the "work for hire" aspect is somewhat disturbing. I hope all Nintendo's composers are getting their due in some way or other. Pkeets (talk) 19:20, 20 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) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expandability is the fundamental criterion for articles on people, as they must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to be notable. But seeing how no sources exist to prove the fulfillment of either of the criteria, I think this is a pretty clear case.

Regarding the concerts: Play! A Video Game Symphony had the "Ballad of the Wind Fish" in its Zelda medley. Since no composer breakdowns for Link's Awakening were released, it could be that this was either composed by Hamano or co-composed with Kazumi Totaka and Kozue Ishikawa (though saying that it contained her music is completely WP:OR). Video Games Live exclusively used arranged music originally composed by Koji Kondo in both their older and newer "segments". Then again, I shouldn't have brought this up as it does not really bear any relevance to an AfD... Prime Blue (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that expandability is a necessary criterion for notability. I do agree that attribution is a problem here--another aspect of the work-for-hire situation. However, she is credited on the games, so we have to accept that she did, at the least, collaborate on this now high-profile music. Perhaps the work-for-hire is a similar situation to providing incidental music for film soundtracks (since Stokowski a respectable avenue for composers)? Anyhow, I think we should have some other opinions on this. Pkeets (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think that notability is there, but I can't source it - and that's a bit frustrating. Sources would take care of the expandability issue, as well. I'll see what I can come up with. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have removed two references from the article because they were to books published by ICON Group International, which takes its content from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The work-for-hire situation must be fairly common in Asia. I'm currently working on the bio of a Chinese composer that works for a film studio. Pkeets (talk) 01:37, 22 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 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Gray's secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable game. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable video game, no search results found, and the article is completely unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:00, 20 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) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow, hoax as far as I can tell. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability, likely a hoax. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thomas Eagleton. history is intact if anyone wants to do a merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. JN466 12:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if this was to be on Wikipedia, it would be an article on the blackmail attempt on Thomas Eagleton. I notice the attempt only has one (unreferenced) mention on the Thomas Eagleton page, which is strange given the uncle/niece relationship. Just possibly, this could be merged to his biography - if sources can be found to indicate notability.--Scott Mac 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present bio reads like a coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology.--Scott Mac 12:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thomas Eagleton. Sources about the incident can and should be added there. Location (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then redirect The case itself is significant, but Elizabeth Weigand is not a significant figure in her own article. I can't find enough information to flesh this article out or prove Elizabeth has the notability to have her own article. Let's move the source and information then do a redirect.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I resent the inappropriate and unjustified "coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology" comment, and it is inaccurate. Is there a reason Wikipedia discussions have to involve ad hominem attacks so frequently? The extortion episode was notable, as were the culprits involved. A very high profile sitting U.S. Senator who had been nominated for vice president was subjected to an extortion attempt - by his niece - which resulted in a prosecution and reported appellate case. The New York Times, AP and other outlets reported on it multiple times. By way of comparison, the article on basketball coach Rick Pitino, certainly a less significant figure than Sen. Eagleton, contains an entire section on an extortion attempt involving him. For sake of discussion: Why would a crime like this be notable, but not its perpetrator? Why would a page for Seung-Hui Cho be appropriate, but this page is suspect?LanternLight (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stuff can be merged if apprpriate but classic Coatrack The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton. The material is certainly relevant, and the sources here should be added to his bio, but I don't find much basis for a separate article about the blackmailer; is there anything significant to say about her other than this incident?--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton per Arxiloxos. I do not see a COATRACK problem, I see a one-note WP:BLP1E problem. This was not a big news item 30 years ago when I was in high school, and the story did not have any "legs". The subject faded into being a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 22 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 speedily deleted (A7) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online-DoctorsAppointment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed by creator. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this software in reliable sources, to meet our notability guidelines. Still not sure why we don't have a speedy criterion for software that doesn't assert notability. ThemFromSpace 12:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL as the service isn't even up yet. Looks like advertising to me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I can't find any significant coverage for this, no sources in addition to its homepage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
• Speedy delete. Article is about web content (article mentions shared reviews and support by banner ads) that makes no minimal claim to importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SOAP Slayer (talk) 20:39, 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 result was Non admin closure keep by the nominator. This was a bad nomination on my part.

