The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vita (rapper)[edit]

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

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

I was not able to find any sources that would verify that this musician meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Am I the only one that thinks that the rap business resembles jazz in that everyone seems to appear on everyone else's records? As to this rapper, if the article is the best that can be said, then I'm afraid she doesn't meet our standards for having an article yet. In show biz, anything can happen, so when better can be said, try again. I will say that the article appears to be honest and not the usual puffery from someone who thinks that he (usually he...) is the best thing before, during and after Sliced Bread (you must know them - even though they split before their first single was written...) I do wish her luck - it's an overly male field of operation on the whole - and would point out that while rap is not my scene, I have rescued a rapper's article from deletion before now. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know who Vita is, but she actually doesn't pass any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks reliable sources to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has had several charting singles including "Down 4 U" and "Lapdance" Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think doing a verse counts as it being your record. I could be wrong - I'm into rather heavier and/or weirder stuff meself. Peridon (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From the article: Her album "..." was never released, with the 1st single "..." not gaining attention.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Alberta

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvert Griffiths[edit]

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

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

Declined speedy, despite the assertion that as an attorney general in Hong Kong automatically establishes notability, the relevant criterion on WP:POLITICIAN is a secondary requirement. Passing mention in a couple of articles in google's news archives and books. No significant coverage that I could find, perhaps others will uncover that which I could not. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Being the chief legal officer of a territory of several million people has traditionally been considered grounds for notability. His tenure in high office is sufficiently far in the past that digitized online records may not be readily available, but that's a far cry from saying there aren't likely to be any - indeed, our secondary criteria exist explicitly because we believe it likely that secondary sources do exist. Ray^Talk 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, yes, I understand the reasoning behind the 2ndary criteria. I looked for sources and did not find any. That does not mean such do not exist, but this has been marked an unreferenced BLP from 2009, so there's been time to find sources. Some more time won't hurt, and I'll be happy if sources are found. But simply saying "we assume sources can be found because he's an X" become untenable at some point, no? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about fifteen minutes searching academic databases for articles about this guy. All I found were a couple of articles quoting him briefly. Nothing on which to base a Wikipedia article. I don't really see a problem with keeping it as a stub on the off-hand chance someone is trying to find out what his official role once was, especially given that there is no list of Hong Kong Attorneys General to redirect to. But with these sources, this article will never be more than a one-sentence stub.--Chaser (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Some more sources exist if you search for "John Griffiths" (i.e., without the middle name). [32] [33] [34] But I think the preferable option is to Redirect to List of Hong Kong attorneys general, and create the latter article. THF (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable books is found by this search. I would add that if we are to change the long-standing consensus that government ministers are notable we should do so in a much wider ranging discussion than a single AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, what Phil Bridger has found looks good enough, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 7 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 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waddon Goods Park[edit]

Waddon Goods Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Apparently non-notable Retail park. Google seems to return little or nothing related to the park. Perhaps signs its own death warrant by starting "Waddon Goods Park is a small out-of-town retail park..." Pit-yacker (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and run of the mill. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Alberta

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Grove Bible Church[edit]

Pine Grove Bible Church (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 not meet inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Single primary source and promotional. Google search reveals only trivial listings for this organization.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to remove the sections that had a promotional tone. The organization has been an active member of the Ottawa, Ontario, Canada community for over 60 years. Steamlunch (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of independant references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete no indepth coverage. just event listings. [35]. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 5 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) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Stevenson (photographer)[edit]

Amanda Stevenson (photographer) (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 photographer. jonkerz♠ 12:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to much like a self promotional article. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC) - user was blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Pure spam. No credible indication of notability. Working for, say, Campbells Soup doesn't make one notable of itself. Especially with no actual evidence of the work being anything special - or even done. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part also is a copyvio from 2009 at http://www.phillycreativeguide.com/personality/creative_personality_20090401.aspx Peridon (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No real indication of notability. Like Peridon said, she isn't notable because simply because she worked for a certain company; she doesn't hold any awards or the like. — Waterfox^~talk~ 21:08, 4 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 Daniel Cere. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobiscum: Marriage and Family Retreat Centre[edit]

Dominus Vobiscum: Marriage and Family Retreat Centre (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 not meet inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Most references are not related to the specific organization, and/or do not support the statements (such as the film set reference)     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - editor who created this article also added an 'other uses' section to Dominus vobiscum. I added a comment to the talk page, then removed the new section. Editor added it back without discussion.(editor joined discussion soon afterwards)     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake... 'other uses' section was not newly added to the Dominus vobiscum article.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the source for the film set; it does not mention the filming location. However, the organization has been given attention by a prominent Montreal newspaper, the Montreal Gazette. The newspaper is recognized across Canada. Is this an adequate source? Even if the organization does not deserve its own article, I think it is notable enough to be mentioned on the Dominus vobiscum page. What do you think? Thanks. Steamlunch (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The mentions in the Gazette both mention the Retreat only as part of a larger article listing a number of other retreats--that is, the coverage there does not meet the standard of "significant" coverage required in WP:GNG. The other two sources don't help, as one is not reliable (#3) and one doesn't mention the article subject (#4). Unless more sources can be found (a Google News search didn't turn up anything useful for me) that are reliable and cover the source significantly, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to (founder) Daniel Cere. The best source has only four short paragraphs about the center, and the others are almost worthless in terms of complying with WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 5 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. This should not be taken as a precedent against selective nomination of individual characters. Courcelles 13:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I was talking to a fellow admin the other day about mass XFD nominations where different levels or types of articles/categories/images are included, and how it tends to lead to either no discernible consensus to do anything, or a poor decision regarding at least some of the items. I think we're firmly in both camps here. I can sense at least some consensus that some of these articles are good candidates for merging, or maybe in extreme cases even deletion. Which ones? Unless the closing admin decides to make it up out of whole cloth, s/he is not going to be able to tell. Some, however, there is a fairly clear consensus towards keeping as separate articles. Anyone who is considering individual nominations of a character should read this discussion closely. Courcelles 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Mandy Hampton[edit]

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

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

The article fails to meet real world notability and is solely In-universe. The article fials to meet the critria of being Veifiiable and well sourced. This shows a lack of notability and as there is no notability the article is not warrented and must be deleted. The show also finished since 2006 and has lost its notability. Lucy-marie (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above and as they are all from the same T.V show and all fail to show lasting notability and do not warrent individual pages:

