< 14 February	16 February >

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. The reason I am closing this as a No Consensus closure is because while the people on the keep side have the majority, most of their arguments are not strong at all, and are not based in policy. The delete party, on the other hand, has fairly strong arguments that are based in policy. However, as this analysis does not leave much left to determine consensus with, this is a no consensus closure. (X! · talk) · @242 · 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Pitcock[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided, claims to notability are borderline. KFP (talk | contribs) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some sources for this page. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He is definitely notable. He had a hand in creating the IRC daemon used on freenode, and created Audacious Media Player, which is a widely used piece of software. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I also agree. He wrote the IRCD that Freenode uses, which happens to be the network of choice for Wikipedia. I don't know why this is even up for debate. Diablo-D3 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He is notable for creating many softwares in use by many people. I found this as a source, but I'm not sure where exactly it could be used. If someone would like to be bold and use it as an inline source for the article, that'd be awesome. AndreniW (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: 50,000 users use software he has had a part in, including a lot of you who will be reading this now. Given most of it is transparent, I still believe he's notable. Cfuenty1 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: William Pitcock's contributions to DroneBL, Atheme, and other projects mentioned in the article are sufficiently significant in my view that an article on him is appropriate, given the number of users who interact with his software daily and the significance of it both within the IRC community, and on a larger scale given the number of open source projects using Freenode and similar networks to host their support, development, or community discussion channels.. If it is felt that insufficient references or similar issues outside of notability guidelines themselves are present, then I feel it would be better to flag it for improvement rather than delete, especially given that it is a very young article. --Namegduf Live (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still do not see reliable sources, and being a developer of notable software does not necessarily merit inclusion in Wikipedia (think of the tens of thousands of devs involved in the development of Microsoft Windows, for example). --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given a single one of his accomplishments, he's unnotable I admit, but given the sum of them, he's definitely notable. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't necessarily mean he's not notable. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every day, I use software he's been developing, and it's great software. Still, we'll need reliable sources. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KFP, you're essentially arguing that we should also remove the articles on freenode and Wikipedia itself due to being non-notable because they don't have enough useful references. Diablo-D3 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So I suppose Raymond Chen, Dave Cutler, and Alan Cox's articles need to be deleted too. 8 of 11 refs on Ray's page are to himself. Does that mean one could use, for instance, nenoblog to ref Pitcock's article? AndreniW (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? The fact that we have plenty of other poorly sourced articles should not enter into this discussion, I'm afraid. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established. Refs provided. Crap refs deleted. Some refs still needed but not a concern for overall notability. Article cleaned up. This debate formatted (no text changes) - perhaps other pollsters here could conform to AfD debate format rules. To oppose a deletion, it is probably more usual to say keep preceded by a bulleted new entry. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No decent references added. Might be well known in his field of work, but we need reliable sources talking about the guy and I don't see any: Ref 1 - nothing about him; Ref 2 - primary source and only says that he wrote DroneBL with Steve Church, cannot be used to show notability; Ref 3 - just a list of people, not a reliable source, nothing to establish notability; Ref 4 - just a log of maintenance tweaks, not a reliable source, nothing to establish notability; Ref 5 - nothing about the person; Ref 6 - nothing about him, but simply about a domain he supposedly owns (but is not actually verified by the source). My own searching could come up with nothing better. A quick reminder on our notability guideline: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. None of the sources in the article come anywhere near close to meeting this. Quantpole (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 10:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIIGS[edit]

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

Apparently this is spectacularly important, or really very unimportant. Very little links to it, and what does does not seem to need to. This is business news? In 2010 European sovereign debt crisis it just sits there in See also. In Economic history of Portugal it adds nothing. In Republic of Ireland it again adds nothing. DinDraithou (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources have both used the term and have commented on its existence (often negatively). That makes it notable, even if it is underlinked here. White 720 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:White 720: the article is still a work in progress. -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a term that is not only used, but also discussed in reliable source with respect to political correctness, etc. Pcap ping 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that FT and some other publications have stopped using this term due to its being offensive, but this article still has relevance to economic history, and Wikipedia is not censored. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any serious editors have any problem with its 'offensiveness'. It's that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a source for business news. I've also watched how the article has seen the addition of some forward thinking original 'research/synthesis' of a kind, where some editors appear to believe that a page on an acronym standing for four or five countries is an appropriate place to discuss this-and-that involving the individuals, citing articles which do not even mention them altogether. I expect it will continue to accrete such. DinDraithou (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used, it's verifiable, it has sources. No reason for deletion. --Patrick (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is world economics 101. Improve it and let it stay. Well sourced and informative. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, though it would probably need more on the context of its use to be truly informative. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No. I find it offensive but the freedom of information is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.102.222 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This deletion request was obviously added by someone living in one of the PIGS countries. Should we be really PK and delete everything that is considered even marginally offensive? The Adolf Hitler article, eh? abelson (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you nice? No, I don't, and my ancestry is over 85% outside them. But you've given a good reason for why the page, which we will obviously have to keep now, will have to be watched. You are obviously a small and dark person, and a twit, with what you believe is an Aryan idealogy (like everyone in the Third Reich leadership). So you think this article should be about race and 'the truth about it'. Am I right? DinDraithou (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Italian Keep. Lots of sources make this a very notable economic journalism term.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a common (or an official) term to describe the financial problems happened in these European countries.Ricky@36 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this term is increasingly used by the media in discussing the economic crisis in the southern states of the EU. Plenty of valid references. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - such acronyms save readers from over-lengthy verbiage. Widely seen and used, and maybe abused.86.46.198.61 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider with: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita.Red Hurley (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep daily use in United States financial print, radio and broadcast news (Bloomberg, CNBC, etc.) 9:22 EST, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.21.154 (talk)
Keep Regularly used term, needs to be accurately documented. Nobody seems to be worried about BRIC, which is a comparable term. Ringbark (talk) 15:27, 21 February 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. Consensus is that the article doesn't pass our notability guidelines currently. —SpacemanSpiff 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagineer Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NMEDIA, only 2 issues published so far, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN (GregJackP (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Mostly on account of the Chomsky piece, which Chomsky then placed on-line at his own site. This would suggest that he thinks they're of some note, and I'm not going to argue. "2 issues" is sufficient to deflect WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now. Although the article on Noam Chomsky has been translated in German here, the notability of a magazine cannot rest on a single article. Not yet getting any hits on Google News or Google Scholar. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Seems to be a semi-serious publication thrown together by three guys, two of whom now live in Europe and contribute little to it. It claims to be a quarterly but has not actually published that often (the two actual issues are Summer 2009 and Winter 2010). More than half of the references given are to the publication's own website. As for Chomsky, he is a big name (their only big name) but he gives out interviews left and right, several a month, as can be seen here. Most importantly, there appears to be zero recognition of the publication by any outside reliable sources. Incidentally, we just finished deleting as non-notable the puff-piece articles that had been written about the three editors. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be notable one day, might never produce another issue. Hard to tell and we dont have a crystal ball. Today, it doesn't meet notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 16:18, 21 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bottenfield[edit]

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

Article about a guy who spent two years in the Boston Red Sox minor league system. Bio can be found here: [1]. No non-trivial, reliable source mentions other than in compendia such as Baseball-Reference and The Baseball Cube, thereby failing WP:BIO. Never played at the major-league level, thereby failing WP:ATHLETE —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (GregJackP (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
delete, fails WP:Athlete. PamelaBMX (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per precedent, career minor-leaguers are not sufficiently notable for inclusion. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:19, 22 February 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. Nominators language concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 10:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Marziano[edit]

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

Not in English, should be moved to Spanish Wikipedia somehow. I'm not sure if XfD is the right path for this, but it's not CSD, and something has to be done. -Zeus-^u|c 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tagged it with a ((translate|Spanish)) template. First time I've done that, and it looks like if it doesn't get translated it automatically comes up for deletion in a couple of weeks.

Correct. Zeus, see WP:Pages needing translation for the way pages in languages other than English are handled (when they aren't subject to db-a2 or db-a10, or some other reason for deletion). —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Quartermaster (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A2. Speedy deletion is an option in this case, because the foreign language article already exists on the Spanish Wikipedia (see es:Los Marziano. I could translate the article if needed, but it doesn't sound like it has notability on the English Wikipedia. It's about a movie distributed solely in Argentina. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to translation and sourcing. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**Speedy delete. The same author already posted it to Spanish Wikipedia, and I've placed db-foreign on the article here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Keep, at least in the context of this deletion nomination, since someone has translated it in the meantime. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Since the article is now in English db-foreign does not apply. I removed it after it had been replaced. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now in English, so I removed the ((db-foreign)). I added some references, including one from Variety. Movies don't have to be in English to have an article in the English Wikipedia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per references added by Eastmain. Seems sufficiently notable with these. DES ^(talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the country a movie is distributed in is irrelevant. We cover the entire world, not just the English-speaking world. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This movie does not exist. According to the article, filming for it started yesterday (February 15, 2010). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references show that it's already been written up in some reliable sources (Variety, Perfil.com, Los Andes). —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This seems to fit that guideline. DES ^(talk) 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to the translator. Notability in Argentina is notable enough for en.Wikipedia, and coverage in reliable sources meet the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Del Shannon. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berlee Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record company, which doesn't have multiple reliable secondary sources which discuss the company in detail. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. JD554 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It seems those two singles were its entire output. The Del Shannon article could do with a few subheadings, and this would make a nice one. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Rothorpe, this content would have a good home in Del Shannon. A dedicated article gives it WP:UNDUE RadioFan (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Done: I've merged it with Del Shannon so it can now be deleted. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 10:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks to Robots[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of IP, rationale provided was:

Fails Notability for books. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three sources make this pass WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reviews establish notability for the book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 19 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backroad[edit]

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

Dictionary definition; no possible hope of expansion into an encyclopedic article. Unsourced OR since 2007; almost no edits whatsoever since creation. Suggest deletion and moving Backroad (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it might not be much for expansion, short of lengthy lists of examples, I think this is a useful definition.Trackinfo (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have you tried Google Books? Or Google Scholar? Or Google news? Or have you ever read - say Blue Roads or searched for them like here? Bearian (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Bearian's improvements, this is no longer in violation of WP:DICDEF. I disagree with the assertion that it cannot be expanded into an encyclopedic article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the efforts to find references for potential article content for this page are noble, they are misguided. The content you added[2] on the the Back Road's Program info would best serve readers of Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the content on drug smuggler's routes would best go there. These are the only solid statements on the page (the rest is either not cited to a reliable source, OR, and the travel guide ref cites a unique map's legend but is being used as a general statement!) and they are just so loosely related. Some of this valued rescue work could be salvaged but we will be serving readers best if we move towards a dab page.Synchronism (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more valid encyclopedic information about it than just a simple definition. I am curious if most backroads are made of gravel, and not simple dirt. I've traveled many a dirt road in my day. Dream Focus 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have gravel road and dirt road. Backroad is a subjective term, it's like the Road Less Traveled, in many ways, it could probably be made into dab page.Synchronism (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant poorly sourced dicdef. It has three refs: a travel guide about North Carolina, a news piece on drug smuggling, and a google search. An article could be written on the social notion of 'backroads', but this is not it. It just duplicates side road, and the refs don't seem worth salvaging.Synchronism (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are available, further expansion is possible; as it stands it is more that a dicdef. I would also suggest that we don't delete articles because there is an article on a similar topic. Shall we delete square because there is already an article on rectangles?Wine Guy~Talk 11:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman aside now, it is not that there is an article on a similar term, it's that this is an ambiguous and subjective term, and it would be best to cover the referenced information in the articles relevant to the sources being used: drug trafficking, minor roads, etc.Synchronism (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IndUS Aviation[edit]

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

No 3rd party refs, latest news on their own website is 2 years ago. There's a continual WP:PUFFERY problem where some AMAZING CLAIMS are being re-added over and over by an anon IP, but still no attempt to address the basic issues of WP:N and WP:RS, despite past tagging. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. Refs have now been added, page protection should deal with the other issue. Thanks to those who put work in to improve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article itself obviously needs work, but because it has entries in reliable sources such as Janes All the World's Aircraft it clearly meets Wikipedia's Notability standards as a subject. Recommend keep and rewrite. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (GregJackP (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep notable as a manufacturer and designer of aircraft, just really needs a tidy up and some better referencing which is now being done by the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an extant company producing FAA certified aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all "keeps" above. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first I even heard of this article. I can't help wonder why someone didn't ping WPAIR before the IP became this disruptive. There are other ways to handle them besides AFDing the article, which usually does little to deter such users bent on pushing their own POV. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blocking etc. isn't much use against a morphing IP. The AfD here was for a separate issue, the fact that there really was nothing on the article to distinguish it from a brass-plate company with nothing more to it than a website. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ahunt and Nimbus. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all "keeps" above. There's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed relatively easily. Roger (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ahunt et al --Rlandmann (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone yet have a single WP:RS showing that IndUS aviation have built and shipped a single aircraft?