Amarillo American Association baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sufficiently notable for coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable professional baseball team. Spanneraol (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to new name as soon as it is picked. Professional baseball teams are notable. No specific justification for deletion given by nominator. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- looks like it has good coverage in addition to the default notability for professional sports teams. Ma^t_chups 03:16, 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject has been covered in Variety Magazine, Coco Eco Magazine, X Media Lab, and Juxtapoz Magazine, all of which are independent of the subject of the article and are independently edited, meeting the requirements of WP:RS and WP:Notability (people). Note: There seems to be some confusion -- the Ken Goldstein mentioned in the previous nomination is a former vice presidential candidate, not this person. AkankshaG (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Besides Variety, Goldstein has been profiled in the Sunday Oregonian, Sportswear International, AFI Festival, A&E Television, The Chicago Tribune, The New Times and The Chicago Production Weekly.Brittponset (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article was adequately and quite well sourced at the time of nomination, easily aserting and showing notability through multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject seems notable- article well sourced. Goldstein was mentioned in the Variety article multiple times. As observed by AkankshaG, this does seem to be a different Ken Goldstein than the VP running mate mentioned as the first nomination for deletion. SharedPlanetType (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject not VP running mate. Besides the many press articles cited above, the subject was instrumental, with Tonny Sorensen, in bringing Planet Illogica to the American Film Institute Digital Content Lab while I was Director of the Lab. Subsequent success of the venture speaks to his standing within the arts community. Zorca777 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He is mentioned in passing, or is being quoted as chief marketing dude for planet illogica. But what is missing is significant coverage about him. Although there are a lot of sources in the article, many of them are not independent. For Example, COCO magazine's article is not about him. It is written by him. The reference to the article in the Oregonian actually leads to a blog on planet illogica. Just because it looks adequately referenced, does not mean it is. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in The Oregonian, dated 9 November 1997, by author Margie Boule. The Oregonian cannot be found online, but a full copy of the piece can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46562.Brittponset (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Strikethough of duplicate !vote Peridon (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in The Jewish Review, dated 1 March 1998, by author Deborah Seldner. The Jewish Review cannot be found online, but a full copy of the piece can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46565. Subject is also discussed substantively in this piece in VIBE Magazine, dated March 2001, by author Matthew Cowan. The article can be found online at http://books.google.com/books?id=gCYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=Ken+Goldstein+%22%22Vibe+Magazine%22%22Prophet+Speaks&source=bl&ots=aZquATMg5T&sig=47vUa_TILmihUfY8fejTFrswvqA&hl=en&ei=QiUUTcq6H4zksQOx_Iy6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Subject is also discussed and credited in Variety Magazine, dated 24 February 2010, by author Sharon Swart. The article can be found online at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015719.Brittponset (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.234.56 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Goldstein is discussed substantively in this article in the Jewish Review (http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46565), and in the Oregonian article, which can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46562, both of which support a claim of notability, and both of which are reliable sources under Wikipedia rules (See WP:Notability and WP:RS). These are multiple articles from multiple sources, which satisfies Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. A nomination for deletion is not appropriate under these circumstances, as the subject satisfies our notability rules by being described substantively in these multiple sources.MixedMartial1984 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in Juxtapose, dated 25 March 2010, by author Elle Newbold. The Juxtapose article, entitled, Gators Going Green Unite With Planet Illogica for the Oceans, can be found online at http://www.juxtapoz.com/19327-oceans-infiltrate-at-university-of-florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alharrismcgee (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - subject is discussed substantively in this video clip from Boardroom Radio Australia which can be found on-line at http://www.brr.com.au/event/66613/tonny-sorenson--ken-goldstein-co-founders-of-planet-illogica-part1. Subject is also discussed substantively in this piece on the official Playstation Blog by author Joe Vaux, dated 19 May 2009, which can be found at http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/05/19/littlebigplanet-the-patch-family-guys-joe-vaux/. Subject is also discussed substantively in the this piece on Golgotron by author Chase, 3 August 2010, which can be found at http://golgotron.com/2010/08/the-people-will-look-up-and-shout-save-us/#more-5398. Brittponset —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ómar Jóhannsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod was challenged. Has appeared for a third tier Swedish club and an Icelandic club. Don't believe he meets notability guidelines. EchetusXe 11:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - PROD contest reasoning was flawed. Neither the Swedish third division nor the Icelandic first division are fully pro, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 22 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 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism was closed as "no consensus to delete". Following the closure, I have moved the page from the incubator to the mainspace so that the community can evaluate whether the changes have addressed the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of the article:

Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove from Wikipedia - I participated in the MfD and was invited to add my thoughts in this AfD#2. "Conspiracy Journalism" is neologisms and there is not enough reliable source material to satisfy WP:GNG. The article violates No original research in that the article combines material from multiple web sources to reach the conclusion that Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism when the sources do not state that. The article lead states, "Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism that has elements of advocacy journalism, yellow journalism and investigative journalism." Books Ngram Viewer shows that, unlike advocacy journalism, yellow journalism, and investigative journalism mentioned in the conspiracy journalism article, the phrase 'conspiracy journalism' has had no noticeable usage through 2008. Moreover, there is no sense from the sources in the article that they are each talking about the same idea when they mention the phrase "Conspiracy Journalism". Conspiracy journalism is fast becoming the Rasputin of Wikipedia. Since its March 20, 2010 deletion, the material has been moved in the past nine months from article space-->AfD--> DRV-->Article Incubator-->MfD-->User space-->article space. No significant new information has come to light since March 20, 2010 to overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD#1. As noted in the collapsed template above, the November 28, 2010 Article Incubation assessment established that the deleted article had not proven useful to write a new article at Article Incubator. Delete and remove from Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. This has been to AfD with only one keep !vote, which was from the author, Jettparmer, who then took it to DRV, where the delete was unanimously endorsed. The material was moved to the incubator, and Jettparmer also copied the material to his userpage. I evaluated it in the incubator and found it not to be an encyclopaedic article. As there were two versions on Wikipedia, I called an MfD, where there were five delete comments, and - again - only Jettparmer !voting to keep. This has taken up enough of our time and resources, so this should be the final discussion, and the title should be creation protected. This move to mainspace is against policy as the article has not significantly changed since the original AfD. I will discuss the matter with User:Cunard, as I think the more appropriate thing would be to speedy per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is still essentially just WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched Google for sources on this topic, but, suspiciously or otherwise, there are very very few.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humor - Very funny, bravo! :-D Jettparmer (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite circumstantial claims of WP:OR, this article meets WP standards as encyclopedic. The term or categorization is in use within both popular and scholarly circles. Stating that the article is simply "essentially just OR" is highly subjective and unsupported in comparison to WP standards. Development of this article is warranted and suported by the simple presence of the term under a limited Google search. Jettparmer (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is explicit: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. That is not a particularly subjective standard. --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how there has been any synthesis. The term / categorization is used in numerous areas both in media, academia and popular sources from the UN in Africa to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The aim of the article is to catalog the term / classification detailed in these references and arrive at a proper encyclopedic entry for the term.Jettparmer (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and try again with actual references. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article but the references given do not support the present one. Only Ref 8 & 9 are RSs, and they discuss ordinary investigative journalism. The Gore Vidal article in the EL section does not use the term or otherwise support the article. The use of Ref. 6, though not a RS in any case, shows a misunderstanding : the reference does not say the Clinton administration committed or even encouraged conspiracy journalism, but asserts that Hilary Clinton and what they considered to be associated sources had falsely claimed that the Scaife Foundation was conducting conspiracy journalism against the administration. The p. cited from Brach do not support the use of the term The other sources are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would submit that sources are both WP:RS and appropriate as they adequately and correctly frame the usage and validate its definition within popular media. The sources are as much for usage as content. It is not relevant whether Farah or the Clinton administration committed the act, but rather that the issue was framed by the category. The MRC reference was intended to demonstrate that common usage of the term exists and place it in the proper context. Am I missing something here? This is not an article to prove conspiracy journalism exists, but rather that a specific and unique category of this classification does. I am surprised why the SPLC reference, number 12, was classified as unreliable, this stikes me as a solid standard to support the article.Jettparmer (talk) 20:04, 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 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghafar (Afghan mujahideen fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails even the most basic requirements for WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. First part is the interpretation of a primary sources document followed by a list of individual with the same name or similar name that might be the person that was mention in the primary source. IQinn (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above [CharlieEchoTango] 08:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources. I'd also be inclined to delete some of the other Abdul Ghafars listed on that page for the same reason. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Also fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N as it lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 22 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage (1966 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Notability criteria for films. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NF. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage. No reviews. No notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - i prodded this because coverage seems to be restricted to the religious group. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kingshott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Autobiographical article of person who is not notable Bkingshott (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Subject is registered on IMDB, is engaged in pre-production on a film project being directed by Michael J. Bassett, a major director, and has received multiple appearances on film-related websites:
  • Variety
  • The Hollywood Reporter
  • Screen Daily
  • Empire Online
  • Shock Till You Drop
  • Dread Central
  • Bloody Disgusting
  • Coming Soon
• The subject also appears in numerous news articles performed by a Google News search and appears in dozens of articles accessible by a Google search, as well as appearing in the top 3.
• The article therefore meets the following proposed arguments for inclusion:
  • The subject has multiple, externally-sourced references.
  • The subject appears on numerous film-related websites.
  • The subject continues to receive publicity through news and regular web searches.
  • This article has the potential to improve at a later date when additional information is available. At such a time the article is unlikely to remain autobiographical as per the terms of the original observation.
• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.43.66 (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While there may be a lot of mentions of this project none are that significant and would not yet (at first look) be enough for me for the future film so he doesn't satisfy WP:ENT as a film writer. The mentions of him in the above links I have access to are of the extremely trivial nature so lacks coverage for WP:N. The subject is not recieving the coverage, the project is. That the article has the potential to improve is crystal ball thinking and that is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also vioaltes WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I see no evidence that its author User:ThePenguin1 is either Matthew Kingshott or anyone attached to the Kingshot film, I do not see this short, encyclopedic, and sourced article as being a violation of WP:NOT. That said however, the article and topic are simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Faith (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Some editors cannot deal with a redirecting so now its nominated for deletion. Fails WP:NSONGS; has not charted on any major chart, has not even been released, has not won or been nominated for any major awards or been covered by other notable acts. STATic message me! 07:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or create dab page) - As of now, this does not seem notable enough to meet WP:N or WP:NSONGS, so per WP:NSONGS, a redirect to No More Idols is most appropriate. That said, there are other songs called "Blind Faith", some probably more notable than this one. So for now, a redirect works, but it would probably be better eventually it may be necessary to turn this into a dab page, with links to No More Idols as well as Ferguslie Park (album) and possibly others, and create a redirect for Blind Faith (Chase & Status song). Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. This song is not notable as identified by the nom. Dolovis (talk) 05:27, 23 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) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Waters (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable book; I almost tried for an IAR speedy, but I PRODded it instead. Does not even come close to meeting notability guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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 delete. Probably not an hoax but an hopelessly non-notable YouTube video character, — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Tugboat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable animated series lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as promotion/advertising (as I originally nominated, but some editor inexplicably declined). Non-notable in the extreme. Not even sure it really exists, frankly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, zero hits. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:NF, clearly non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and clearly promotional. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as ((db-hoax)); tagged as such. I'm not sure the admin that declined the original speedy did a Google search. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rémi Gaillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tag placed for sourcing in february 2010, which was not addressed properly since then. This article has -almost- no source other than YouTube videos basically only linking to sections describing the videos that in turn amount to WP:OR. The notability of the subject is itself very border line per WP:ANYBIO. Thanks - [CharlieEchoTango] 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (nominator) [CharlieEchoTango] 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Withdraw AfD [CharlieEchoTango] 07:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There do seem to be quite a few legitimate news hits for the subject on Google News[11]--almost all of them in French--and somewhat better sourcing is given in the article on French Wikipediafr:Rémi Gaillard.