Abbey Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toby Ziegler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sam Seaborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Will Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Annabeth Schott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clifford Calley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leo McGarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C. J. Cregg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Josh Lyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Donna Moss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Charlie Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nicholas Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Percy Fitzwallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nancy McNally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Hoynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Andrea Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Glen Allen Walken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ray Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Howard Stackhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deborah Fiderer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Ritchie (TV character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lord John Marbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miles Hutchinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jeff Haffley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seth Gillette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bob Russell (The West Wing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matt Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Josiah Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mallory O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ryan Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jack Reese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Helen Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abdul ibn Shareef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louise Thornton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Danny Concannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ed and Larry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bruno Gianelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stanley Keyworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oliver Babish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eleanor Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zoey Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ronna Beckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Elizabeth Bartlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greg Brock (The West Wing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joey Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arnold Vinick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective keep - without doubt, some of these lack any sort of notability, and should just be folded up into Recurring characters from The West Wing or something. However, main characters such as Josiah Bartlet I think are quite notable in of themselves. For instance they've spawned cinema adverts, other TV shows - heck, around the time of the 08 presidential elections, BBC3 I think devoted a fair amount of time to a comparison of Santos/Vinick and Obama/McCain. So, in short, keep the main characters (Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos; maybe Moss, Young, whoever the replacement Sam was), merge the rest. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be aware the article on the 2006 West Wing presidential election which was devoted mainly to the parallels with the 2008 US presidential election and cited the sources listed above was deleted some time ago as lacking in notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (2nd nomination) for the discussion relating to the deletion of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that that article should have been kept, I don't think it's that notable, but notability is relative. As a comment on say Josiah Bartlet it could be easily sourced, but there wouldn't be enough sources for an entire article. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of that information can easily be covered in the main West Wing article. Seperate articles for characters are not necessarry and the inidivdual characters all fail to meet the stadard required to warrent and article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator seems to be of the wrong impression that notability is lost over time. The cancelation of the show has no bearing on our ability to reliably reference or determine notability of the subject matter. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am saying that some of these articles the have been tagged since 2007 for verifiabliity and notability and the show finished in 2006 so there has been 4 and a half years to esatblish notability which has not been forthcoming.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective or procedural keep: there's just no realistic way for me to be able to check if these are notable or not. Seeing as it's an emmy award winning show with a lot of attention on the ensemble cast, some most certainly are notable... and some most certainly are not. It would be better to nominate a few at a time and deal with them on a case by case basis. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective keep - As Mattbuck said, although the existence of articles for all of these characters is a little ridiculous, some of these articles have shown enough real-world notability to merit being kept. I will agree with Lucy-marie that most of these articles currently contain little more than in-universe plot summary, but that does not mean that they inherently lack notability or verifiability and so, like Shooterwalker, I question the wisdom of nominating them all for deletion en masse. Just because they are not good articles right now does not mean they don't have room for improvement. (Josiah Bartlet and Sam Seaborn come to mind as two articles that have undergone dramatic improvement in terms of including out-of-universe information over the past few years.) I also completely disagree with Lucy-marie's claim that the notability has been "lost" because the show stopped airing in 2006. Notability is not temporary. I concur with Mattbuck's recommendation that we retain the articles for the Josiah Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos, Moss, Young, and Bailey, and possibly also Abbey Bartlet, Vinick, Schott, Hampton, and Gardner (since they were all considered part of the main cast at one point or another, although they didn't appear in the main credits every single episode). --Hnsampat (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this route of selective keeps is gone down how are the retained articles chosen. For example there is no way Hampton or Schott should be kept but there could be an argument made, although I firmly believe in the deletion of all the articles, for Bartlett or McGarry or possibly Vinick. Characters who were periforary or only appeared in one or two seasons clearly do not. Wikipedia is not simply a repositroy for Characters from TV shows. I am almost certian that the characters including Bartlet, Vinick, etc can be covered in the main West Wing article and the list of character articles. A far better place for individual character articles is a dedicated Wiki on the topic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the idea of merging all of these character pages into the main The West Wing article, as that article is already way too long and one of the reasons for creating articles is so that one article doesn't become insanely long. There is enough real-world information in many of these articles to justify their being kept as separate articles. I strongly disagree with what I perceive Lucy-marie's current premise to be, namely that all of these articles are inherently unworthy of being kept as articles, possibly simply because they are articles about TV characters. Articles about TV characters are not inherently wrong, nor is a character "clearly" not worth of having an article simply because he/she only appeared in one or two seasons. That being said, Lucy-marie does have a fair point that we need to come up with some kind of objective criteria for which articles to keep and which ones to get rid of. I think that, for now, we should keep the articles for every character appearing in the main credits (Josiah Bartlet, Abbey Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos, Moss, Young, Bailey, Schott, Vinick, Hampton, and Gardner) and delete the rest. Afterwards, we can attempt to develop the other articles to include more real-world information. If, at that time, they still fail to meet real-world notability, we can bring them back up for deletion. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to List of characters in The West Wing. That's what we have character list articles for: maybe NN individually, but critical plot element of notable work, but too much info for main article == character list time. Articles with individual RS coverage should be kept separate. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment Please be careful when making misrepresenative statements. I have said that the charcters can be covered in a list of charcters article and the main West Wing article. Not all in the main West Wing article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider merging the less important. A nomination that combines in a single list the most minor of the characters and the protagonist shows a total lack of understanding. And in fact the first named character here, though certainly minor, has an article with out-of-universe content about the production, just as an article about fiction ought to. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comments miss the point wholly and entirely as just because a work of fiction talks about the production does not make it notable fictional characters which are notable are characters such as the following Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir. The Hampton article is in no way notable when held up to the standard which the Notability guidelines state. The Hampton article also one cites one source so the majority of the tiny article is unverified.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, the question is that is the article inherently non-notable? You've pointed out a problem with the article(s) in question that needs to be fixed. This is not what an AfD is for. AfD is not for clean-up and remember that articles are not necessarily worthy of deletion just because they are poorly written or have not been improved in a long time. Articles should only be deleted if they are inherently and irredeemably non-notable. If you're saying that the Hampton article should be deleted, then you are saying that even if it becomes picture-perfect in the future, it should still not exist because it is inherently non-notable. Is that what you're saying? If so, please provide an argument for that. Thank you. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely believe none of these articles are inherently not notable but I am willing to be proved wrong. Hampton only appeared one season and the character didn’t even appear in all the episodes. There are no sources outside of the West Wing circle or west wing episodes on the character and the character has no real world impact such as the character being ground-breaking or being the first to break certain stereotypes. The character is not notable in the real world and should be deleted as this is not a repository for all TV characters.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir articles as being models for articles about TV characters. How are they notable in the real world? They were never ground-breaking nor the first to break certain stereotypes. I get that Wikipedia is not a repository for all TV characters and you don't need to keep making that argument; NOBODY is arguing that these articles should be included solely because they are about TV characters. Remember, we all agree that most of the above articles should be deleted/merged. The point of contention is with your claim that all of these articles should be deleted. I repeat my earlier point that just because the articles currently have no outside sources does not mean that they inherently lack outside sources. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course that an article includes the real world substance doesn't make it notable, but it avoids the NOT PLOT restriction that some people think applies to articles about specific elements of fiction & that the nomination specified as a problem. To nominate saying entirely in-universe when it is not entirely in-universe is rather misleading. (myself, I think it applies only to overall coverage of the work). I think everyone agrees that not all these characters are notable enough for a separate article. But can it be seriously argued that the protagonist of one of the most significant series of the last few years is not notable? That you give as the reason for the group nomination that they are all characters in the same show can only mean that you think all the characters in a show equally notable or important.