So far we have a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL about what their future plans are (inc the Flight references), but nothing that demonstrates they've actually done any of it. The Thorp 211 article has a photo on it captioned as IndUS-built, yet the FAA reg disagrees (they reckon it's a home-built). There are also plenty of claims being made (the anon IP with the vanity posts) about a supposed diesel engine, but still nothing that demonstrates the actuality of these plans. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA register has eighteen T-211 Thorpedo's listed as Indus-built. I have also added in a ref for the diesel version. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That information is incredibly easy to find. They currently have 28 aircraft registered in the USA alone. I have added it to the article. The photo caption has been corrected to make it more precise - that aircraft is an amateur-built but it was built by IndUS's owner and used as a demo aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Catalan border[edit]

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

No such thing as the "Inner Catalan border" is known to Google books or scholar, or even to a general Google search if WP-derived content is excluded. Seems to be here simply to make a political point about how the "country" of Catalonia is split between France and Spain. Either way, we don't have an article about the broader France-Spain border, so it also seems odd to have one about this small portion of it. And even the alternative title of "Catalan frontier" appears to be more commonly used to refer to the past "external" borders between Catalan regions and/or French and Spanish territory as was. Nickhh (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per own nomination, and just to add some points. Obviously this stretch of the border exists in the real world, but the name being used for it, or the concept that it is somehow a special bit of the French-Spanish border that needs a page all to itself would appear to be rather blatant original research and motivated somewhat by the desire to make a political point, based possibly on the genuine term Inner German border. Talking about it being the border that divides "Northern" from "Southern Catalonia" merely highlights this point - in modern terms, Catalonia refers simply to the Spanish autononous region. It is not acknowledged, in English, as being a wider region that is divided into a north and south. Note this user created this page at about the same time that, among many other page moves, they unilaterally switched Ibiza to its Catalan name, despite the name being almost unheard of in English language use. --Nickhh (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of notability. A web search failed to produce any use of this expression not copied from Wikipedia. This seems to be original research by an editor whose editing is entirely or almost entirely designed to plug the view of Catalonia as a country. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, allow discussion, then likely a merge of content, keeping the redirect as a possible search term. The deletion rationale is OR and POV, and we should be careful not to confuse ourselves with notability. OR concerns are easily dismissed, as we have articles on Northern Catalonia and (the "southern" part) Catalonia - by inference there is a border, and yes, we probably could have an article on that border, created in 1659. The question is then if it is POV, is it a frontier or a border, and an "inner frontier" may not pass the smell test - nevertheless, POV is a bad deletion rationale, it's merely the title that's a problem, and per WP:ATD there are other options than reaching for the shotgun. The article on Northern Catalonia is not too long, and could easily have the info in the border article, as a section, I would assume. This is a merge discussion, which I would happily leave to the regulars of those two article. Perhaps we should also ask people at Roussillon to contribute to that discussion. This can take place outside the the 7-days Democles sword of AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the deletion rationale is "OR" or "POV". Those are content policies. My observations also already included an acknowledgement that this bit of the border exists as part of the border between the modern Spanish region of Catalonia and France, and in turn as part of the wider Franco-Spanish border, but simply disputed that a thing known as the "Inner Catalan border" exists. As for the outcome here, merge/redirect is always an option as an AFD result, so I don't understand either your point here, or indeed your call for "Keep", when you could yourself have proposed "Merge". As it is, there is nothing much in this short article - other than odd suggestions that the "Principality of Catalonia" still exists - that is not already covered in articles such as Northern Catalonia, History of Catalonia, Treaty of the Pyrenees, Roussillon, Pyrénées-Orientales and the page on the historical Principality itself. That's why I put it up for outright deletion, since the only thing that this page adds to anything on WP is a made-up name. I'd argue strongly against a redirect of the name, as again that would constitute Wikipedia giving credibility to a phrase that appears not to exist in any serious source. Separately, if people want to add content from other language WPs to the equivalent pages here, that can of course be done even if this page is deleted. --Nickhh (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also want to highlight that the Spanish project's article on es:Rosellón (Francia) has useful content on that border, seems bona fide, not POV. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear POV pushing from obscure sources. We don't normally have articles on borders, let alone for stretches of borders. Border between France and Spain or Pyrenees? Pcap ping 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:15, 16 February 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. I must say, my personal sympathy is with the nominator; but the consensus is clear. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rihannsu[edit]

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

Delete Do we really need an article about the "unofficial" name for a fictional language from the novels based on a science fiction television? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about the series of books and their reception, not just the language.(Note:article creator)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, belongs on star trek wiki. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as illogical. No significant ghits for the term. Alternatively, merge and redirect to Diane Duane. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diane Duane and Romulan, since it is not "unofficial" as it is a licensed product. It is non-canon which is not the same thing. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the article is about a notable series of books by a notable author, not merely a fictional aspect of the Star Trek universe. This sort of article (like The Dark Tower (series), Guardians of Ga'Hoole, etc.) is quite well accepted and has a significant category structure dedicated to it under Category:Novels by series, including Category:Science fiction book series. Article is properly referenced, meets the notability and verifiability thresholds, and as Pocket Books markets these as "Star Trek: Rihannsu" books no original research is involved. - Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravecky. Article is well-sourced and based on licensed publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete It looks like there's notable and sourced information that shouldn't be deleted. I also think an argument could be made to merge this somewhere, but I'm not 100% convinced either way on that. As an AFD I'd say keep, leaving open the idea of discussing the possibility of a merge on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's verifiable, secondary sources that reference it. The Once and Future Arthur (ISBN 0809568519) is one, non-Star Trek even, such source. Heterotropías: narrativas de identidad y alteridad latinoamericana also shows up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; obviously due to sources. StevenMario (talk) 20:39, 15 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital evolution[edit]

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

Original research/essay/neologism. No verifiable independent sources that show the use of the term. Created by small group of editors whose only contribution is this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sure feels like wp:or or wp:syn. I see this: $25M grant to MSU for bio-digital evolution center, AP but not much else. In other words, this article should only exist if "digital evolution" is a term that is used a lot - like "digital revolution" certainly is - not just if it's something that we as wikipedians think is an interesting term. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ready Set[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --Russ is the sex (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets WP:MUSICBIO, point one. Good enough for me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO, requirements. Itsswanny (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 16:30, 21 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kohei Kamikawa[edit]

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

I have searched the web for reliable sources to establish notability and have not had any luck. I have found some youtube videos and similar types of social network references, but nothing in reliable sources. The article makes a claim that the subject is well known for playing the euphonium. But I can find no reliable sources making such a claim. This appears to be a case of being too early to have a Wikipedia entry. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "..one of the finest and youngest locally-renowned Japanese Euphonium players"... That's his claim to notability? How many Japanese Euphonium players does Toronto have?? Possible speedy, depending on your opinion of Euphonium players... Hairhorn (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per no notability. PamelaBMX (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

like what the fuck this guy is famous

Speedy Delete. No indication or assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, utterly non-notable college freshman who's in band. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a speedy candidate AIUI, but it's clear that this guy doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:BAND. A student musician whose career hasn't started yet. — Gwalla | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

360 Kombat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits on the title, Google web hits are to primary sources such as myspace, youtube, etc.~~ RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The original nomination, WP:Articles for deletion/360 Kombat, is still active. — Rankiri (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn' Accidently opened--RadioFan (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 11:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Ross (author)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Little Red Engine is a well-known children's book and the author has been the subject of significant media coverage: [3]. Warrah (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find much in-depth media coverage in the links within the provided google news search. The only in-depth coverage I saw were obituaries. The publication of an obituary, in itself, is not very strong evidence for notability. However, much of the valid in-depth coverage is very likely not available online. -Verdatum (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about obituary. Some years ago obituaries where common and published for many. To save money over the years most newspapers have stopped publishing them. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're overlooking that the link I provided offers more than just obituaries (which, on their own terms, should be enough to secure WP:GNG). This link [4] from a 1953 Australian newspaper defines Ms. Ross' "Little Red Engine" as a classic. The author and her works are not non-notable. Warrah (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence that says the book is a classic doesn't seem sufficient to make the author notable. There are other versions of the story that are classics, The Little Engine That Could, but the authors of those books don't have a page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of WorldCat authorities a long series of books; when Children's books from the 1940-60s are still held by hundreds of libraries, the author is notable. For definitive evidence, there's a feature retrospective discussion of the series in the Times literary supplement [5] . NYTtimes reviews of one of the books [6]. There's even an article in New Scientist [7]. The author had an full obit in the Independent. [8] and the Guardian [9]. Contra, some of the comments, the publication of multiple true obits in major national publications is a very strong evidence of notability, I see no basis in policy for saying otherwise--it is true that the sort of obituary coverage a local newspaper gives local figures is not proof of notability, but that's a very different matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence until reading DGG's argument. It's a good point that it's uncommon for books so old to still have circulation; and a good point that separate obituaries were published, indicating that this was not just a copy-paste press-release situation. -Verdatum (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG.Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with others that multiple obits in major circulation dailies are sufficient to establish notability. -- 16:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
'Keep - agree with DGG's reasoning. PaleAqua (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close ; wrong forum. Will relist at RfD shortly. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese restoration of Tibet[edit]

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

This article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. I searched the internet for the phrase "Chinese restoration of Tibet" and the only result was this newly created page. It appears to express to have been created to make a WP:POINT. Bertport (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Problematic redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sitecore[edit]

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

I deprodded this software/business after some sources, like Gartner and CMS Wire were presented on talk. I feel it deserves a discussion under those circumstances; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ektron (3rd nomination) for a comparison. There were additional sources there. I'm neutral for this one right now. Pcap ping 16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following message was posted to the article's talk page. Pcap ping 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very new to Wikipedia but it came to my attention that this page may be deleted, in part, due to a lack of notable references. If I add additional references that highlight the company's coverage in secondary sources would the deletion be reconsidered? Industry references for consideration:

http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/oracle/article91/article91.html
http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/Sitecore
http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/
http://www.cmswire.com/news/topic/sitecore
http://www.sitecore.net/Products/Resources/whitepapers/Forrester-5-Additional-Options-for-WCM.aspx?sc_camp=711866D66F644CF4AFF160F5C6E0B9DE

--Sakebouteille (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presented a similar list of notable references on the Ektron page. The debate seems centered around Gartner, CMS Watch, and CMS Wire being notable references. I'm hope that if a decision is made one way or the other, its enforced consistently for all CMS vendors. --208.32.120.10 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this for proposed deletion, after it showed up as a "but my competitor has an article!" in the Ektron AfD.

Gartner comes up with dismaying frequency. They are investment related industry analysts; editorial writeups by them are essentially driven by the people who pay them. Coverage in Gartner does not equate with notability. Their "magic quadrants" pop up frequently as well, but as far as I can tell all that means is that Gartner has put you on a list, they're no more evidence of notability than inclusions in "top 100" lists are. Inclusion of these things does not really count as editorial recognition. And CMSwire is a website that focuses entirely on the "content management" sector, and as such is of such limited circulation and interest that it can't really make anything notable.