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a user of both wikis, I agree the french wikipedia article is much better, thank you for pointing that. There is also very good refs on the article. But if the issues on the en.wiki article are not addressed, I still stand by this AfD, this article just has too many problems (starting with the list of videos and there description (WP:OR)), and the notability is still border line for the en.wiki in my opinion. If the issues are addressed and the article is significantly improved, than I will happily retract this AfD, but I am not willing to improve or translate the article from the fr.wiki and not very sure about the notability of the subject per the en.wiki guidelines. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 07:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, turns out I'm willing in the end, but I might not do a very good translation job, not used to translating french to english. Thanks to everyone for your comments. [CharlieEchoTango] 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. AfD is not an alternative if you simply can't be bothered to fix the issues on the article. If reliable sources that assert notability exist on the French wiki then its safe to say that they could be used to assert notability on the English wiki as well. It sounds like you're in an ideal position to do this as you stated you use both wikis, but if you don't wish to then that's up to you. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the French wiki establishes notability then that is enough. Being incomplete is NOT grounds for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO, sourced, referenced. It's simple. Keep. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:04 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• weak Keep is he not mentioned in wired? thats a pretty good secondary source. if the french article is better developed, might be a good transwiki article. Needs improvements but some sources seem to already be present Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks to have just enough general coverage to meet basic notability requirements. GiantSnowman 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable, refimprove is not a valid reason for deletion in this case. BanRay 06:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List does not cover a notable topic (ie, a topic the subject of significant discussion in reliable independent sources.) The entries on the list are themselves non-notable, and a list of non-notable streets is essentially a street directory, which Wikipedia explicitly frowns on. Initial prod was removed with rationale "No reason to delete this list!" - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing a directory, which lists events or business, from a gazetteer, which lists the beginning, end, and major crossroads and towns of routes. Wikipedia incorporates elements of a gazetteer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose --- There IS no reason to delete this list! Perhaps some of the streets that already have articles can be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets, but to delete a whole list of county roads is an asinine thing to do. ----DanTD (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling something asinine is not a very good argument. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm sorry but it is, and many below this list, starting with User:Floydian understand this. And while I've had my disagreements with them on which county roads are notable enough for an article and which ones aren't, the fact that the Volusia County has these roads under their jurisdiction is notable. Just because the existance of a list of these roads may not mean anything to the nominee, doesn't mean it's not notable. ----DanTD (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Something similar to the "keep" argument from here. The main "keep" argument was that it was supposed to be a list of notable shopping malls. By that, I think lists of roads should be limited to notable ones. Since this is just a county, not a state, I imagine there would not be enough notable roads to make a list with. If there are a significant number of notable roads, then he list should just include those. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists have far lower expectations of notability than articles do. The notability is in the fact that this county decided that these select roads - no different than others - are very important to it. Generally when something is notable enough to the government , that they track them, number them, keep statistics of them, and keep them (where possible) in tip-top shape, it is notable enough for us. As an aside, if we pull otherstuffexists, there are hundreds of lists of county roads in a county. Not only in Florida, but in the United States, Canada, and probably even in Europe (though in a different sense) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to contain a list of notable entries, or potential notable entries and has a clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per USRD Notability Guidelines - While a single article on one CR may not be notable, there is a system of CR in the county, which warrants at least a list. Admrboltz (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - County routes are suitable to be presented in a list format. Dough4872 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep County routes are rarely notable on their own, but a list that explains a county route system and contains information about a collection of roads that are non-notable on their own is acceptable.  