Further, your argument in the nomination " The show also finished since 2006 and has lost its notability" is totally false to the meaning of notability here. Once notable, always notable. By this principle we'd not be an encyclopedia , but a guide to current productions only. The point of being an encyclopedia is that we cover whatever was ever notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective keep. Not all the characters are as notable as others.--Karljoos (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective keep. Main characters which play an important role throughout the show should be described in seperate articles. I disagree that these articles are per se not notable, as The West Wing is one of the most notable TV series. There are not many shows which can look back at so many Emmys and Golden Globes, and the main characters should therefore be described at least in some detail. However I would object the idea to put all characters in a single article, because this article would to be very very long to cover the characters and their (for a TV series) rather complex connection to each other and the story line. To integrate them in the main article would be even more insane, because it is already to long im my opinion. And I can't follow the argument, that the show was finished in 2006 and therefore the articles are not notable anymore. Either they were notable and thus still are, or they were not notable and will never be. --93.196.6.219 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please be creful when making comments on this deletion., as the IP address above has only mad eone edit and it is on this article, which may indicate it is not be an independent contributor.--12:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs)

And you touted two articles that you contributed to (Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir) as examples of "model" articles! The fact that this user contributed to the article does not mean his/her comment should be discounted. In fact, I think it's a rather well-written comment. Besides, most of us here have at some point contributed to these West Wing articles; that's why we care enough to actually have a discussion about it here. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was touted as a model article but as simple examples of articles which are notable. It should be noted when IP addrsses make substative comments when it is their first and only comment. I also do not see the point of the attack in the above comments on showing example articles which are notable.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly my point: why does it need to be noted when IP addresses make comments and it is their first and only comment? Why should those opinions be discounted? We don't discount your comments just because you have your own biases or my comments because of my biases. That was my point in bringing up your article examples. In any case, this is digressing from the main point of this discussion. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single edit IP addresses are common use for voting on issues, I am though not claiming that it is being undertaken here. Registered users who have a long history of edits have no chance of being accused of voting but single edit IP addresses are frequently used just for voting purposes. As has been said though these discussions are digressing from the original point of the topic at hand. --Lucy-marie (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under the same principle, I nominate the following articles for deletion. These fictional characters have no real-world notability and are solely in-universe; the works in which they appear were published long before 2006, so they must not be notable either.
  • Huckleberry Finn
  • Atticus Finch
  • Prince Hamlet
  • Doctor Watson

I hope it is obvious to all that I am arguing in favor of keeping several of the West Wing-related articles in question, at least those for the core cast and the more interesting of the occasional characters. The West Wing won nine Emmys in its first season alone, won the Emmy for best drama series four years in a row, and won 27 Emmys total. With all due respect to the OP, if she thinks it's lost its notability in a mere four years, she hasn't done her homework. I recommend a more selective deletion discussion, listing only the truly non-notable articles. Tualha (Talk) 01:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm opposed to these mass-merge AFDs as a rule, let alone one with 49 (!) different article. It's completely inappropriate to lump them all together like this, and makes it very difficult to determine notability for all of them when presented in one shot like this. Some of these may very well be non-notable, but those should be nominated individually, rather than with articles that are clearly notable as fictional characters like Sam Seaborn, C. J. Cregg, Josiah Bartlet, etc. — Hunter Kahn 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being idealogically opposed is not a valid reason for opposing. These articles in some case have been tagged for years to be inmproved for verifiability and notability but nothing has ben done. If some articles can be bought up to a notable standard, then plaese do so but do not say these are notable without providing any sources to back up those claims.--95.147.55.234 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your arguments are contrary to WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. For my other comments, see below. — Hunter Kahn 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am also opposed to mass-merge AfDs and this case is a particular example of its problems. You may have a reasonable case with Don Butler and Seth Gillette, and I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting minor characters who really have no notability anymore. But to lump those characters in with President Bartlet and Leo McGarry, for instance, makes no sense. There is no way to accurately and efficiently debate AfDs for so many different characters at once. I would have gone for "selective keep" but I really think the best way to stop these mass AfDs is to prevent them from achieving their purported purpose in any way. Overall, I think notability concerns must be raised by individual names and articles and thus I vote keep on this AfD. JasonCNJ (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have said above some of these have been tagged for years and no sources or verifiability have been forthicoming, if you can proivde those then please do, but just saying they are notable when some of these have been tagged for years is just rediculous as there is no proof to back up your claims. --95.147.55.234 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say, some of these articles have been tagged for years. Some, not all. But by lumping them all together, it makes it nearly impossible for us to comb through 50 articles, separate out the ones that need sources and then find sources for them, all in the week that the AFD requires. It would have been much better for the nominator to either take them individually, or do a mass-merge AFD with only the non-notable noms, so we could identify the ones that actually need work. — Hunter Kahn 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, in response to your point about the lack of verifiable sources, I chose to focus on Mandy Hampton, as she seems to fit the description of the kind of articles you are talking about, and in any event she is the main nominee in this mass-merge AFD. I expanded the article with a great deal more information from verifiable sources, and did some restructuring to the article as well. These were just a few sources I was able to dig up after a brief look, and I know for a fact there are others out there. And this is one of the more minor characters who had only been around for one season. In my opinion, this shows that most of these articles can be expanded and improved with a minimal effort, which is yet another reason that I feel the mass-merge AFD is inappropriate. — Hunter Kahn 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You're lumping in central characters for which a solid article could easily be supported with characters that only appeared in one or two episodes that could easily be merged into a list article. There's no way a blanket judgment should be passed on all of these articles. This isn't an AFD issue, this is a job for a bunch of editors to get shovels and start digging. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 10 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Curtiss[edit]

Jim Curtiss (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 BLP, ineligble for ((BLPPROD)).

Author whose works themselves, Stories from elsewhere and Every Thing Counts (The Akashic Reader) (both published by Gallivant Multimedia) do not appear to have been widely reviewed, or attracted much in the way of comment or sales.  pablo 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 12:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable author. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable author. Completely unreferenced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:02, 6 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) 13:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pym[edit]

Thomas Pym (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 junior chess player. Winning national junior titles at under 13 and younger is entirely insufficient and appears to have done nothing at senior level which might establish notability. _wjemather^bigissue 12:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not an international, so doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. No good refs for general notability either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SunCreator. SyG (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments. The ECF grading according to the source is 175, this corresponds to an Elo rating of about 2050, well below the IM level where notability starts becoming a bit if-fy. The tournament achievements and junior titles are, as noted by the nominator, not of the type which confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review[edit]

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Student-run journal that appears very irregularly. An email to an editor (Crazypaco) claims that the journal still exists, but the last issue listed on their own website dates from 2007. Regardless of this, the journal does not seem to be indexed anywhere. There is a claim that it was "recognized by The New York Times", but this is sourced to the journal's own website and it is otherwise unverifiable whether this is an in-depth coverage or just an in-passing mention. None of the other independent sources presented contribute more than in-passing mentions and fail to establish notability. Fails WP:Notability (academic journals) and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Notability (academic journals)

I would like to point out to the moderator that upon AFD, no notifications were provided to current contributors (the original author being retired) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and since the article was nominated over a major U.S. holiday, the AFD may have gone largely unnoticed. I am not suggesting any inappropriateness by the nominator, but request that in light of this, that this AfD be given ample time for additional discussion. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This journal is not circulated to many libraries (which I would expect would be its target subscriber base), nor has it received significant amounts of coverage in independent reliable sources. Perhaps in the future, it will be ascertained to be notable, but so far I don't see that as being the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alas, I think it falls a little short of the notability threshold. One or two other independent sources which give PUR more than a passing mention would be enough to sway me, but I didn't find any with a brief google. bobrayner (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The immediate two delete comments above seem to suggest that the article could warrant a merge and redirect (perhaps to University of Pittsburgh Honors College) as opposed to an outright delete. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an irregularly published, somewhat unique and difficult to categorize journal, but it is operational and it is notable for various reasons, one being that it was the first the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country. As with the vast majority of peer-reviewed academic journals, they are the primary sources of documenting and distributing accumulated knowledge, but are not themselves typically the subject of coverage by secondary sources. Therefore, the Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) was created to help in this conundrum. It proposes that if a journal meets any one of the listed conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable.