Moreover, the article itself is unambiguous advertising, and written in marketing-speak: ...a full-featured, content-driven Content Management Framework with separation of content and presentation. Featuring the concept of unified structural elements called Content Items, the system can be used for various content delivery scenarios... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam masquerading as an article. Its third-party coverage is not significant. I agree with the points Ihcoyc make. Haakon (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The CMS Watch guys got pissed that Sitecore cherry-picked only the positive findings from their report, which is not freely available, so they published the negative findings on their blog [10]. Pcap ping 11:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I still don't think that "CMS Watch" has the kind of broad readership needed to confer notability, their standings as a reliable source may have risen. One problem with trade-related coverage is that such sources can be swayed more easily by a "hyperactive marketing team", and this article is more of their handiwork. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful not to mistake them for CMS Wire, however. Haakon (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found more coverage: [11] [12] [13] [14] dk:ErhvervsBladet (mainstream Danish newspaper), [15] [16] [17] in their 100 list EContent. There's more dk coverage: [18] [19]. There's also a bunch of hits on Dutch IT online magazines [20] [21]. (There's friggin' 900 google news hits in total) Pcap ping 12:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. If these new found references were added to the article as opposed to just being listed here it would go a long way towards avoiding another AfD in the future though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squiz[edit]

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage that would indicate this company passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reference to The Australian is a routine announcement of a contract award, and seems to be based on information supplied by the business.[22] "Econsultancy: Digital Marketers United" hardly seems like a reliable source [23], and has limited circulation and interest in any case. This is more enterprise content management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, I don't see anything that suggests they actually pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Beside the article in The Australian, I found one in The Sydney Morning Herald, [24] [25] [26] ZDNet Australia, [27] Computerworld Australia. As this article explains, it's a significant player in the Australian market; not really a surprise if you consider that support and customization a significant factor for such software. Those articles indicate that the Aussie gov't uses it as 'whitebranded' software. Could not find product review though. Pcap ping 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reviews via Clusty (that I could find). Others searching for independent coverage may be helped by noticing that the company seems to have a number of sites, so try searching -site:squiz.net -site:squiz.com.au -site:squiz.co.uk -site:squiz.co.nz . I didn't turn up anything significant that's not in the article or already mentioned by PCap (white papers, further CMSWire articles about e.g. their white papers.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:53, 16 February 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. It's a plausible search term, so I redirected it to C.O.P.S._(animated_TV_series)#Minor_supporting_characters. Any content that is actually verified can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addictem[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary sources whatsoever exist on a topic, there is nothing to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources found to establish the notability of a one-episode character. Entirely in-universe plot coverage violates what Wikipedia is not. The character is already adequately mentioned in the episode summary at the list of C.O.P.S. episodes. Sarilox (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other minor characters in the same series currently up for AfD are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter - people might wish to consider all four at the same time. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C.O.P.S. (or Delete, if it is true he appeared in only one episode). I prodded this a while back. Abductive (reasoning) 08:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect to C.O.P.S.#Characters_in_the_series, which could benefit from a sentence from this article that sums up the character per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. No reason nor need exists for removing the article's edit history when content from it actually could benefit the main article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:28, 24 February 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 C.O.P.S._(animated_TV_series)#CROOKS as a plausible search term. Any verifiable content can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berserko[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to merge as the article is completely unsourced and violates our NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a plot-only description violating what Wikipedia is not. No reliable sources found to establish the notability of the character deserving its own article. Sarilox (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect with edit history intact as it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. We can verify that the subject is not a hoax per Google. Thus, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no policy based reason exists for not at worst redirecting with edit history intact as it is obviously a valid search term for somebody and as we do have places to redirect to. Because it comes from a show that did spawn action figures and thus is relevant to students of cartoon and toy history, it has potential for further use in some manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Discussion of any merger or redirect can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Jerebin (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a minor character as compared to the other similar articles indiscriminately nominated. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor or not, this article is completely unsourced and lacks any real-world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article concerning a principal and memorable, i.e. notable, main villain from a mainstream series is not completely unsourced (one need only actually look for sources to find them... Anyway, he ranks 7th on a list of "10 Fatest Action Figures of All Time." A main character familiar to millions of people with appearances on a mainstream TV show and as toys has real world notability by the common sense standard as well as the Wikipedic verifiability standard (subject is verified in multiple reliable sources). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please stop indiscriminately copying and pasting the same comment across multiple Afds concerning subjects of wildly varying notability and verifiability. What applies to a henchman that appears in one episode does not equally apply to Big Boss, the main villain with multiple episodes of appearance on television as well as as an action figure that even made a top ten list. The facts are that this article passes WP:GNG due to non-trivial coverage significant enough to justify some kind of inclusion on Wikipedia. Because the subject is verifiable through multiple secondary sources and because the articles contains sourced out of universe information, no one can honestly blanket dismiss the entire article as "original research." Information I cited from secondary sources written by other people is not my original research... Moreover, per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, we do not delete sourced information that can be merged, nor do we redlink articles for which a redirect location exists, in this case C.O.P.S.. This article is not a hoax, not libelous, and has citations from secondary sources. It concerns a memorable character (in fact, the only character I personally actually remember from the show due to the Edward G. Robinson accent) who was the primary antagonist of the series. It is obviously of interest to our readers and editors and there is no valid reason whatsoever ("I don't like it" or "I don't have any familiarity with it" or "I don't want to look for soures and work on it" are all not valid reasons) why in even the worst case scenario such an article would not be merged and/or redirected with edit history intact. Even the minor characters would still at worst be redirected per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. I strongly recommend withdrawing this flood of cookie cutter nominations that do not accurately reflect the diverse individual signicance and potential of the items listed. Some of these can be expanded, some can be merged, some redirected. They are unequivacally not equal. Some concern the main character(s) or location(s) from mainstream fictional universes that span television and toys, whereas other characters and locations are of lesser significance. The sources for these thus varies accordingly and the discussions should reflect as much. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, appears as the main villain of every episode, enough so that any detailed source for any COPS episode or the series itself will also be a source for him. --GRuban (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, article fails WP:Notability#General notability guideline as it doe's not have "significant coverage in reliable sources", 1 or 2 references are not "significant coverage". If this article is not deleted the YouTube links should be removed per WP:External links#Restrictions on linking. Powergate92Talk 23:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three sources do, especially when one is a top ten list. The oodles of additional sources available from a Google Search reflect further significant coverage in reliable sources. This character was the main recurring villain on a TV show, as an action figure, and also in their comics. Please note as well that the above vote was canvassed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character in notable toy franchise. I have added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a standard fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show's article Although the sources turning up in a search and presented here don't even come close to establishing independent notability for the character (or any reason to spin him out to his own article, the vast majority of this is just episode synopsis), this is the primary antagonist of the series and I'm leery of !voting delete. Someone another 01:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create a redirect, to annihilate the excessive original research that is in complete violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Toy may be mentioned in main article. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to show article - No reason not to preserve edit history. That said, does not seem to have the notability for a standalone article. Cerebellum (talk) 15:19, 24 February 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 Masters of the Universe (film). Completely unrefereced with 3rd party info and frankly some of the Keep voters should be slapped with a very large trout. Should be a clear delete, but there's a possible merge target so let's go for that.Black Kite 00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade (Masters of the Universe)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, minor and trivial character (not notable) -- article also violates our no original research policy. JBsupreme (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree this article is completely without sources, it is much better to lose the information in this fashion. There is nothing verifiable here to merge. JBsupreme (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Extremely trivial character with no sourcing to demonstrate notability. I remember watching the movie as a sprog and wondering who the heck these mercenaries were supposed to be, and that was back then. Deletify with prejudice. Someone another 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Redirect to Masters of the Universe (film), this is first and foremost a film character, and since film articles tend to have fairly extensive actor lists the character and actor could be listed there. Someone another 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether that means to continue to improve, or redirect with edit history intact as no actual reason/need exists for deleting it to Masters_of_the_Universe_(film)#Cast. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, we do not redlink what has a valid redirect location and what is not a hoax nor libelous. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and without merit 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'keepsies or maybe merge to list of characters somewhere. Sourcing shouldn't be too hard. Unfortunately the large comicbook shops in Sydney are not on my usual routes. Dead-tree searchnig is required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Masters of the Universe characters. No 3rd party significant coverage, could easily have closed this as delete but since there's an easy merge target, let's do that. Black Kite 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blast-Attak[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary .

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verifiability. As nominator suggests, we have a valid merge and redirect location. Thus, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better in even the worst case scenario we would redirect with edit history intact an article concerning a notable character. We would be doing our diverse readership a disservice by outright redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters to annihilate pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per dgg, in the alternative, merge. Okip 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with Dwanyewest and JBSupreme. This article has no reliable secondary sources to back it up, consists mostly of plot summary and trivia. There should not be an article without any reliable secondary sources- nor should unsourced material be shovelled into another article, even if you can find a suitable target. There is nothing to be done with this material except to get rid of it. Reyk _YO! 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue many people who seem to defend articles like this always seem to ignore a basic principle which I have said in another article. Many inclusionist seem to ignore "The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." Dwanyewest (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You link to someone's personal essay, just the opinion of whoever wrote it. Just as many essays will say the opposite. WP:V matters, and its requirements are met for this article, WP:ENN is meaningless, and nothing said there has any authority in an AFD. Dream Focus 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mention in one news source, when I click Google news source, the full article behind a pay wall unfortunately. The Google book search shows it listed among other notable toys. Nothing gained by deleting the article, so let it be. Dream Focus 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullseye (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you do realise you argument falls under the wikipedia line of WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no information on the topic can be found in secondary sources there is nothing to merge. Abductive (reasoning) 08:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources found to establish notability. Article is filled with original research and plot which violates what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another of these COPS articles that are "sourced" (and I'm using the word in the sense that you'd nickname a fat guy 'slim' or a redhead 'bluey') by some dubious youtube videos, thus making them nothing but original research. I'll also point out that the show itself only ran for about a year, making it fairly low on the notability scale so extensive articles on every character is excessive and inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to C.O.P.S. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.O.P.S. For Kids[edit]

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

A minor facet without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. No indication it passes WP:N. Pcap ping 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge it's the PSA portion of the TV show, back when cartoons had Public Service Announcements, thus is a major element in the format of the TV series. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming there's a source for the statement above. Has the nominator looked, or is he going by first impressions. It's hard to tell , with an identical comment for every nomination. If he has done the work of looking for sources and failed, he should help us all by saying so. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (well-trimmed) to C.O.P.S. unless nom can show topic never received any mentions at all. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked for reliable third person information regarding COPS for Kids and the nearest I found is two articles from TVShowsOnDVD.com [28][29] and both only make a trivial mention of COPS PSA's. This is not substantial coverage of the subject in hand and wikipedia guideline insist the sources must be substantial. I don't feel that a few sentences which list Extra's on a DVD review is sufficient evidence to demonstrate substantial notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The article hasn't has any sources added over the entire cycle of the AFD, and therefore the arguments for delete have more voice and are more relevantly based in policy. Keep votes were not near as strong as the delete comments. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Crimefighter[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable figure lacking real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. The article seems nothing more than a platform for a plot summary of the episode. A smerge to C.O.P.S. is possible, I guess; but what's the point of merging more unsourced content to an article that itself lacks any cited sources?

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Excessive plot summary and trivia on a thoroughly non-notable one-time character. Stand-alone articles are required to show independent notability, which this hasn't got, and as Dwanyewest notes there's no point in merging unsourced stuff into anything. There's nothing that can be done with this material, so it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, too large to merge. It is a standard fictional character biography and can be referenced to the DVD material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found to establish the notability of a one-episode character. Original research and excessive plot coverage violates what Wikipedia is not. The character is already adequately mentioned in the episode summary at the list of C.O.P.S. episodes. Sarilox (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the subject is verifiable through reliable sources that establish notability and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no legitimate reasons exists whatsoever why at worst we would not redirect with edit history intact to the episode page as we can see that she did indeed exist. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other minor characters in the same series currently up for AfD are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictem - people might wish to consider all four at the same time. -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, article consists entirely of unsourced WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per richard, in the alternative, merge. Okip 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:51, 25 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemozale[edit]

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

One reliable news link, that's all I could find. Beyond that, there are surely umpteen web links that confirm the existence of this festival. But none of them qualify as reliable secondary sources. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemozale is a genuine event plz support it

plz don't delete chemozale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.25.170 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely an annual student organized symposium of no external notability. -Quartermaster (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student event at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor BadVibes and Buzzbomb[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and plot violates what Wikipedia is not. Lack of reliable sources fails to establish notability. Sarilox (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Masters of the Universe characters. Should be a delete because there's no sourcing, but we've got an easy merge target, so... Black Kite 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extendar[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletar. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost WP:PERNOM, as following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, when a merge and redirect location exists we do that instead of redlinking. We can plain see that this notable character is something we can actually hold in the real world. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters to avoid a wedwink. Abductive (reasoning) 08:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardtop (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that this character, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, is notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although YouTube is allowed as evidence you can't used illegal sourced YouTube videos hence why I removed the article earlier.WP:YOUTUBE

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then Redirect to C.O.P.S. to annihilate pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without the redirect. It's not even a plausible search term. The article is 100% cruft, nothing but plot summary and trivia; and without any sources to even satisfy WP:V we can conclude only that this article is pure original research. Reyk _YO!