VC  21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the topic itself is notable even if the individual items are not. WP:SNOW close, please. Imzadi 1979 → 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per USRD Notability Guidelines - While a single article on one CR may not be notable, there is a system of CR in the county, which warrants at least a list. (It was said way to well by Admrboltz, so I just copied his comment.) --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to add that it's interesting that this is the only list of County Roads in Florida that DustFormsWords wants to delete. What about the other 20? Are they in more notable Counties than this one? --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted, according to the USRD notability guidelines, this is an appropriate topic and an appropriate method of presenting it. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, and things like this are perfectly suited to the Wikipedian format, even if they wouldn't ever make the cut for a "dead tree" encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 22 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#G11.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Flakelar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find much relevant coverage on Google besides listing and photo galleries. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:54, 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ORB (Venture Bros. episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. I doubt that the episode is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Plot-only description of a fictional work, no evidence of independent notability. Venture Bros does not appear to have the level of cultural impact necessary to justify an article for each and every episode. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes#Season 3: 2008. I'm no fan of this cartoon, but I often find the questions of cultural impact of TV episodes and shows to be subjective. It's still better to save the information in older versions. ----DanTD (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ORB (Venture Bros. Episode) doesn't seem to me to be a likely search term, and in any event once this article is deleted it will return the episode list as the first search result if searched. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - This already sounds more like a redirect than a delete. I agree with you on the notability of the article, but that doesn't mean the info in the existing article can't be used in the future, i.e. for a season-specific episode list, or for a Venture Brothers Wikia, or maybe just some fansite. Saving the info is just fine without saving the article. Redirecting will help you do that, deleting it won't. I've made similar recommendations for Big Time Rush episodes. ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 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) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 2002 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable county road in Florida. A Google search gives no related hits that aren't from Wikipedia. The only possible claim to notability is as a "scenic route", but we'd need a source to substantiate that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Roads are generally not notable, and there is no significant discussion to suggest that this road is an exception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm voting delete, but not all roads are not notable. See WP:USRD/NT for an example of those that are. --Rschen7754 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable county road. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida, despite the fact that a smaller part of the road also exists in Flagler County, Florida. As far as the notion of a source to substantiate the claim of being a scenic route, a quick scan on Google Maps Street View can answer that question, and would've certainly answer that question regarding the unjustly deleted County Road 42 (Florida). ----DanTD (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd oppose a redirect, even if the list (currently nominated for deletion) is kept, on the basis that "County Road 2002 (Florida)" is not a likely search term, and in the event that it's searched it should produce the list anyway. And no, using Google Street View would NOT substantiate it as a scenic route, as that would be original research. You need to find a reliable independent source that says that, not work it out for yourself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to strongly disagree with DustFormsWords on using Google Street View as a source for determining a scenic highway, although I certainly wouldn't rely on it as a primary source. In the case of the Bi-County CR 42, considering the proximity between Florida State Road 40 and Florida State Road 44, and runs along the southern border of Ocala National Forest, it would be foolish to deny scenic highway status for that road. ----DanTD (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google SV can't support the word "scenic". That word is a value judgement and an opinion. You need a source that directly says that. SV can be used to say that the roadway passes "through trees". That's an objective description. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. You can start with this. As for Volusia-Flagler CR 2002, I didn't originally think of keeping it, but now I may have to reconsider. ----DanTD (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-notable. Admrboltz (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a passable article can be created for the scenic highway, I support merging into that article. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. --Rschen7754 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a single, non-notable road. No sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of county roads in Flagler County, Florida and List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida and turn this into a dab page. Dough4872 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida  VC  21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Save the Loop! - CR 2002 (AKA Highbridge Road and Walter Boardman Road) is the northern leg of the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, a Florida Scenic Highway, designated on July 9, 2007.