This journal could be (1) "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" in that it is considered to be influential in its subject area (undergraduate research in the humanities) as depicted in other professional academic literature (see "The Independent Researcher: A Model that Works". CUR Quarterly. Reading, PA: Council on Undergraduate Research. 28: 1: 24. Fall 2007). In addition, the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review is also almost ubiquitously found among lists of outlets for undergraduates to publish their original research (see example here), suggesting awareness of its stature in its context.

(2) "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". It would be a stretch to say this journal is frequently cited, but the articles it publishes have been cited in other academic literature published in traditional academic journals (such as Pennsylvania History 63(2)(1996): 204-231). Further, the PUR is listed alongside other professional journals as a philosophical resource (see here and here). It is also carried in various libraries across the country (see here and here) and is indexed among the "commonly used periodicals" by The Library of Congress (see here), which total a small but international presence (listing in 10 US and 8 international libraries via WorldCat). As an aside, a caveat that may impair the numbers of electronic citations for this journal is the off-line (pre-internet era) nature of many of its early volumes.

And (3) "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history," which seems to qualify this journal based on the before-mentioned fact that it was the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country (perhaps the world), as well as its 30 years of continued existence, albeit with sometimes infrequent publication. According to its own website, it also has some significant contributors, such as George Stephanopoulos. It's website also claims some notoriety from The New York Times which I can not independently source or elaborate on, although I assume the statement would be factual.

This journal also seems to fall within the scope of certain caveats. Its uniqueness and history as an outlet for multi-disciplinary undergraduate research and the fact that its articles are original and peer reviewed in manner befitting of other professional journals suggests that is notable in its field according to the above criteria, and, counter to the original nominator's claim, passes notability tests according to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), specifically by #3, but also by #1.

Now, to examine some of the arguments against it. "It publishes irregularly" and " is not circulated to many libraries". Neither of these are established criteria for or against either academic journal notability (per Notability (academic journals) Note #7) or general notability. Nor is the idea that its website must be up-to-date. I can confirm that I received a reply within one day from the current editor after a simple email inquiring about its status and was assured it was operational and working on updating its website. I am happy to forward the correspondence for verification, or alternatively, the email address is available on the journal's website if one would like to make independent inquires. In any case, notability is not temporary, so even if it became inactive or dead, that would not disqualify it from notability. Another thing that may hinder ascertaining its notability is the inability to access its (pre-internet) off-line volumes, and thus its lack of appearance in "google searches" should not be held against the journal (also per Note #4-6). CrazyPaco (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Notability (academic journals) Note #6 states, "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat." Since this journal is in the humanities, whether it is, or is not, circulated to many libraries is indeed an established criterion as to judging its notability as an academic journal. Paco has provided links above to the library holdings listings of this journal's print and electronic editions on Worldcat, which seem to me to be few in number. Other editors here may believe that the number of libraries holding this journal is adequate to establish notability, or that the journal is notable for other reasons, but this is a judgment call each participant in this AfD will have to make for themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment here is the Spring 2006 issue of the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, posted online here. I reccomend reading the "Letter from the Editor" beginning on page 6. It appears to be similar to the preface for a book. It indicates that out of 60 submissions, only four were chosen by its (peer review) selection process. Also I recommend reading this: Council on Undergraduate Research publication entitled Quarterly (Fall 2007) first posted by Crazy-Paco above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Past issues can be viewed here. It does seem to be published in an irregualar manner.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete - Based on the above responses, and my own research - unfortunately, I don't think this article is meant for Wikipedia as a stand alone article. Wikipedia, and certain projects, have established parameters for acceptance of articles. If it were accepted in more university and college libraries that would help. Looking at the dearth of reliable sources, and the small number of college libraries that carry this publication, I don't see where this journal has any real impact on scholarship. Furthermore, based on the irregular frequency of publication, I might infer that even the University of Pittsburgh, or its departments, which produce the journal, do not consider this a noteworthy publication. It is almost as if, every now and then, someone comes along who has the inclination, or resolve, to finally publish an issue of the journal. Then two more years might pass before another issue is produced. I have no reason to believe that the University of Pittsburgh percieves this publication as more important than a homework assigment. And I do apologize if this kind of assessment "sounds" too harsh. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge A quick search shows that it is available in the catalogues of at least a half dozen libraries, including in Toronto and the National Library of Australia. Seems to have a diverse readership. May have a larger base offline. Ng.j (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can check library holdings in WorldCat, but they seem to be way below what we usually take to indicate notability in these AfD debates. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As some of the keeps have now been blocked as sockpuppets, those are now discounted. As such, the consensus becomes "delete" and so I am re-closing this as such. If you feel that this is unwarranted, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clearcut consensus here, however there is no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Timelines[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Transformers: Timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

A non-mainstream sub-franchise within Transformers with nothing to indicate notability. I myself haven't found anything that does indicate notability. All of the fiction and action figures/merchandise were limited releases, so it wouldn't be surprising if this truly is non-notable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacking in independent reliable sources and using YouTube clips as evidence is not gonna cut the mustard. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I'm currently adding sources to the article, and trimming the fat then, this article should become acceptable. Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't often !vote delete, but this really is non-notable. The only reliable source I found is a review of one of the toys. No apparent merge or redirect target. ----Divebomb is not British 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep Mathewignash seems to have improved the article quite a lot. If there are issues with this, they are fixable. ----Divebomb is not British 16:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So with additional sources like I just added, does this article seem worth saving? Mathewignash (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment blow regarding the sources. NotARealWord (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Original research, no in-line references, no third-party sources to verify notability and exclusively written with primary sources with no secondary sources. It does not meet the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As there is now less original research and many third party sources, the rational for your vote is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The article has yet to show how it is notable in the real world. As it stands now, it's merely a repository of links about the figures and an exposition of all possible details instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. As it is right now, it still deserves to be deleted. Still, it has shown improvement since the original nomination, so perhaps it could still be kept, but not as it is right now. It still needs to be re-written to show its real-world impact beyond release dates, or at least show the potential to improve to show that notability in the future. Jfgslo (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - It's the official line of Fun Publications, a company who is licensed by Hasbro to make Transformers. The comic books were released in the mainstream through normal comic book distruibutors, so the arguement in the nomination that it had "limited release" only is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - Really, are they distributed through general comic book retail? My search on Amazon.com didn't find any f them on retail, only user-generated sales of the comics. NotARealWord (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - YES, every year they are sold through Diamond Distributors and solicited in Previews. I pick them up at any local comic book shop. http://newsodrome.com/action_figure_news/botcon-2010-transformers-timelines-comic-diamond-release-19876687 Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wrote a lot of that page a long time ago when putting lists of toy lines was in style. If you check the history though I recently started to re-write it as a a comic book article, based on the comic. It is a ongoing comic book with 7 issues released through mainstream distributors. We maybe should remove the toy list, and make the article about the comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mathewignash clearly has little regard for what counts as reliable sources WP:RS. I hardly call [36], [37],[38],[39] reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly you don't know what an external link is. That youtube post is by the company that makes the comic, it is a PRIMARY source, not one used to prove notability. Same with the PDFs. They are the actual stories given away free by Fun Publications as promotions. We have agreed in the Transformers Project that Ben Yee's is an extablished and recognized expert on toy and fiction review, so his site DOES help establish the page. Mathewignash (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would Benson Yee realy count as third-party? He's a toy expert, but BWTF is primarily about Transfomers. Plus, he's listed as one of the TF Timelines writers. Also, one of the websites cited as sources, Fallen empire toys, seems to be hosted on Wordpress, so, probably not reliable. Another website, Tomopop, seems to be user-generated, so, not very useful for notability. NotARealWord (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, content on OAFE seems to be posted/written pseudonymously, that doesn't make it seem like a reliable source. NotARealWord (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been pointed out to me that the comment I made in response to an inquiry that Mathewignash did, would be of some use in this AfD since it addresses the points that I believe need to be changed in order to modify my opinion from "strong delete" to "keep". This is my full comment:

"In reply to the question that you made on my talk page on November 28, 2010, the thing needed to make me change my vote is to read at least two references from third-party sources that are from reputable publications/reviewers that specifically address Transformers: Timelines, not a single toy or individual products, the Timelines toy line or the comic books. That is the only way to prove that an article like this can stand alone in Wikipedia. Read WP:GNG for specifics about this.

About the recent references that you added, please note that many of them do not talk about Timelines but about specific toys that are part of the toy line, so the ones that are notable are the toys, not the Timelines series.

Bear in mind that the references to show notability must show "significant coverage", which none of the current ones do, at least not about Timelines, and the sources cannot be in any way affiliated to the Transformers franchise, even if they are not officially endorsed by the producing companies. The sources to show notability must not be Transformers dedicated websites ("independent of the subject.")

As the article stands right now, it fills the criteria of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." All those paragraphs outside of the intro are completely unencyclopedic and unjustified with the current sources. The article must not be written as a timeline because that has no relevance if there is no real-world notability.

If there are reviews about the comic books, the article should talk about the comic books, not the toys. Almost all of the article is written as a synthesis of published material that advances a position. The article should change from a toys perspective to a comic book perspective because if the comic books are minor or non-notable, the Supercbbox is unnecessary. Essentially, everything about years and figures is not encyclopedic material unless there are at least two sources that mention all of them in single reviews that are not related to the individual toys.

These sources are not acceptable to show notability because they are not independent of the subject:

• www.transformersclub.com
• www.bwtf.com
• Hasbro Transformers Collectors Club magazine

These might be, but not as they are now:

• comicnewsi.com (it's a preview, not a full review, and the review is useless if the cite does not have the full name of the reviewer or if the person is not considered as a reputable reviewer by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.)
• tomopop.com (although the article is well identified and the website does have reviews, the reviews are about specific figures not the toy line.)
• fallenempiretoys.com (once again specific toy reviews, not a review of the toy line itself.)
• oafe.net (same as above.)
• bsckids.com (a preview, not a full review.)

While I have no doubt that the Transformers toy line series are notable as a whole, it does not need unnecessary content forks like this article. The Transformers: Timelines comic may have some notability to stand on its own, but I doubt that the derivative toy lines themselves merit more than a mention in the Transformers (toy line) article. For a reference of what I would expect from an article about Transformers: Timelines toy line, check Play-Doh or Sindy and notice the tone used to emphasize the real-world notability of the toys, something that Transformers: Timelines doesn't have at all right now.

If you manage to find at least two reviews (no product reviews) that are not about the individual toys but about the whole Transformers: Timelines toy line and that are from publications completely independent of Transformers, or if the focus of the article is about the comic books and meets the criteria of WP:CMC, then I will not object about keeping the article. As it is right now, there is very little that merits to be kept." Jfgslo (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You're making the Comics WikiProject out to be some vast entity that has meaning outside Wikipedia. It doesn't. ----Divebomb is not British 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one. It is very unlikely that any evidence of notability outside of the fandom can be found. --Khajidha (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please actually read the article. ----Divebomb is not British 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just added several citations from the book "Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future" by Erin Brereton. It's an unauthorized (unlicensed) book that talks about the Transformers history up to 2006 (when it was published), and it talks about the timelines toys and Fun Publications on several pages. So that may be helpful in establishing notability by a third party source. Mathewignash (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you (or anybody else) should remove the non-reliable sources that I pointed out earlier. NotARealWord (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it seems that anyone can post on Tomopop (another website cited) if they sign up. Doesn't look very reliable that way. NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is it Wikipedia's policy to remove such links? Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, removing references to non-reliable sources? Would it possibly be anything other than YES? NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - also, regarding the fiction's distribution, the BotCon comics are only 6 issues. The bulk of the fiction is prose stories only available to logged-in members on the fan club website. NotARealWord (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What is your point? That you have to pay to read the stories? The main comic book is distriputed like any other comic. The "magazine" requires a subscription, also, not unusual. Several of the online stories are free to anyone (and some magazine back issues), but with a subscription you get access to the web site with online stories. I don't recall a requirement that stories be available "free" to be mentioned on Wikipedia! The Fantastic Four comic book is SOLD, not given away. How is the way it's sold relivant? Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thing is, TF Timelines doesn't seem like it even tries to be mainstream like other TF franchises. It's not the price, it's the stories themselves.