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highway (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that this character, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, is notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately. --information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary and like many of the other C.O.P.S. character articles you can't allow User submitted YouTube videos as evidence a subject is notable unless its official YouTube videos. I see no evidence the videos are sanctioned by DIC Entertainment see guidelines WP:YOUTUBE

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as character appeared both on TV and as a toy, which we can of course verify and see for ourselves. As nominator suggests, it could be merged, which is what we do per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Deletion is an extreme last resort, but clearly the character is notable to fans of the show and toy collectors, hence the images we can see of it online and that an article was created here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Excessive plot summary and original research based upon a handful of youtube videos. Reyk _YO! 08:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to C.O.P.S. to annihilate pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive (reasoning) 08:11, 23 February 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. Unsourced, non-notable. Not even worth a merge like the others. Black Kite 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icer[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to dab page since there's a hatnote there with several entries. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it is merged adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero notability. "Appearing in only one episode" = about as noteworthy as He-Man's left nipple. Someone another 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the character is surely verifiable and per the nominator we have a place for which to merge and redirect following WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. WP:JNN is not a compelling reason for redlinking that which has merge and redirect locations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The main argument for deletion is based on the idea that the individuals on the list are not independently notable, although the nomination also mentions potential POV problems. If someone were creating articles on these individuals then that would be a valid argument, but individual items on a list are not required to have sufficient notability in and of themselves. POV problems can be fixed by editing the article and are not a reason for deleting an article. Any merger/renaming/etc of this content can be discussed on the list's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

What is the notability of a list of civilian casualties? A newspaper mention of a casualty doesn't make that person notable. Nor is the subject of "List of casualties of ..." notable. Do we have such a list for the 9/11 terrorist acts? I have a minor suspicion this list was created more to make a point, than for its encyclopedical value. The entries are clearly supposed to make a point: "elderly shepherd", "pregnant woman", "sleeping children". If this article were encyclopedical, it would not go into such details, but just mention the facts.Debresser (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list was created after a group of editors continually resisted adding Palestinian casualties to List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada (see talk page archive [30]). That list was subsequently renamed to reflect its Israeli only contents. Since summer of 2009, both List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada have been copied into the article Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Given that we now have two spin-off lists linking back to one main article, I cannot support deleting one without the other as that would be POV. The information in both lists is useful for those who want to see a breakdown of casualties from this period in the conflict. The Palestinian list still needs to be expanded and so will require a separate page as it will be too long for the new parent article once completed. Tiamut^talk 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tiamut^talk 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no argument, or rather a non-argument, see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. But feel free to nominate on Afd whatever you want. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each entry on the list has at least one reference attesting to its having happened and there are many entries in the list that can have many more than one. Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada are the subject of much discussion. Having a breakdown of those casualties in list format seems reasonable, particularly given the existence of a parallel for Israeli casulties. These are both spin-off articles of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Once the Palestinian list is expanded further (it is not comprehensive at present), space constraints will make it impossible to include the entire list in the parent article. These are all valid rationales to keep the article, despite your opinion to the contrary. Your lack of concern for consistency in the treatment of articles, and your dismissive, robotic comments responding to people who took the time to formulate their thoughts is both disturbing and unimpressive. Tiamut^talk 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "lack of concern for consistency in the treatment of articles": I happened to see this article, and nominated it. As I said, feel free to nominate on Afd whatever you want. And please remember WP:NPA: I just didn't see any reason not to copy my comment when the argument you and User:Sean.hoyland used has the same logical fallacy. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack in my comment, though perhaps I could have been less harsh in my choice of descriptors for your comments. There is also no logical fallacy in my argument or Sean's. This is not a case of otherstuffexists. These two articles have a history together and link back to same parent article. Nominating one for deletion without considering the other will not increase NPOV at Wikipedia. It decreases it. Tiamut^talk 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I had a look at List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, I'd like to note that it is more a list of bombings and other terrorist attacks, than a list of casualties. Just that it mentions the number of casualties by the way. It was created in January 2004, while its Palestinian counterpart was created only in November 2007. Debresser (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada was previously named List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada. It was renamed sometime after the List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada list was created. As I explained above, the latter list was created because of the refusal of a certain group of editors to include Palestinian casualties in the List of attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada, even though these entries had referncing just as good as the references for Israeli entries. That list was subsequently renamed to reflect it Israeli-only contents. It was later renamed to Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, where now, both the Palestinian and Israeli civilian casualty lists are linked to.

Your proposal is basically to delete one half of the article on Civilian casulaties in the Second Intifada (i.e. the half which lists Palestinian casulaties). If an editor came to that page and blanked the Palestinian section, such an edit would be viewed as incredibly POV. That's how I view this nomination. I suggest that if you are truly concerned that lists of this kind at Wikipedia are inappropriate, that you nominate both lists together, and retain only the parent article Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada where editors interested in writing a more encyclopedic entry in line with NPOV can focus their energies. Tiamut^talk 09:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the notability of a list of civilian casualties? Probably about the same as the notability of a list of Palestinian rocket attacks I would imagine.

Were any of these lists created more to make a point than for their encyclopedical value ? Who knows but I do know that this kind of information, whatever it is, casualties on either side, armed attacks by either belligerent in the conflict need to be handled consistently and neutrally. Nominating one article is not the right approach in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no argument, or rather a non-argument, see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. But feel free to nominate on Afd whatever you want. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with the otherstuff opinion. It's counterproductive in cases like this with narrative wars spilling over to wikipedia covered by discretionary sanctions. My argument is that nominating this article as if it is an isolated object is not in the interest of this project, it will not increase NPOV compliance across the subject area, it will not encourage a mature, collaborative approach to addressing sets of related articles and it is in my view inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions covering the I-P conflict since they oblige us to act neutrally. In these circumstances is not possible to be neutral and employ the otherstuff argument. They are mutually exclusive. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would like to disagree with you about that. But I agree with you that those articles are not among the most important on Wikipedia. Still, those are attacks, and as such are listified in an article about attacks that took place in an armed conflict, while this article list casualties that are not connected to anything: people killed in crossfire, other unintended victims, etc. Debresser (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC

All of these articles that list casualties, rocket attacks etc etc deal with information about events that are part of the set of all events that make up the Israel-Palestine conflict. The events described in the articles were reported by one or more reliable sources. To say that the events in this particular article are 'not connected to anything' is incorrect. Obviously they are connected to the actions that resulted in these casualties and these actions took place within the context of the Second Intifada and they were reported. This is a subset of reported events in the Israel-Palestine conflict that relate to the Second Intifada. Whether a particular event is worthy of mention in wikipedia depends on the sources not on any editor's personal taxonomies and information weighting schema. It's not an editors place to argue on the basis that a person killed is not notable/not connected to anything but a weapon that lands in a desert/in a city is notable and pertinent just because that is the way they happen to classify information. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's a list of non-notable persons. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as all or virtually all individuals and incidents on the list are non-notable. I suppose there is an article on the Second Intifada where the content of this list can be appropriately summarized. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the worst examples of bad faith nominations I've seen. So we can keep List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada but not this one? This would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, even more so given that the numbers of Palestinian deaths and other casualties are much higher than the Israeli ones. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is inapplicable here, since what is really being proposed is a WP:POVFORK, as is obvious from the history of this article explained by Tiamut above. --NSH001 (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming good faith. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a valuable resource. Currently when following up events of interest I have been relying on the Journal of Palestine Studies which has an excellent chronolgy. But there are gaps, and they don't name casualties. This is what Wikipedia is good at. Also I find the non-notable arguement problematic.Padres Hana (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Probably best to create List of civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and merge with List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Should keep all the belligerents happy (not holding my breath). -Quartermaster (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment: Nod in favor of User:Tiamut's comments above. Keep both the Israeli and Palestinian lists, or delete both. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to argue, as I mentioned before, that there is a difference between a list of rocket attacks and a list of persons who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although I made my deletion proposal without being aware of that other list, in my opinion these are not two parts of one and the same list, and the titles (that suggest otherwise) are misleading. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. But if we start parsing articles into the mechanisms by which death is achieved by these unfortunate civilians, seems like one could have all sorts of odd article forks. We're already segregating the articles by religion/nationality/ethnicity, something I find problematic. Keeping it simple in one single list (with accompanying information as needed) would seem to serve the end user best. Sighs. Frankly, we all know that this is a hot potato topic with common sense likely to be the victim of political desire. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me that I had no idea what I was starting. But I do have a tendency to defend my position when I feel it is correct. I hope nobody is taking this personal. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Armbrust. JBsupreme (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 18 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by nickname[edit]

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

All are nicknames with 'the'. No way all nicknames are included. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 08:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of UTTER IMPRACTICALLY. This list could potentially contain the nicknames of everyone who appears on Wikipedia and could be hundreds of pages long. The only possible justification for this is grounded in the idea of "cross indexing" as was done in print publications. "Search" functions make this way of thinking obsolete. --Griseum (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmanageable list with ill-defined parameters. (A list of people with a frog and a Hutt on it?) As noted above, completeness is also unlikely to be achieved. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impractical and non-encyclopedic, and the article never determines what defines a nickname. (Is "Pliny the Elder" really a nickname?). Warrah (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete - At its best it would be an index of the entire BLP class of articles. That obviously won't happen, or even be advisable. Another example of what everyone above is saying. Completely unmanageable list for the sake of being a list. Shadowjams (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impractical and ill-defined parameters — this list could go on forever (um, they left out Joe the Plumber). Also violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I suggest merging the monarchs into List of monarchs by nickname, as proposed on the article tag, and deleting the rest. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT. However, a merger with a couple other lists is somewhat feasible. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from general silliness (Jabba the Hutt isn't a person and neither is that a nickname), this clearly falls afoul of Wikipedia NOT being a collection of random information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:Bollocks EeepEeep (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to C.O.P.S.. Black Kite 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LongArm[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that this character, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, is notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Are there more of these? They should have been nominated in a single AfD. Pcap ping 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. How much need be marged needs to be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as character appeared on a memorable television show and as a toy. As nominator suggests and in keeping with WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, we would at worst merge and redirect this article as there is no need to trouble an admin with redlinking as there is nothing to protect the public from here. Indeed, if anything, it is at least relevant to someone. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with previous nominees Delete 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mace and Nightshade[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that these two characters, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, are notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. I suspect consensus could have been gotten to merge without having come here. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both fail general notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES.

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no reliable secondary sources which means we not have an article on it. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research sourced entirely from youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its's merely a vehicle for a overdetailed plot summary and like many of the other C.O.P.S. character articles you can't allow User submitted YouTube videos as evidence a subject is notable unless its official YouTube videos. I see no evidence the videos are sanctioned by DIC Entertainment see guidelines WP:YOUTUBE

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources provided or found to establish notability. Article is entirely original research and plot which violates what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Excessive plot summary and trivia, and is nothing more than original research based on a handful of youtube videos. And all from a show that ran for a bout a year and is only borderline notable itself. Reyk _YO! 08:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Demeanor[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that this character, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, is notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely original research based on primary sources. Pcap ping 05:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sub-trivial character, lacks real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. The article seems nothing more than a platform for a plot summary of the episodes. A smerge to C.O.P.S. is possible, I guess; but what's the point of merging more unsourced content to an article that itself lacks any cited sources?