  • Florida Dept. of Transportation: Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail
  • www.savetheloop.org
  • www.ormondscenicloopandtrail.com
  • Florida Scenic Highways
• Gamweb (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So really you're arguing that we should have an article on the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, not this individual road, ne? Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't speak for Gamweb, but I'm willing to consider merging this into a chapter on the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail. Come to think of it, every road that's part of the loop should have it's own chapter. ----DanTD (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that being part of a state scenic byway makes a road notable. The byway itself might be notable enough for an article, but its components aren't unless they have another claim to fame. – TMF 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I misread that comment. The use of "chapter" instead of "section" is probably what threw me off. – TMF 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the subject of numbered roads versus named roads, see what I wrote about the San Bernardino Mountain Crest Highway and the Rim of the World Drive at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings#Outside view by Uncle G. Ironically, we don't have the road by either its official name or its unofficial nickname by which it is commonly known. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• New Comment - Thanks to the links tha Gamweb showed us, I've just started doing some work on an article for the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, and I also discovered one road that was part of it, but was redirected to the List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida -- County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida). Do you see what happens when you redirect instead of delete, people? You get history. And that history can be useful ----DanTD (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan, things can be un-deleted. Just as an example, the banner template, ((Canada Roads WikiProject)) was deleted thee years ago this month, undeleted earlier this month and back in service again. You can always request undeletion through WP:DRV if needed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard of people un-deleting articles, but I never knew how they do it. The only way I can think of doing it is searching on Google and going to cached versions of the articles, and saving them as a persnal file, which isn't 100% reliable. Requesting an undeletetion is something I'm not so sure I can get away with. ----DanTD (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Its part of the Deletion Review process, and is an administrative function. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, DanTD is right in that if one merges and redirects, rather than deletes, fishing things out of the history doesn't require funnelling through administrators, and can be done by ordinary editors at their leisure. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is there an infobox exclusively for named scenic routes, or should I just use the existing infoboxes? ----DanTD (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the instructions on ((infobox road)). It covers exactly how to deal with named/unnumbered highways. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5 vs. Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This has been around for a week or so but doesn't seem to be evolving into anything other than a personal essay. The material on it is more than adequately covered on other pages including those on HTML 5 and Flash. Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the weird example images and formatting the article has, it's pretty much nothing but an opinion piece. (BTW, DustFormsWords, I changed your wikilink from WP:FORK to WP:CFORK because I'm pretty sure that's what you were referring to.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, yes. I'd never even been to WP:FORK before. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a personal essay page, mostly original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Comparison of HTML5 and Flash is a completely legitimate topic. The HTML5 article does not offer a comparison with Flash, and the Adobe Flash article doesn't have more to say on the topic than this: "HTML 5 is gaining ground as a competitor to Flash: the canvas element assists animation, and text can be more easily synchronized with audio and video element timeupdate events." Therefore I don't think it is fair to call this a content fork – and merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give this unduly localized prominence. As to the complaint that this is OR, most of the judgements expressed are properly sourced, and many of the remaining ones easily sourceable. I see no major problems that cannot be addressed by the usual Wikiprocess.  --Lambiam 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Properly sourced"? The sources are blogs and comment sections. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that not all sources cited are equally reliable, but that is (as I see it) not the main point; the main issue to be considered here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable and could be developed into a reliably sourced article. Further, I do not think that being a blog makes a source unreliable per se; what counts is the distinction between self-published sources and sources that are published under some form of editorial control that may be assumed to uphold certain standards. Many leading technology weblogs have a professional editorial staff, and are of comparable quality as technology magazines in print. As it is, the topic of the article does not interest me, but if anyone else is inspired, here is a list of sources that (again, in my opinion) are reliable and can be used for the article:

CNET News:

• Stephen Shankland (February 3, 2010). "HTML vs. Flash: Can a turf war be avoided?". CNET News.

CNN:

• Doug Gross (November 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs Flash? Pick a side with 'Pong'". CNN Tech.

Engadget (yes, a technology blog, but generally considered reliable, with a strong editorial staff and knowledgeable authors with sound contributions; this particular article was actually cited in a scholarly article in Law Library Journal 102, no.3):

• Donald Melanson (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash comparison finds a few surprises, settles few debates". Engadget.

Focus.com:

• "HTML5 vs Flash". Focus.com. October 12, 2010.

Gizmodo (nominally a blog, but generally reliable and more like an e-zine; it has an editorial team, and John Herrman is a regular and knowledgeable contributor):

• John Herrman (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The Video Benchmark Deathmatch". Gizmodo.

InformationWeek:

• Thomas Claburn (May 6, 2010). "Web 2.0: Scribd Drops Flash For HTML5". InformationWeek.

InfoWorld:

• Paul Krill (June 16, 2009). "HTML5: Could it kill Flash and Silverlight?". InfoWorld.
• Peter Wayner (June 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The case for Flash". InfoWorld.

Knight Digital Media Center, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism:

• Jeremy Rue (October 20, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: What should journalists learn next?". KDMC, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Mashable:

• Christina Warren (September 17, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: Adobe Weighs In". Mashable.

The New York Times (the original source may be a technology blog, but one with an editorial team; by republishing this article it was sanctioned as reliable by the NYT):

• Sarah Perez (March 10, 2010). "Does HTML5 Really Beat Flash? The Surprising Results of New Tests". The New York Times.

TechCrunch:

• Jason Kincaid (July 29, 2010). "YouTube Weighs In On Flash vs HTML5 Video". TechCrunch.

VentureBeat (same story: technology blog with an editorial team):

• Dominique Jodoin (December 17, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: How will the battle play out in 2011?". VentureBeat.

 --Lambiam 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources brought by Lambiam. Topic seems indeed to meet GNG. The article needs at least a complete rewrite, but that's an editorial process that per deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. Perhaps also a move to "Comparison between HTML5 and Flash" could help focus the issue, but again, not an AfD matter. --Cyclopia^talk 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete but it is a legit topic but right now it :DustFormsWords has it the nail on the head its Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. Some one can (and probably should) recreate it in way that abides by our policies. I think the article Office suite would be a good model on how to do the recreation The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the sources provided by Lambiam are excellent and certainly demonstrate notability. This is a great opportunity to provide encyclopedic coverage of a timely developing topic. I refactored the existing content and substantially cleaned up the article. --Pnm (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Leveraged Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Business jargon. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Feezo (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I cannot find significant discussion establishing the notability of this term. Also, the article is currently only a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. A rambling essay about making money fast on the Internet. Meaningless title. IP Levergate Solution is the a value-added service where a company uses Intellectual property (IP) to create a Solution that would not have been possible without this specific IP. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am trying to create a page around the concept of leveraging a better idea or "Intellectual Property" to do business in a better way (not necessarily a more profitable way). I know it needs more information. I am hoping to get some help. The content will get better. Protecting and using Intellectual property in all facets of life is a concern in many areas such as medication, software development, process improvement, etc. Eagle team (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not-notable jargon. Nakon 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primarily as dictionary definition of jargon. (Much of the article is already covered at Intellectual property.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed/edited some parts of the article which were either unclear or restatements of information available elsewhere (such as the list of different types of IP) which I feel did not help the article. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:24, 24 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.