• Comment - I'll have to remember that arguement. You can delete an article on fiction on wikipedia because the story isn't trying to be "mainstream" enough. Mathewignash (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• By "not trying to be mainstream" I mean, is not meant to appeal to people who aren' already fans of transformers, more into it than the general target group the rest of transformers is aimed at. Would calling the entirety of timelines fancruft be unfair? Was it ever meant to be anything beyond that? NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect Transformers (comics) --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — Ultrablastic123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - User blocked as a sock puppet of a known disruptor. Mathewignash (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reasoning? Mathewignash (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, only 6 issues are comic books. Doesn't seem a fitting redirect. NotARealWord (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 6 annual issues ongoing, plus a bi-monthly comic-sized magazine with fiction in every issue. 36 issues of that out. Plus 2 prose stories open to the public to read, and another dozen that you have to pay for, plus a half dozen publically performed voice plays actual animation voice actors doing their character's voices... and a couple computer animated videos. More than 6 issues of comic. Mathewignash (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The magazine isn't actually called Timelines. There are only 6 timelines comic books. Everyhing else are not comic books and/or not timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So are you saying the enture article might be better suited by calling it something like "Fun Publication"? to over all their work or that we need a seperate article for the magazine? Anyways I counted and it's 6 annual comic books called "Timelines" plus the special edition one released for the Nightbeat action figure, thats 7, plus the 15 prose fiction stories on their web site, that's 22. Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way is good (rename or split) if this AfD is closed as "keep" (which I'm not hoping for). NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this user Ultrablastic123 seems to have been a registered editor for all of a week, and has done little editing except vote in deletion nominations. Should we be worried about this being another sock puppet attack, like the last 5 sock puppets who came in voting to delete Transformers articles? Mathewignash (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if there's anything wrong with you filing a Sockpuppet investigation or something. NotARealWord (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Excuse me, but I am simply trying to help improve and clean wikipedia of articles which I think dont match up to stanards, I have never had anything to do with sockpuppeting or ever will. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who does this many edits to AFDs within a short time of their registration is a likely sock. Take 'im to SPI. (Please don't be offended. The Transformers WikiProject has been getting swarmed with socks recently, and we can't be too careful.) ----Divebomb is not British 09:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable as per 22 refs --84.193.193.10 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant portion of those 22 refs are primary sources. Third-party sources are required to establish notability. NotARealWord (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Twenty two reliable sources have weighed in on the merits of this topic. Movadito (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) User has been indeffed as sockpuppet of banned user Wiki brah. ----Divebomb is not British 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fanboy sites and minor comic reviews are not sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do you have a specific complaint about a citation not being valid? I'd expect reviews on an independent comic to come from comic book review sites, but they are valid reviews from valid sources. Mathewignash (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Only a fundamentalist inclusionist could call the sources reliable I mean this [40] a violation of WP:YOUTUBE and sites like [41] are fansites hardly independent of the site. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Will you knock it off? Mathewignash has explained this above. The YouTube video is a primary source and BWTF is the website of Benson Yee, an established expert in the field and one of the authors. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ----Divebomb is not British 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dwanyewest, Did you even read the rule you sent me to? it said "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page" - It is a link to the primary source. Learn the rules before you start quoting them please. Mathewignash (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed those YouTube links are reliable, but they do not establish notability. Same goes for BWTF.com. Benson Yee is even listed as a writer for this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, regarding that book cited (Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future), I imagine there wouldn't be much Timelines stuff it could have covered. Fun Publications at that point didn't even have their own continuities yet The Classics, Shattered Glass and TransTech continuities had their fiction premieres later. Plus, all the website stories were released from 2007 onward. NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future talked about the 2005 and 2006 Botcon, it's toys and fiction. Ben Yee helped write ONE issue of the comic back in 2005. This doesn't discount ALL the toy reviews since then. Mathewignash (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, he was involved in about five stories. Since he did write some Timelines stuff, that means he isn't entirely unaffiliated with TF Timelines. Also, stuff released at BotCon (from 2005 onward) counts as Timelines. Information on the event itself goes in the convention's own article.

NotARealWord (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was the writer of this comic book, of course I'm going to give it a positive review, I'm automatically biased.

— BWTF

NotARealWord (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Very much of the article is a toy list. It's been pointed out on the project talk page that that kind of stuff isn't encyclopedic or just unnecessary for character articles. (see here and more of the talk page archives.) Perhaps the same might apply for other articles like this one? NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the toy list should be reworked into something that is character list first, toy list second. ----Divebomb is not British 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was decided to not specifically mention any toys for the article on BotCon. i find that any individual toy is usually fancruft/trivia. A character list may be tricky since story-wise, Timelines is not one story but a bunch of stories which sometimes have connections with each other.

"A topic should have an article if a non-stub article can be written without resorting to trivia, unverifiable material, or unencylopedic material."

— User:Starblind/Inclusion

Whoever is gonna close this discussion should ponder this: Does the article demonstrate potential to be a non-stub without resorting to fancruft and/or trivia? Also, Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future does seem to mention the collector's club, but there couldn't be much coverage since Fun Publications only started running the club the year before that book was published, and thus they have not yet produced much stuff to give coverage to.. Using the "From inside the book" search function, it seems that the word Timelines does not actually appear inside the book. NotARealWord (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Timelines an currently ongoing comic book with new issues and stories coming out every few months the answer to whether this article has potential for growth is YES! No, they don't use the word "timelines" in the book you mention, just calling them Botcon/club toys and comics. Using shorthand for a toy line name doesn't exclude them as a source of a review by a third party. The book does picture and review the Timelines toys from the first 2 years of the line. It even went on about how popular the toy of Landquake was. Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the potential I was asking for. You're comment is suggesting that "it (the article) won't be mostly trivia after a few more stories are released." As in there isn't yet enough non-trivial information to write an article. Instead of "There is a lot of non-trivial information". NotARealWord (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, not sure if the popularity of the Landquake toy really mattered back when it was first released. It was given away to people who joined the club and subscribed to the magazine, so they didn't have much choice wether or not to get the toy. NotARealWord (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think Timelines is entirely fancruft.

  This is a comic for a convention so it plays solely to those fans (...) this was done to have fun with and strictly for fellow Transformers fans. (...) If your not a Transformers fan, you're not going to like this comic at all so don't bother.

  — Review by BW Media

  . NotARealWord (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My goodness, a comic that is written for it's fans! That's unheard of? Is the Fantastic Four is written for people who don't like it? Mathewignash (talk)

• As in Exclusively and only for it's fans. There's a difference between not hating something and being a fan of it. Similarly, someone who goes to a toy store looking for something interesting and buys Transformers is different from someone who hunts down a specific Transformers figure on various stores and auctions to give their collection a since of "completeness". Timelines is aimed towards people like the latter. The stuff is distributed through what is called "Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club. As in people who are really into Transformers instead of people who simply enjoy it. NotARealWord (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point is, it's fancrut, as in, you wouldn't care about it if you weren't a fan. An article generally should not rely mainly on fancruft and this is meant to be fancruft. More so than Kamen Rider Decade, most likely. Timelines can't possibly introduce anybody to it's parent franchise (unlike Decade, I guess) . Also, none of the non-primary sources fix the issue addressed by Jfgslo, being that they're not about Timelines overall, just individual issues. I don't se anything in the sources that actually seem like "extensive coverage" of Timelines itself. or example, that nytimes source is mainly about the convention, not the stuff released there. Like that book cited, it appears that doesn't even contain the word "timelines". NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, THIS is not quite a reliable source. It says "Fun Publications has organized BotCon since 1994". They only organized since 2005. Plus, it's mainly about the convention. NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A source isn't reliable because it makes one mistake? Wow. Just wow. ----Divebomb is not British 17:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite reliable. It's a very short source, so the mistake stands out quite a bit. NotARealWord (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This stuff is aimed at a really specific niche. Not one one based on genre or taste like sci-fi fans, giant robot fans or super hero fans, but more specific: Transformers fans. Would you expect notability from something made specifically for it's own fans, instead of people who enjoy things of its genre? Notice that review I quoted was for one of the comics that are available through general release. So the club-exclusive stories would be even more fancruft-y. NotARealWord (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Let's put this "fancruft" arguement to bed. - NotARealWord has managed to call this page "Fancruft" about 6 times in his various opinions. I would like to point him to WP:ITSCRUFT "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." This comic book is a licensed media put out by Fun Publications, who does OTHER things besides Transformers. It's written by professional writers, illustrated by professional artists, and distributed through Diamond Distributors. You can buy it at the local comic book store. You can buy advertising space in the book, it's completely professional. Nothing NARW has said seems to back his claims that it's a "fancruft" besides that he just doesn't seem to like the stories. That's his opinion, and not really a valid arguement for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm calling it fancruft because that's what it's meant to be Fancruft is something that only matters to it's fans. Timelines has got to fall under that. And why do you think I don't like Timelines anyway? Check it's edit history on TV Tropes [42]. There's gotta be something terribly wrong if a great deal of the writing about it there was by somebody who hates it.