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Excessive plot summary about a trivial character from a fairly low notability cartoon. No reliable sources, so we should not have an article on it. No sources of any kind means that there isn't even anything that can legitimately be merged. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 23 February 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. Unsourced, no amount of hand waving can save this Black Kite 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjor (Masters of the Universe)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted to List of Masters of the Universe characters

Dwanyewest (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly original research. Pcap ping 05:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original research has been eliminated. Was there another reason for you to wish to delete this? Dream Focus 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in some books [31] and two news articles that are behind a paywall so I can't read what they actually said about the character. But I found this: [32] the character getting notable mention in a top 10 list, for one of the lamest fictional ninjas of all time. An actor played Ninjor in the very notable Macy Thanksgiving Day parade. That's two sites listed as reliable sources, and used in many other Wikipedia articles, that give coverage of the character. I edited out all the original research nonsense that should've gone on the talk page, not in the main article. If someone claims to have come up with the character, discuss it on the talk page, and find some news media mentioning this. Dream Focus 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again toy directories do nothing to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of sources presented. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG you are familiar with the idea that of circular arguements. "Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia" WP:CIRCULAR

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he was mentioning the sources presented by me in the post above him. The Macy Thanksgiving Day parade of 1985 happened before Wikipedia even existed. Dream Focus 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character added to the toy line after the cartoon ended. No notability independent of the franchise. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. All book mentions, as linked above, are merely price guides valuing the toy. Sarilox (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect as sufficiently notable due to verifiability through reliable sources. Subject is from a mainstream franchise for which we can view images of him in both comic and action figure format online. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, no valid or objective reason exists for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:26, 22 February 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. And another, no sources, no notability shown, just existing isn't a reason for a separate article. Black Kite 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Blast[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's ref in there, which is fairly detailed [33], but the site has no clear editorial policy, and no list of staff. Does not look like a reliable source. Pcap ping 05:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oafe.com is not a reliable source [34] Dwanyewest (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced+ Minor character= Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it is merged adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG. Also, the character was seen in various comic books and an episode of a cartoon, it saying "He also makes frequent appearances in the UK comic series by London Editions." By comic book standards, the character is notable enough to exist. Dream Focus 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor mention in an old Washington Post article [35] listing as one of the notable characters children "adored", and who was mentioned in a song apparently. Google book search up top shows eight results. Schroeder's Collectible Toys: Antique to Modern Guide‎ - Page 8 apparently mentions it, but I can't see a Google preview of what all it says. Listed in an Almanac of notable toys. Dream Focus 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails general notability WP:GN

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:Notable. The guidelines are just a suggestion, not a requirement like policies are. Anyone can edit those things without the approval or even notice of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors. "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Common sense to me means that if the Washington Post says that children adored the character, they were notable enough to be mentioned there, featured in the live action show, and in the song sung there, then the character is quite notable. Dream Focus 20:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per lack of coverage in reliable sources. There's only one source, which backs up just one paragraph in this article, and it's not a reliable one. Reyk _YO! 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable character. Ridernyc (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity. WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, as the subject is not a hoax nor libelous and as the nominator even points out a valid merge and redirect location exists, that is what we would do. Obviously the name is plausible for editors to have created the article and worked on it and this character was apparently worthy of getting a toy in addition to being on the show. No valid reason exists as to why we would not therefore at worst redirect with edit history intact. Someone can make a reasonable case for such a merging or redirecting, but there is no reasonable case for redlink. "I don't like it" just doesn't cut it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, it is way too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason it is "way too big to merge" is because the unsourced original research has yet to be cut! There is nothing here worth keeping or merging. JBsupreme (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with List of Masters of the Universe characters. Right now it just doesn't look like we have enough reliable sources for a standalone article, but we definitely want to preserve the edit history per A Nobody. The list doesn't have much detail so some information will be lost, but we can definitely expand the single sentence that the list currently contains to a paragraph, and bring in the OAFE review and some of the Google Books results to verify the details of the toy. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Masters of the Universe characters. Another obvious one Black Kite 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scare Glow[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say, keep with sources. Lots42 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for fan speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge the part attributable to the He-Man.org interview, assuming that can be tracked down (no link is provided), and delete the original research. Pcap ping 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it is merged adequately. It would be better to keep that to lose information --information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on Google news search at the top of the AFD. The character was notable enough to be featured in their live action play. Dream Focus 06:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed in the almanac for collectible characters(as mentioned in other articles mass nominated at the same time), and elsewhere in Google book search. Sold at Mattel's collector website. One figure sold for over a thousand dollars according to the article. Dream Focus 06:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He-man.org is not a reliable source as it is a fansite WP:FANSITE and its been debated whether its reliable [36] Dwanyewest (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material Dwanyewest (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks pretty good. Better than I thought it could be improved to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability independent of the franchise. Ridernyc (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because something exists doesn't mean it should have an article. There needs to be evidence of notability. 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficiently notable for at worst keeping the edit history per WP:PRESERVE. No legitimate reason exists for not doing that, i.e. no reason for actual deletion here. Improving or merging and can be discussed on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:04, 25 February 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. One "keep" commenter apparently thinks this is just a vote as opposed to a discussion and presented no reason at all to keep the article so that is discounted entirely. While A Nobody has added a reference, it is extremely trivial in nature, and the delete comments make valid arguments. Could possibly be recreated as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Mountain (television)[edit]

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

A minor part of MOTU without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was a major location in the TV series, so I can't see how you can claim it is a "minor part" 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re: Snake Mountain Evan1975 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge in adequate detail to a list of locations. As it is based on the fiction itself, it is not OR, has the the fiction as a source. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable thing found in various notable works of fiction. No way to fit all of this in another article comfortably. And mass deleting or "trimming" is the same as delete. Rename it though, since it mentions more than just the television appearances. Snake Mountain (Masters of the Universe) is a much more appropriate name. Dream Focus 01:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been in three He-man series, plus She-Ra, and mentioned in the He-man movie, plus the different comic book series, and it has a toy. Dream Focus 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fails WP:GNG as wikipedia states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Dwanyewest (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not a single source in this terrible article which fails all of WP:V, WP:N, WP:PLOT and WP:TRIVIA, and all I can find online is old adverts for a toy connected with this thing. Reyk _YO! 17:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have added a reliable secondary source (a published book) concerning out of universe aspects of this notable location (the main headquarters of principal villain who is still spoofed on Robot Chicken occasionally, i.e. the universe is still relevant in popular culture) from a multi-million dollar (even in 1980s dollars) franchise that appears in multiple episode of a memorable television show, as a playset (that my brother and I even owned! This still looks awesome today...), as a game, as well as in comic/cartoon style books. Thus, the two votes to delete have been refuted as the article is no longer "entirely original research" nor does it have "not a single source" at this time as it contains a citation from a secondary source. Moreover, this location is verifiable from dozens of additional published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is mostly original research and plot violating what Wikipedia is not. The one reference that has been added is a trivial mention of the toy, which does not provide the significant coverage required by the notability guideline. Discussions already at Eternia and Skeletor should be sufficient to address this subject not notable enough for its own article. Sarilox (talk) 22:26, 22 February 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. Not sourced, no 3rd party coverage, no notability Black Kite 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spikor[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this particular character is notable to people in the real world with even a cover titular appearance of a publication in addition to being on the show and as a toy. As nominator offers a merge location above, at worst we would follow WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and do that instead of redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appeared as a toy in the original series and in the relaunch, in three episodes of the cartoon, including as a main character in one, and in the comic books. Interesting article to read(yes, I know, some people don't consider that a reason to keep something, since they want to delete all interesting content from Wikipedia and have just a small number of bland short and meaningless articles instead). Dream Focus 07:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No evidence of notability. Since it is required that articles be backed up by reliable secondary sources, and this hasn't got any sources of any kind, we should not have an article on it. It's also mostly original research. Reyk _YO! 10:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominee non notable character 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge into list of article. Much of the Character history is not in-universe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable villain in notable franchise. I have added a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite being a biography of a living person, the article has undergone significant sourcing improvements since the nomination, so I feel the best close is as such. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary[edit]

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

The person has one reliable news link, nothing else that I could find confirming inclusion as a Wikipedia BLP. Request AfD. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SGGH ^ping! 11:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i've seen this dude on tv several times during India matches (some thing like an Indian version of chacha cricket). But I agree that there is not much verifiable info on him - there are a lot of image hits for this guy if you google around, but not much info - some of them report his name as "Sudhir Kumar Gautam". See following links: http://cricketnext.in.com/slideshow/p0/g361/f15/view.html, http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070516/sports.htm, http://thatscricket.oneindia.in/news/2009/11/24/police-apologise-to-sachin-fan.html

No comments on whether to retain the article - just giving some info to help you guys decide. May be you could ask the creator of the article for back up.

Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references mentioned here and a photo, and I think the article is now good enough to show notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a few more references.Earliest coverage dates to 2003 and continues till now. Enough to show notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next, does Luke Gillian, (aka Lukey Sparrow) get an article? Lukey even follows the team when it plays away. Following a sports team around on its home matches does not make one notable, it makes one an ordinary sports fan like thousands of others. Mattinbgn\^talk 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But mainstream newspapers writing about him does make him notable and different from other fans. There is a category of sports spectators with 29 pages on it for various sports. And all of them have good coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sodabottle. As an Australian, I automatically thought of this man, and sure enough - he had an article as well. You don't expect many supporters to be notable - but mainstream media coverage is indeed the key, and there are a few who get it. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite my dislike for such articles, this one is a clearly notable fan and is regularly covered by the media for his antics. I can't find the news bit now, but last year he had asked for free tickets to some games and Pawar refused or some such thing and it was covered quite widely. He hasn't yet received as much coverage as Percy Abeysekara though, and is still in third place among subcontinent cricket fans. —SpacemanSpiff

Delete, if this article is allowed to be kept it will create an annoying precedent of people creating articles just because they turn up to more cricket matches than most folk. What next? The diehard Ireland fan who travels across the globe to watch them (his name slips my mind)? Delete, not notable in terms of his contribution to the game, which is other than being a vocal supporter, none. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria here is not "contribution to the game" but notability which is established by coverage in secondary sources / mainstream media. Subject has had a fair amount of coverage and according to WP:GNG that is enough. And this is not setting a precedent, this is the 29th article in the sports spectator category.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like editors to consider the following points. I see seven news links that have been placed in the article. Of these, four links talk about "Sudhir Kumar Gautam". Although one may be led to perceive that Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary and Sudhir Kumar Gautam are one and the same (one editor has given this connection within the article too), is there a news link that makes that direct connection? Could there be two different fans out there (well, "Gautam" and "Chaudhary" are two very different surnames) from a similar geography following a similar path? That leaves us with three clean news reports. I'll list them here one by one:

Cricinfo link - Cumulative mention within the article of Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary is as follows, "Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary says that Tendulkar gives him match tickets and in an outlandish show of gratitude, he's been delivering an absurd number of fruits to his idol since 2004. Sudhir also goes to extraordinary pains to watch cricket, even of the dullest variety. He rode a bicycle all the way to Bangladesh to watch the Indians in action and hopes to return in time to harvest his litchis."

Tribune - This link is not even to a news article but to a section called 'Briefly'. The cumulative mention is as follows, "Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, a cricket fan, has the Indian flag painted on his body by an artist in Amritsar on Saturday. In support of the cricket series between Pakistan and India, Chaudhary is on a bicycle journey which began on January 19 in Bihar and will end at the Wagah Border on Sunday. — AFP"

[37] DNA India. The only article with a significant mention of Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary.