Because cruft is a real problem, efforts to identify cruft should be taken in good faith.

— Wikipedia:Discussing cruft

NotARealWord (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice that:

1. None of the non-primary sources discuss the fan club stories, which make up a great deal of Timelines media
2. The lack of the word "timelines" in sources
3. (Read following quote)

   Since the original comic is (so far) the only story available outside the fanclub, not only is it the only part of the universe most people know, but many folks also don't even know there were more stories.

   — TV Tropes entry on, Shattered Glass (emphasis was added by me)

Seems like people don't really discuss/write about timelines as it's own topic outside of the TF community. BotCon toys and media are discussed as a subtopic of BotCon, and transformersclub.com stories don't appear to have 'any coverage. So yeah, this does seem like people just don't care about this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The link you provided was about removing "cruft" in articles. I'm arguing against you calling the Transformers: Timelines comics THEMSELVES "Cruft". If the article itself needs cleanup, please contribute to it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - tvtropes.com isn't really a reliable source, particularly since it seems to be edited by you, and you are using it to prove your own point! You could make it say anything. You would never allow me to use it to prove this article's notability, and likewise, you can't use it to disprove notability. Anyways, the question here is NOT whether fans consider it a part of BOTCON, the question here is whether this article has proven itself notable. We have reliable third party sources enough to prove that. Mathewignash (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way,it's tvtropes.org, not .com. And actually, that quote on TV Tropes wasn't by me. I wrote the Timelines page, but didn't do much on the Shattered Glass page. Even if it was, quoting our own writing isn't disallowed (WP:SELFQUOTE, for example). Are you suggesting that the quote is incorrect and that people generally do know about the transformersclub.com stories? The seeming lack of coverage regarding the transformersclub.com stories would suggest that the quote is corret. Also, as mentioned in the review I quoted, this stuff has absolutely no appeal to people who aren't fans. With "regular" TF media, there would be a significant number of casual viewers/readers who would give it a try even if they're terribly unfamiliar with TF. The same cannot be said with Timelines. It's designed to be of interest only towards fans. Stuff that's of pretty much no interest outside a portion of the fanbase is fancrut, and that's the point of Timelines. That's what I mean by "it's fancruft". They don't hope to get any people who aren't already fans to be interested in this stuff. So, it's meant to be fancruft. De-crufting this article is not possible. I think that's what Khajidha meant by "Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one". As pointed out by Jfsglo, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of TF Timelines as a whole. No reviews of a whole set of toys, or a group of stories. The "no extensive overage" thing is the main issue in a deletion debate. You could say that the Watchmen movie was fancruft, but it did receive significant coverage and criticism for being overly loyal to it's source and having no appeal to non-fans. I reiterate that so far, there seems to be no coverage whatsoever on the transformersclub.com stories. So yeah, not really enough third party sources.At least not "extensive" ones. And no, it's not wether or not people consider as part of BotCon, it's just that only the parts of Timelines overlapping with BotCon seem to get coverage. No extensive coverage on Timelines itself. NotARealWord (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable, and poorly referenced piece of OR/cruft. This amounts to mostly non-prose WP:PLOT and is more suited to a fansite such as Wankia, er, Wikia.com. Jack Merridew 22:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I Don't see how you can call this mostly PLOT when no issue of the story is more than a single sentence of summary. Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RECEPTION - As was suggested by the constructive criticism for this page I started a section for the reception of the comic. Mathewignash (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That section is completely lacking sources. Plus it only serves to prove my point. "the stories play directly to the fans" imply that they are of absolutely no interest towards non-fans, or at least that they're supposed to be that way. Ergo, fancruft. Plus it only mentions the annual comic books, still no coverage of the transformersclub.com prose stories. NotARealWord (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the only third-party review of any Timelines fiction used as a reference is the one I quoted as proof that Timelines is fancruft. ("If your not a Transformers fan, you're not going to like this comic at all so don't bother.") Not really extensive coverage since it doesn't even have a plot synopsis. NotARealWord (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We don't need third party sources to prove plot, that can be done with primary sources, we need to it prove reception, which is what I did. The fact that something was received poorly by it's critics doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia, it just helps write the wikipedia article about it. We don't remove a movie from Wikipeida because Leonard Maltin gave it one star, we say it had bad reviews Mathewignash (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a bad review, it's one that makes it seem like fancruft. Fancruft is not uninteresting or terrible, it just means that very few people are going to be interested in it. Which is intentional on the part of Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, regarding secondary sources and plot, the lack of plot summaries in any sources makes this seem non-notable. Notability is also an issue. Not just verifiability. NotARealWord (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, verification needed for that book source regarding the reception section. Does it say "the Timelines toyline was popular" in any way? It doesn't seem to contain the word Timelines. Also, Timelines toyline =/=BotCon toyline. Not sure if this shows I'm assuming bad faith, but I don't want an article kept because of something that wasn't actually in the source. NotARealWord (talk) 20:24, 13 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple (drink)[edit]

Deep Purple (drink) (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 assertion of notability per WP:GNG; no coverage of it online from WP:Reliable sources; music reference and journal cite mention Purple drank but not this variant, which leaves only an entry from a user-editable recipe site. Possible WP:Conflict of interest by creator: some sort of music or drinks promotion? Proposed deletion contested by creator. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best, if it exists, this is a minor variant of Purple drank, which already has an extensively referenced article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:27, 4 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F. 2–6 FC Barcelona[edit]

Real Madrid C.F. 2–6 FC Barcelona (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 mid-season association football match. Taken to AfD since PROD was not an option any more. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to El Clásico, the article covering the rivalry between the two clubs. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--El Unique (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge, no need for a seperate article. GiantSnowman 14:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable scheduled league match. All meetings of the two clubs have similar build-up and post-match analysis so coverage should be considered WP:ROUTINE and only reflects on the notability of El Clásico not the individual match. The surprisingly lop-sided scoreline may have prompted much hyperbole in the immediate aftermath, but ultimately this clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:EVENT. _wjemather^bigissue 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather^bigissue 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the sports page. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just a single match, no need for an article. Per The Bushranger, Wikipedia isn't a sports page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a scheduled league match. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:50, 8 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) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hartsock[edit]