If one significant news report and two clearly trivial news reports are enough to qualify for WP:NOTABILITY, keep the article. Else, delete it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to me that both are one and the same. They have the photo of the same person. Here is a couple of media reports that identifies him by just the given name "Sudhir Kumar".[38][39] In the Indian name context, sometimes people use different surnames - sometimes caste name ("Chaudhary" is one such) is used as surname or sometimes the given name of the father is used as surname. Can there be two different persons from Muzzafarpur, Bihar a)who follow the indian team around b)with the same body art c)who bicycle to the same places at the same date d)whose photographs look very very similar e)who have the same given name.f) are of the same age e)claim that they get free tickets from Tendulkar? Just compare these two reports from 2007- DNAIndia and Times of India . When i saw the AfD, I looked for sources and found them. I added them, clarified the article. Perhaps i shouldn't have read WP:DUCK. An appeal to the closing admin - please go through the other six news links and decide whether this is an issue of OR or just plain commonsense.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sodabottle. Appreciate your viewpoints. Btw, WP:DUCK is a behavioural essay, not an editing guideline and should never be followed while editing. Common sense would be a more pertinent point to follow. Let me put things in context.

Things encouraging us to keep this article

- The man is a news item.

- Like I mentioned, a Common sense approach makes us believe Chaudhary and Gautam are one and the same.

- 'If' Chaudhary and Gautam are one and the same, there are two good significant mentions.

- The article was nominated for AfD when there was no link. Today there're seven.

- Very experienced editors whose views I value (like SpacemanSpiff) vouch for the notability.

Sticky points

- There is still no link that makes the direct relation between Chaudhary and Gautam being one and the same.

- Even if finally Chaudhary and Gautam are one and the same, leave two (three?) links, all others are extremely trivial mentions that would never qualify as significant.

- WP:WWIN points to the fact that he is surely a news item with his body paint; and all I see are (indiscriminate??) news articles (leave two/three), questionable endurable notability (you know about him, I don't).

Where do I stand on this issue? Same place as in my last comment :) But I have to say, you've worked hard on the article. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment :-). Reading back what i wrote, it seems i fit the WP:NOCOMMON second paragraph description very well (While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me," you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil). I apologize. I have one point and one question - (assuming both sudhir kumars are the same person), there are four non trivial coverage news items (in the sense entire article is written about the subject) - refs 2,3,4 and 9. There are actually more reports, but they are duplicates of nos 3 and 4, as they are agency reports picked up by multiple media outlets. So are four "non trivial" news reports enough to meet WP:GNG?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to C.O.P.S.. Might as well be merged, no sources, no notability asserted (etc) Black Kite 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not OR. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found or provided to establish notability. Article is filled with original research and plot violating what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as yet again reliable sources establish notability for this article that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Characters from mainstream shows who also got toys are relevant to those who study the history of cartoon and toys alike and regardless of what any of us personally like or dislike, we need to be considerate to our colleagues per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Thus, as the nominator suggest, even in the worst case scenario we would merge per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVEas there is no dire need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. The only source is the fiction, which works to show that the character exists, but doesn't do much to show that the character is notable enough for its own article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to C.O.P.S.. Might as well merge, but yet again unsourced, no notability asserted, anyone !voting Keep here really needs to read our policies Black Kite 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Tu-Tone[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in reliable sources not provided or found to establish notability. Original research and plot violates what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as if it has not become clear, I am only defending those that actually show up in both the show and as toys, i.e. those that actually do have multiple means of notability, i.e. relevance to those who study both televsion and toys alike. We know from reliable sources that this character is notabile and passes what Wikipedia is. Following the nominator's own suggestion and in-line with WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no reason exists for not at worst redirecting with edit history intact as a matter of consideration of our fellow editors and readers who do see worth in studying characters with appearances as toys and in TV shows. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to C.O.P.S.. Hate to say it, but there is no information in this article that is backed by reliable sources. I appreciate the work that has gone into this and other similar articles, but I can't find the sources to justify an article on this character. We do have the fiction itself, both the show and the comic series, but that isn't sufficient - though it does serve to fill a list of major characters on the show's article, which is what should probably happen. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 26 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty-Grrr[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pcap ping 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable in-universe (NO PUN INTENDED?) character which lacks real-world notability and significant coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:39, 17 February 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. (X! · talk) · @266 · 05:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesoft Technology[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable sources with significant coverage found to back up article. Teancum (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Teancum (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Teancum (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Teancum (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) --Teancum (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable organisation which created the non-notable fansite GameClub. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameClub for relevant discussion on that topic. --Taelus (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, publishing a portal with an article is enough for A7 Majestic27 ^{Talk to me...} 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for WP:AFD are not the same as WP:CSD --Teancum (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I understand and I'd already read the guidelines for deletion. --Majen27 · talk 02:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable online publisher for which I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable company, producer of non-notable website already deleted. Pcap ping 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party, reliable sources provided to indicate notability. Most of the websites provided in the "Reference" section are to a wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:30, 16 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin "Coach" Wade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Benjamin "Coach" Wade

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Notability rests on Survivor. Memorable contestant, but no notability outside of Survivor. Meaghan ^{the vanilla twilight} 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now: He's one of the top 20 or so most recognizable characters in one of the biggest shows of the past 10 years. Also his character is a bit of an enigma, which I think would probably lead people to try to find out more about him. I myself have done some Google sleuthing just to try to figure out what he's all about and how much of what he said on the show was real. An encyclopedia entry would have been helpful in that pursuit. I would think there is no harm in leaving this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.197.246.30 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now: This is the kind of nomination that goes over better and calmer when Survivor is not actually on TV. Now is when interest in the subject is high. I see Russell Hantz recently closed as a merge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz) in a fairly close !vote. Apparently 16 out of 20 of the contestants on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains currently have individual pages, some of which look like they were at one time deleted and then recreated later. (E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Woodcock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parvati Shallow). My bias, though, is that if a sourced article can be created, it does little harm.--Milowent (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now: I have to admit, I am unsure what the proceedure is for this, or if I am even in a position to toss my two cents in, but I largely agree with the above statement. I have done some work on the page myself (What a mess it was!) and will plug away at getting some Sources in to it. I am of course, perfectly happy to go along with the consensus in either direction. Dphilp75 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now: Why shouldn't Survivor contestants get their own Wiki page? To the extent that pop culture is relevant to our lives, I don't understand why individuals associated with fictional programming have primacy over those involved in reality programming. At least Survivor is a compelling program. Most television shows are not. Gwendolyn78 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page is in dire need of rearrangement and has numerous mistakes. Unless you can prove how else he is notable and drastically improve the article, delete under WP:ONEEVENT. —Untitledmind72 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (A7) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzles FC[edit]

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

contested prod. no reliable indication of notability. Article claims the club was only formed in 2010 and plays indoor soccer in one sports centre. Talk page claims it to be the biggest junior indoor soccer club in Brisbane and on its way to being 2010 champions - a big claim for a club that has only just started,. No references and no google hits. noq (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedily - added to the fact that this is clearly just a bunch of mates who enjoy a kickabout down the local sports hall, there is the fact that according to the article, the team was not simply only formed in 2010, but only formed last Friday! Obviously not notable in the slightest, doubt that anything on the talk page is in any way true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as someone who studied Latin for many years, their motto is the worst attempt to write in Latin I've ever seen :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Ridiculously blatant hoax. -- Big Dom 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. Regardless of whether it's a hoax, if it's real, it sure isn't notable - this was just recently formed. Like last week. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:23, 15 February 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. (X! · talk) · @264 · 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The yarrow[edit]

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

Small unsigned band with no significant coverage, Prod removed without explenation. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nominator

There appears to a lot of mixed feelings about this band, I would like to point out to !voters considering joining in this discussion and those who've already commented and may not have noticed that although The Yarrow have been published by 3 publications i.e Daily Herald, Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune, these are all publications local to the bands area (Utah) and appear to be somewhat trivial considering this is an unsigned band who (so far) has not been acknowledged outside of their local area. If a consensus cannot be achieved here I'll most likely be taking this to WP:RFC. Thanks, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "significant coverage" provided within the article passes WP:RS and is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 16:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "significant coverage" alluded to by Mr. Blanchardb amounts to "charity event X will feature events such as blah, foo, bar, and live music, played by bands such as Yuk, Dum, Boo, and The Yarrow". If that passes for significant coverage, then I need to work on articles for all my highschool garage bands. Badger Drink (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that other "significant coverage" amounts to puff pieces from local newspapers, focusing more on the novelty aspect of a local band than actual notable merit. Again, if these pass for reliable sources, then I have a handful of high school garage bands to add, complete with citations from the local weekly paper. Badger Drink (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , but the article needs to be set up better with more and more prominent references. I think that the article page is "note worthy" and should stay on the condiction that work be done to it. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep in mind that noteworthiness and Wikipedia's concept of notability are two different things. — Rankiri (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article's sourcing is scarce and inconclusive, but I think it may be adequate for passing the minimum requirements of WP:N. When in doubt, don't delete. — Rankiri (talk) 18:18, 15 February 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. (X! · talk) · @259 · 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trigana Air Service Flight 168[edit]

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

This accident does not seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:AIRCRASH, double engine failure is not an uncommon cause.

According to the article for the type of aircraft there have been 21 hull losses of ATR 42 aircraft since it was introduced in 1985, including this one (according to the ATR 42 article, but not the accident article, which doesn't say).
At least two of the other hull-loss accidents resulted in significant death tolls (37 in the 1987 accident, and 46 on Santa Barbara Airlines Flight 518 in 2008), whereas this accident resulted in no deaths and just 2 serious injuries (broken legs).
Information about the crash already exists on the ATR 42 and Trigana Air Service articles, where WP:AIRCRASH would suggest to merge information to, so this is not necessary.
Although our article about the operator lists only this accident, AirDisaster.com lists fatal accidents in 2002 and 2006.[40]
The article does not give a clear location of where the accident actually happened, nor how short of the airport the plane diverted to it was, but unless it was at or in the immediate environs of the airport merging any significant content there would not be appropriate (it is not currently mentioned in the articles about the departure, intended destination or intended diversion airports, and per the previous sentence I don't think it really needs to be mentioned at either of the first two.)
Indonesia generally has a poor safety record for airlines, as the articles in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia show, so this is not the most significant accident in the country.
The principles section of WP:AIRCRASH duplicates WP:N and Wikipedia:News sources with it's first two points. Even though the accident is less than a week old, I cannot find any continuing reporting on the accident, suggesting that this was nothing more than brief news story with no lasting historical significance. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually hear of a double engine loss on a twin engine airliner. Seems pretty catastrophic and should warrant a very thorough investigation.--Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll deal with each point raised in turn:- 1) Why should it be mentioned in this article how many ATR 42 hull losses there have been? Not overly relevant to the accident itself. 2) Notability is not necessarily established by the death toll (or lack thereof - US Airways Flight 1549, British Airways Flight 38). 3) As I'm voting keep there is no need to argue for merging of info. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy, see current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#When to end beta testing? 4) WP:SOFIXIT applies here. 5) This info is covered in Trigana Air Service Flight 168#Accident. 6) Indonesia does have a poor safety record, which means we get to write more articles about accidents in Indonesia. 7) Only a week on from the accident is nowhere near enough time for an investigation to take place. A realistic timescale is 18 to 30 months.

Further comments: A twin-engined airliner is expected to be capable of flight on one engine. A shutdown and diversion with a safe landing is fairly "run of the mill" and not notable Wikiwise. The failure of the second engine, and subsequent landing in a paddy field several miles short of the diversion airport leading to an airliner being written off should be notable enough to warrant an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your points. 1: I wasn't suggesting that the number of accidents should be mentioned in this article, I was saying that this article doesn't say that this article resulted in the aircraft being written off. The number of accidents is just illustrating that this is not the first or most significant in that regard. I could have added it to this article, but why should I spend time improving articles that I think should be deleted?

2. Indeed not, but death toll is one measure of the significance and there have been at least two far more significant in this regard than this accident, thus giving further evidence that it is not the first or most significant accident for the type of aircraft.

3. I don't understand why you felt the need to comment on this, but as I cannot predict how individual people will !vote in AfDs, and it is not inconceivable that someone would suggest a merger, I noted that there is nothing to merge.

4. This was not a criticism of that article, but point out that this is not the first or most significant accident for the airline, and thus WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 does not apply. I probably should have added it to that article though.

5. When I nominated this article for deletion, there was no mention in the article how far short of the runway the crash happened nor of any location more specific than the general area in which it happened. My comments were saying that it isn't covered in articles about the region, and I don't really think it ought to be - do we agree on this point, I'm not certain?

6. This point was written to show that this is not the first or most significant accident in the area, per WP:AIRCRASH L3.

7. There is a reason I didn't comment about the lack of an investigation - I know they take months or years to complete and that the presence or absence of one is not relevant to Wikipedia's notability criteria, precisely because they take so long. As I have repeatedly argued on multiple AfDs, predicting that an investigation will find something significant violates WP:CRYSTAL, if it does then in 18-30 months we can spin this off into a separate article should it become too large for a section at the article about the airline or aircraft type. If you will read my comment again, you will see I specifically referred to reporting - there is no continuing news coverage of the accident that I could find (and I searched hard) - indeed I could find no English-language coverage in reliable news sources from even the day after the accident. Well established WP:N and Wikipedia:News sources guidelines, as well as the principles section of the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, make it clear that Wikipedia is not a news source (see Wikinews for that) and that subjects of Wikipedia aritcles need to have demonstrated lasting significance to merit an article. If news coverage does not even span into a second day, that is hardly demonstrably significant. Any predictions that it will become notable are crystal ballism that Wikipedia does not deal in.

re your further comment, I strongly disagree that a non-fatal accident that happens to mean the aircraft is a write off is an automatic case of notability. Equally the significance of two engines failing has got to be demonstrated in the reliable sources, and based on what is in the article now, what was there when I nominated the article, and what I can see when looking for sources is all speculation and original research. Taking everything I've said together, I cannot see a case for more than a section in a more general article and you have not made a convincing case otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, we've each had our say. Let that be the last from either of us unless we are asked a direct question by another editor. Neither you or I will be closing the debate, so let's give others their chance to have a say and leave the decision to the closer. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We would not even think of having an article if thsi was a car crash; so why for an air crash? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting that one engine failed, then the other a while later. Most (if not all) articles in Category:In-flight airliner loss of all engines resulted as either the plane running out of fuel, or some other factor that affected all engines, with them failing more or less at the same time. Martin451 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might find it interesting, but I cannot find any reliable sources that state it is significant? I can see some uniformed speculation in non-reliable sources, but nothing suitable for Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People expressing an opinion here may like to compare this accident with Tuninter Flight 1153, a notable accident involving a similar type of plane (ATR 72) that also involved double engine failure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wasn't going to say any more on this, but as Thryduulf has commented, I'd like to point editors towards this discussion on hull loss accidents in relation to WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Until the investigation (which has been announced) generates some results we don't know if this should merge to the carrier, the airport, the aircraft or the engine article. We simply can't guess if it was bad fuel (airport), bad maintenance (airport/carrier), pilot error (several possibilities), or a design problem. Given that the a/c came down in a rice paddy, it will take them some time to extract it so they can begin to examine the physical evidence. They've sent the recorders for analysis. Why jump the gun? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of automobile sales by model as this is a duplicate article. Any content worth merging can be retrieved from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicle nameplate sales figures[edit]

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

I had a bit of a fiddle with this but am still not convinced it makes a useful encyclopedia article so am bringing it here to see what others think. This was a ranked list of bestselling vehicles, but was a WP:SYNTHESIS compiled over a period of time from individual sales figures. I moved it from List of bestselling vehicle nameplates as that title was misleading - the list was incomplete but presented itself as a ranked list of sales figures. However there were no cited lists, just individual cites, so there was no way of knowing what night be missing. For example Daewoo Matiz and Ford Transit are missing, the later being the best-selling light commercial vehicle in Europe for 40 years. Without citations to a reliable complete list, this is nothing other than a random collection of figures listed in numerical order. The only way to improve it would be to cite a ranked list of sales figures, but that would be no different from starting over. Should we retain it? Is it encyclopedic? Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the list and think it should stay. I see various claims on different vehicle pages about being the best selling model or the best selling nameplate but it's hard to verify this without checking sales figures on EVERY vehicle page. A centralised list goes a long way to solving this. However, as pointed out, the existing article does have a few problems.

Similar lists I've seen in magazines over the years are normally localised (US only, UK only, etc) or restricting in subject (best selling sports car, best selling commercial vehicle, etc) or limited in both ways. So I don't expect to find any sources to copy from directly - even if copyright allowed us to copy the entire list. A tag saying that the list is not necessarily complete will help.
Reformatting as a sortable table will help.
And to somehow make it automatically generated from data in the articles would be wonderful if I knew how to do it - perhaps a new template added to each vehicle article that looks something like ((vehicle nameplate sales|38000000)) but I have no idea how to implement such a template. Stepho (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with clean up per above proposal, remove all unsourced entries for a start. I would like to point out to the nominator that rather than complaining about missing entries such as Ford Transit, it is up to them add entries in, that is what Wikipedia is for. Donnie Park (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using that vehicle as an example to show that the list cannot be complete (and therefore useful) unless the entire list is referenced as a whole, with a source giving a reliable list. Simply referencing each entry won't ensure they are in the correct order. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first thought why would the sale of vehicle Nameplates be notable they cant be that many that are stolen from cars and then resold, although VW nameplates are popular. Not sure if it is American terminolgy but it had me confused. Then I realised it actually should be List of automobile sales by model which already exists and the very similar List of bestselling automobiles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll change my vote to Delete since duplicate articles are bad. Stepho (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/suggestion. I was the one who created List of automobile sales by model, after doing a fairly comprehensive cleanup of this article. However, in retrospect I think I should have just moved this instead of creating a new article from scratch. Therefore, in the spirit of the GFDL's page history retention requirements, could a history merge with List of automobile sales by model be attempted instead of outright deletion? After all, this did come first. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- addendum I've just noticed that I suggested a merge of the two pages at Talk:List of automobile sales by model#Merge/redirect of List of bestselling vehicle nameplates almost eighteen months ago. The more I think about it, the better I reckon a merge/redirect would be. It'd also let us retain a redirect, plus keep the old talk page which mentions when the article was cited as a source by the NZ Herald in 2006. --DeLarge (talk)

Merge per DeLarge. (I didn't yet express a view on what should happen in my nomination, also wasn't aware of the existence of List of automobile sales by model!) --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn

Thanks for the sourcing, which I was unable to find as I'm not a Japanese reader, and don't have access to the offline resources used. As notability has been established, I am withdrawing this nomination and closing this debate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naoki Sano[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability found in Google Searches - all mentions (as "Naoki Sano", "Sano Naoki" and "佐野直喜") are very minor ("Sano beat xyz", about 14 News hits between all 3 variations of the name) and no significant coverage exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ATHLETE states that the person is sufficiently notable if he or she has competed at the top level in their sport. His work for FMW, Pro Wrestling Noah, Wrestle Association R (three of the biggest federations in Japan, where the sport is very popular), and certainly NJPW (arguably one of the top three federations in the world) would more that meet the threshold for notability, even without the fact that he has held championships in all four. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you prove any of it? The article doesn't have a single reference. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:ATHLETE as a professional wrestler, as previously mentioned. In addition, he passes it as a mixed martial artist, as he was a part of the Pride Fighting Championships, one of the top MMA companies. Nikki♥311 04:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only very minor points are unsourced now, non-contentious statements. Meets Notability and Verifiability now. MPJ -DK 06:43, 16 February 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. (X! · talk) · @255 · 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese people notable in the West[edit]

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

A very dynamic list if there ever was one. There are gazillions of Chinese-speaking people notable in the west! Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 08:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- because of the vague and excessively broad definition. Given that Wikipedia's servers are in Florida (ie. in the West), does this mean that every Chinese person with a Wikipedia article would be included? Reyk _YO! 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP only includes notable people. List of Chinese people already exists! Mootros (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The link you provided is a redirect to the article being discussed here. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The purpose of this list eludes me. If someone is notable in one place more than another place, we can note it on their individual article. Also, to avoid ethnocentrism, we would need to add articles like "List of Chinese people notable in Africa", and "List of Chinese people notable in South America". It's better to avoid the whole mess and stick to general notability, not notability by region.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete under this name or its original name, "List of Chinese people". I've used this list as the quintessinal example of listcruft: a hopelessly incomplete list that doesn't provide an encyclopedic benefit to anybody and is much less useful than the already existing category system. Please delete this and all other "List of people from X country" articles. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information nor should it pretend to be any of those. Them From Space 20:05, 20 February 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. (X! · talk) · @255 · 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Project Manager[edit]

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

Contested prod. I have been unable to find any coverage of this product that would pass GNG. The only given notability claim is an Alexa ranking of 341,134. Haakon (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sources demonstrating notability show up. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4. — ξ ^xplicit 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GlieseIT[edit]

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

Tagged as db-corp, though I found some possible notability. Thought it would be best brought here for consensus. NJA (t/c) 07:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recent small start-up business. There's one external ref, so congratulations to the proprietor on getting a bit of publicity from their local newspaper, but this still doesn't make this business notable in an encyclopedic sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Startup company lacking GHits and GNEWS to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, notability claimed but never proven. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:20, 15 February 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. (X! · talk) · @254 · 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory R. Ball[edit]

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

The Gregory R. Ball article has remained on spam and advertisement lists for some time. As others have pointed out, its length exceeds that of many notable subjects, and Ball himself is hardly notable. Rutherford B. Hayes should not have to compete with him for space. Delete Giantsfan67 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Formatted malformed AFD. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Member of NY state legislature. Meets WP:Politician. Other problems are to be dealt with by editing-- and there does seem to be need of it, though, in my personal opinion, the article is no more unfairly negative than a fair article would be for many members of my state's legislature. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue wasn't negativity, but positivity at the time--one of his staffers was extensively contributing. Editing has fixed part of that. 70.23.79.141 (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a state legislator, Ball passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the reqirements of WP:POLITICIAN. - Galloglass 11:06, 19 February 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. (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YaBB[edit]

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

Marginally notable forum software. No independent source provided in the article, except for an interview. Pcap ping 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: All that I can find on Google is the official site, download sites, forums, and info on a software vulnerability. All that I can find in Google News is three software vulnerabilities and forums. But I will !vote weak keep because I found [41] and [42] in Google Books plus there is an interview already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historically notable for being the Perl/Flat File based ancestor of Simple Machines Forum, which is fairly popular today. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable software that FAILS WP:N; minor mentions and a single interview are just not enough coverage to meet notability requirements, and its being the ancestor of some other software does not make it notable enough for its own artice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , I think that this software and it's spread of use make it notable enough. There certainly seem to be enough people who have heard of it. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete since I use it, I was inclined to say 'keep', but I just couldn't find sources to back it up. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable software, provided references dont establish notablility RadioFan (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable freeware. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 16 February 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. (X! · talk) · @245 · 04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Beta Iota[edit]

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

Prod was declined by an administrator. One source was subsequently added, but as a blog it does not qualify as a reliable source to establish this fraternity's notability. It merely attests its existence. Google returns nothing of value either. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-explained nom. Good faith searches confirm it exists but are unable to suggest a reason why it is more notable than any other fraternity. (See WP:MILL) The sources revealed by those searches do not amount to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so the article fails the general notability guidelines at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While a BLOG, it it owned and operated by the Executive Director of the American Osteopathic Association. It is a new organization, but is key for medical residency directors researching its importance when evaluating incoming physicians. There are other entries in the medical fraternities that have similar levels of interest but are used nonetheless.