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

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

Obvious vanity page: one main contributor claims he is the subject of the article, and creator appears to be someone closely associated with him. The subject in question is plainly not notable: he's apparently been film crew or set dresser on a few films that are barely or questionably notable in their own right, he's created a few utterly non-notable film works, he's self-published a book through iUniverse, he's been interviewed a few times on non-notable radio shows, and he's written a couple of columns for mostly non-notable blogs. The article makes no claim of notability, and if it did, that claim could not be substantiated. Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone claiming to be the subject has been deleting large swaths of sourced material. He apparently doesn't want a complete article.[43] As far as I can tell, his leading achievement is producing an independent video. However I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable news sources.   Will Beback  talk  09:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable guy that wrote a few small independent things such as small articles and videos. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No reliable sources? I am correcting the info. He was featured on CNN in a 1 hour documentary---notable enough for my standards. Looking for sources where he worked with James O'Keefe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janewellsmier (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the CNN clip.[44] It's only about one minute long, all him talking, and he basically makes one point: that controversy sells. The fact that he was included in the documentary is somewhat significant, but the piece itself doesn't seem usable as a source for the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pity too that the author has taken WP:OWNership of the article. In looking at online avaiable souces,[45][46] (and ingonoring the articles written by the subject in various publications), it seems that a decent little article meeting WP:GNG might almost be possible, but as this journalist has not taken time to understand WP:COI, and wishes the article to only state certain things, and only in the manner he wishes, I can predict nothing but continued problems. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, hanging on James O'Keefe's coat-tails doesn't bestow notability for a separate article: see Hannah Giles who had a much larger hand in the ACORN videos than just "shooting B-roll", and she merely redirects to the larger ACORN Controversy article. (And no Mr. Hartsock to be found there.) — DennisDallas (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After watching the Rich Zubaty WP:COI & WP:OWN battle of mind-numbing BS over a self-important vanity-press author drag on (on & off, of course, but throughout 2010 during multiple blocks & deletes — and three years before that), now having to waste editors' & admins' time over another vanity-piece —he's mostly a blogger— isn't worth the drain on volunteer resources. And although he's a twice-published author (one merely co-written), I don't think either tome is notable on its own, but his co-author might be (although her article reeks of WP:AUTOBIO).
  

A new editor to the article (but probably his co-author) just yesterday added a Fox News appearance from November (along with a half-dozen other edits — curiously after no activity since Feb. 2009) and also commented here (see unsigned comment above). But I've had no off-wiki response from the subject nor his main "employer" (since that's the web bio the AnonIP cribbed from) to try to verify the claimed "identity" of the AnonIP. It's been a week already.

All I'm seeing is Socks/Meat and COI. — DennisDallas (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a YouTube copy of the Fox show discussing Hartsock's blog.[47] I don't know which day it was on, but the citation is incorrect. Here's the Hulu version of the show on the episode in the citation.[48] It has a different group of commentatators and the host is wearing different clothes. Aside from commenting on some of his points the personal remarks about him seem to be mostly negative.

As for socks and COI, there seems to be a close connection between this article and Krystle Nicole Russin. (That article looked like this before I trimmed it.[49]). Folks need to remember that Wikipedia does not exist for promotion.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just stumbled on this page by following a group of attackers attacking others, etc., so I have no knowledge other than what is on the current article page. It’s probably too late to help this poor shlub who is being hounded by an editing cabal that seeks to determine what constitutes a meaningful article using all types of forensics that is irrelevant to wikipedia rules. What he did in the past, how obnoxious he is in editing, or how naïve he is about Wikipedia etiquette has nothing to do with proposing this article for deletion. Obviously, the best approach is to constructively fix the article, but if his edit warring and ownership makes that too difficult, have him blocked, but don’t delete the article to punish him. It seems to me the editing cabal is resorting to Afd because otherwise editing here is a waste of time – if so, for those who it is a waste of time, there is plenty of other articles that could use your attention. I checked three or four of the references that were sound; that material can be kept, and the rest can be tagged for citations needed if it is not contentious, and if it is, it should be deleted. The troublesome shlub should be told in a nice way that information in biographies must be cited in proper secondary, independent references for everyone’s protection. The best proof that the editing cabal is being deletists when it shouldn't - there are only three or four folks here voting one way or the other!Edstat (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed: FWIW, I peeked at your (blanked just today) Talkpage and other AfD's you've been a party to, and can only gather that your use here of un-civil terms such as "group of attackers" and "editing cabal" and "deletists" (and your Talkpage remark of "why waste time with all the charades") doesn't show an assumption of good faith on your part, but rather "having a chip on your shoulder" from your prior AfD experiences. As the nominating (and previously un-involved) editor clearly noted, the notability threshold is in question, and persons other than the subject with COI issues may be adding the mix. (And, so you won't retort as on other AfD's, this isn't a critique of your vote — just its content.)— DennisDallas (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. There are several verifiable secondary independent sources in this article, and editing cabals ignore that and instead rely on their forensics. For example, someone found a Fox news reference and it was denigrated because of when it was found and by guessing who might have added the reference - which completely overlooks the fact that it is a verifiable reference. And your "peek" is just more of the same forensics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good luck to this poor shlub - he'll need it against this cabal!Edstat (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edstat, with all due courtesy, I think you're confusing notability with verifiability. (Both are important, of course, but lack of verifiability is not the reason I nominated this article.) If we were to make the statement that "Hartsock has written an article about the Tea Party," the Fox source would be sufficient to verify that. However, the fact that he was discussed this one time on a program that airs almost every day does not mean that he is notable enough to be the subject of an article. Roscelese (talk) 03:38, 6 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2010 qualifying[edit]

UEFA Euro 2010 qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I not sure if the UEFA Euro 2010 qualifying that did happen, but I can't find any references related to the article. I assume that the article is a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 08:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Durham Proverbs[edit]

The Durham Proverbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant WP:OR that fails WP:NOT#ESSAY. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree this article has serious issues with original research, but there's clearly enough sources out there to form an encyclopaedic article. This article is definitely fixable, and at the very worst, the original research sections need deleting. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First page of G book search alone shows plenty of sources. Probably more on databases. The article does need clean-up and I'll watch and try to get to it, but am busy elsewhere at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly some sections of the article are problematic and need some attention, notably the translations, but the subject is clearly notable and has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with above. There are plenty of scholarly articles to use to write the article, so no need to delete, rather needs fixing. If no one can work on it right off the bat, remove the sections that aren't sourced and that should fix most of the issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article makes excessive use of the ((sfn)) template. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is that a problem (whatever you mean by "excessive")? Is the use of a template you don't like sufficient reason to delete an article on a clearly notable subject in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another problem was a redlink to William Horman, but that seems to have been fixed, sort of. I see more redlinks creeping in. Seriously, this is a daft nomination and should be snowballed. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re "daft nomination" - it was original research written in a first person tone when I nominated it. Sorry for the failure to respond to anything - I've had no proper wiki-access since early Friday. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That joking around may be comprehensible in context on my user talk page, but it won't be comprehensible here. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apologies for obscure comments above. The article was in poor shape when nominated, but a quick search would have shown that the subject is notable, discussed at some length in various books and journals. It is now clearly written and well-sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not disagreeing, simply pointing out that when I nominated it, a quick search would have found it to be an originally researched essay written in the first person. Notability was never discussed in my rationale. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So perhaps you ought to close this AfD now? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainment; going to scrabble around for the right template now. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 5 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga of Silence[edit]

Yoga of Silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics

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

Non-notable yoga system —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:10, 4 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ P[edit]

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

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

Overtly promotional article, unsourced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 06:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unambiguous promotion which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Scrap the whole thing and if he is notable start again. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is a straight-up violation of WP:PROMO and he has not been noticed except in self-generated social networking and downloading sites. Though maybe his bland name makes it difficult to find news about him. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 10 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 article speedily deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmin Taylor[edit]

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

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