Similar articles: Gold Humanism Honor Society no references; --Bouspret (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Humanism article has problems too and maybe should also be nominated; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some first steps to saving the article would be to explain what on Earth an "honor society" is (or wikilink to a relevant article) and why any honor society would ever be notable. Also you should provide independent sources explaining the importance and notability of the organisation, and summarise those sources within the article. Currently the article reads, essentially, as "Omega Beta Iota is a group, that has membership preconditions." - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The reason I am closing this as a No Consensus closure is because while the people on the keep side have the majority, most of their arguments are not strong at all, and are not based in policy. The delete party, on the other hand, has fairly strong arguments that are based in policy. However, as this analysis does not leave much left to determine consensus with, this is a no consensus closure. (X! · talk) · @242 · 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Pitcock[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided, claims to notability are borderline. KFP (talk | contribs) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some sources for this page. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He is definitely notable. He had a hand in creating the IRC daemon used on freenode, and created Audacious Media Player, which is a widely used piece of software. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I also agree. He wrote the IRCD that Freenode uses, which happens to be the network of choice for Wikipedia. I don't know why this is even up for debate. Diablo-D3 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He is notable for creating many softwares in use by many people. I found this as a source, but I'm not sure where exactly it could be used. If someone would like to be bold and use it as an inline source for the article, that'd be awesome. AndreniW (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: 50,000 users use software he has had a part in, including a lot of you who will be reading this now. Given most of it is transparent, I still believe he's notable. Cfuenty1 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: William Pitcock's contributions to DroneBL, Atheme, and other projects mentioned in the article are sufficiently significant in my view that an article on him is appropriate, given the number of users who interact with his software daily and the significance of it both within the IRC community, and on a larger scale given the number of open source projects using Freenode and similar networks to host their support, development, or community discussion channels.. If it is felt that insufficient references or similar issues outside of notability guidelines themselves are present, then I feel it would be better to flag it for improvement rather than delete, especially given that it is a very young article. --Namegduf Live (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still do not see reliable sources, and being a developer of notable software does not necessarily merit inclusion in Wikipedia (think of the tens of thousands of devs involved in the development of Microsoft Windows, for example). --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given a single one of his accomplishments, he's unnotable I admit, but given the sum of them, he's definitely notable. Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't necessarily mean he's not notable. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every day, I use software he's been developing, and it's great software. Still, we'll need reliable sources. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KFP, you're essentially arguing that we should also remove the articles on freenode and Wikipedia itself due to being non-notable because they don't have enough useful references. Diablo-D3 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So I suppose Raymond Chen, Dave Cutler, and Alan Cox's articles need to be deleted too. 8 of 11 refs on Ray's page are to himself. Does that mean one could use, for instance, nenoblog to ref Pitcock's article? AndreniW (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? The fact that we have plenty of other poorly sourced articles should not enter into this discussion, I'm afraid. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established. Refs provided. Crap refs deleted. Some refs still needed but not a concern for overall notability. Article cleaned up. This debate formatted (no text changes) - perhaps other pollsters here could conform to AfD debate format rules. To oppose a deletion, it is probably more usual to say keep preceded by a bulleted new entry. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No decent references added. Might be well known in his field of work, but we need reliable sources talking about the guy and I don't see any: Ref 1 - nothing about him; Ref 2 - primary source and only says that he wrote DroneBL with Steve Church, cannot be used to show notability; Ref 3 - just a list of people, not a reliable source, nothing to establish notability; Ref 4 - just a log of maintenance tweaks, not a reliable source, nothing to establish notability; Ref 5 - nothing about the person; Ref 6 - nothing about him, but simply about a domain he supposedly owns (but is not actually verified by the source). My own searching could come up with nothing better. A quick reminder on our notability guideline: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. None of the sources in the article come anywhere near close to meeting this. Quantpole (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birgitta Trotzig[edit]

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

~~Unsourced BLP. Has been unsourced since January 2005. That is to say, for over five years.~~ PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is anything like your other AfD's, you should withdraw it right now and start adding sources to the article. Your nominations are time-consuming and disruptive, and demonstrating that you can count is of no help here. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced in all of thirty seconds. Needs work... I'll do it, but Peter, PLEASE stop using AFD as cleanup! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to drop the results of this search here. Thanks Brad. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, let's just source the article. Good work, and thank you! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No no no, that's not how it goes. You need to give some careful consideration to your actions, and specifically the lack thereof in light of WP:BEFORE, and then I think you owe us all an apology--that is, the editors who run after you to do the work you could have done just as easily. These AfD nominations can not be called good faith efforts. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article can be salvaged. RadManCF (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I shall withdraw the nomination once another source is added. Thank you all for your hard work! Kudos! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that with Google, you could do this yourself in about 2 minutes, right? Instead of making other editors run around like your lackeys, you could just do the work. Takes less time and less drama than AFD's. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually I am blocked from accessing www.google.com on my computer. The same goes for www.yahoo.com and other mega-search engines. When I was going through my super-privacy "ghost" stage in life I configured my browser to block those sites. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should stay away from nominating articles for deletion altogether. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way i see it, i have helped to rescue, just today, the following articles from impending summary deletion: Birgitta Trotzig, Martin Butora, Eva Kwok, and Salama al-Khufaji. These may not seem like much, but all together these articles represent hours of hard work and dedication that most certainly would have been summarily deleted without our intervention. Lets not sugar-coat the situation, in a few weeks a flood of deletion will be let loose, without process, over our encyclopedia, with articles singled out, segregated, and quickly executed all for being unsourced. I consider myself a freedom-fighter, a partisan of sorts, and my mission akin to hiding and rescuing refugees from the totalitarian powers that seek to murder them. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got three sources on there, with a dozen more to re-write this thing. Can we call this one a day, please and move on? The chances of this article being deleted now are 0.0%. (As to the greater WikiPolitics of your last statement- I will refrain from comment.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Once again, thank you for all your hard work, gentlemen. I also shall not be nominating any more unsourced BLPs for deletion, as I see it doesn't sit well with you. My mistake. Won't happen again. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:49, 15 February 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 procedural keep ; see note below. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm closing as a procedural keep because the nominator is a sock and the nomination is a breaching experiment. Anyone who can clean up the mess, please help. Bud I don't think it's even worth recording this as a deletion nomination. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kwok[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Has been unsourced since October 2005. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously AfD'ed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva L. Kwok Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was back in 2005, when standards were presumably more lax. I dont think anyone even knew what a BLP was back then. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely aware of that. However, because it was under a slightly different title, the software didn't automatically add it; that's all the link was for. I was able to find and add two sources of the "better than none" variety to the article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's awesome. Two sources added within twenty-nine minutes of being listed at AFD. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Peter Brown, you could have found those sources yourself. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obviously notable. No longer a director of Bank of Montreal, although that doesn't make her any less notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salama al-Khufaji[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Unsourced since January 2004. That's six years and one month. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's four references on the page.... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Yes. It is. And it is a shame that it has remained unsourced for so long: you could have easily fixed it. And before you get to 200 edits with your account, please look at WP:BEFORE. I call for a speedy keep--a few minutes is all it took to provide plenty sources for this article, and there is a lot more to be found. Besides that, the very position claimed for the subject is reason enough for notability. (Dylan, I just put those there, and ran into an edit conflict with you.) Drmies (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those were added after the AFD nomination. However, kudos to whomever added them. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, these were being added since the AfD was started. With the references that are being added by Drmies, I would be suggesting a Keep !vote, and maybe even a withdrawal of the nomination. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, without a remaining rationale for deletion, can we close this as nomination withdrawn? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East County Blackshirts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disputed redirect to league page. Non-notable amateur league team, does not meet WP:ORG. Note this article says "semi-pro", while the league article says "amateur". tedder (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, non-professional team. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't fall within WP:ORG. Hints of violations of WP:ATHLETE for the names given. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 15 February 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Cafe West[edit]

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

small town bar, nothing notable ccwaters (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. I don't know why it wasn't deleted long ago, it's pure spam. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I was able to find some sources which mention this cafe, none of them asserted notability. (Mostly they appear to be concerned with trash removal) Fails WP:N. Non-notable business Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this bar. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article indicates this is any more notable than the tens of thousands of other little local bars all over the world. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as promotion. http://www.bupipedream.com/Articles/Remains-of-speakeasy-found-in-Cyber-Cafe-parking-lot/4826 is interesting concerning the discover of speakeasies, but doesn't really cover the subject. http://www.upstatelive.net/print/vol2_issue2_01-20.pdf contains some very useful commentary on the cafe, but does not seem reliable, reputable and independent enough to establish notability. However, with further sources, these sources might supplement the recreation the article if care is taken to steer well clear of a promotional tone. We are very sensitive about hosting promotional material on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prebble Q. McLaughlin[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SPIP as primary editor is a WP:SPA, fails WP:ARTIST. DanielPenfield (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:SPA She is listed on IMDB and had a lead role in a 2009 film festival winning film. [43] easily verifies that she had more than 1 significant role in notable productions.

— User:199.44.53.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Comment The "lead role in a 2009 film festival winning film" according to this edit, is for a film submitted to "Division III" of the student competition of the West Virginia International Film Festival. Per the WVIFF's website, "the contest is only open to students enrolled in a (sic) West Virginia educational institutions" and first prize is awarded for each of three divisions ("DIVISION I (Kindergarten - 8th Grade)", "DIVISION II (9th – 12th Grade)", and "DIVISION III (College and Graduate Studies)"). The remainder of her roles are:

four uncredited roles
one role in a 21-minute direct-to-DVD comedy short
one role in a 23-minute "family short" that received an award at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Note that her character did not have a name ("Wife of Dr. Brandow") and that "The Internet Movie Database accepted the festival for years but, according to its website, NYIIFVF no longer meets its criteria for inclusion."
a single appearance in TLC's "Personal Justice" television show, where she played the victim of a murder

Additionally, the article under consideration for deletion has been developed by a series of WP:Single-purpose accounts, including:

It was also developed by the following Virginia, Washington, DC, and Florida Panhandle IP addresses:

The voter, Special:Contributions/199.44.53.199, also uses a Florida Panhandle-based IP address.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The director of Rosie's Miracle won a Genre Award for best short film. The actress played a minor role at best in the piece. She hasn't had any significant roles if her imdb profile is to be believed and is mostly uncredited. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IMDB, all uncredited and/or very minor roles. Also COI/self-promo spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotional spam, does not meet WP:ENT RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 17 February 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bay FM Exmouth[edit]

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

This article covers a subject with little notability, too low for Wikipedia in my opinion. The radio station only operates for two weeks per year and is not a commercial radio station. It is a very local issue with no signifiance outside the local area and probably little significane without Exmouth. On top of that, the article lacks reliable third party sources for its information. Jolly Ω Janner 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- These restricted licence radio stations are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since "restricted licence" seems to mean it can only operate two weeks a year, I'd say all such "stations" aren't notable. This one certainly isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA on Christmas Day broadcasters[edit]

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

The list refers to an event that does not appear to have an article; the title being redirected to a more generic coverage of Christmas Day media events. Reliable third party sources remain elusive, or too obscure to establish notability, and are expected to remain so, as the event appears to have lasted only two years. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see how this topic could meet notability guidelines or move beyond WP:FANCRUFT. Only thing resembling a reference is an external link to a blog. RadioFan (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a list of broadcasters without any further explanation, or any mention why NBA on Christmas Day is notable. JIP | Talk 07:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The two sides of the debate here have very good points, and there is no clear consensus as to what to do with the article. Relisting would result in the same outcome. (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Stoker Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant coverage for this reporter. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , We're talking about Mary Stoker Smith the evening anchor for KYW-TV in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Well she may not be Barbra Walters or Bryant Gumbel, but to many she's Mary Stoker Smith, a familiar face on the tube. I think her status is notable.* These people think so - http://www.lauranachman.net/?p=2523 (Milestokilo (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)) (Milestokilo (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage of this reporter either. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the keep !vote above, I'm going with open possibilities of WP:LOCAL, but with no coverage found, it's not gonna survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known television broadcaster in a major U.S. market who has been the subject of significant media coverage: [44]. Warrah (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is local news. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? WP:LOCAL is not policy, it is just an essay. The subject passes WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, see no evidence of WP:GNG in this article. Change my mind, please? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Warrah sums it up quite well and has said something that I neglected to say. I think that how much is enough and how much would make this person notable. Significant media coverage as Warrah said is enough, So I say that the page-article must be kept. (Milestokilo (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete fails our general notability guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A news anchor on a CBS affiliate in a major market in combination with the coverage provided above demonstrates inclusion worthiness. --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 21 February 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. If anyone wants to merge some of the material I'll be happy to provide a copy. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Yuma (C.O.P.S.)[edit]

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

Non-notable article on minor television character. Jrh7925 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be deleted or merged with the man article Dwanyewest (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no independent sources substantively discussing this character, who apparently appears in only one episode of the series, so I'm saying that the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. The article seems nothing more than a platform for a plot summary of the episode. A smerge to C.O.P.S. is possible, I guess; but what's the point of merging more unsourced content to an article that itself lacks any cited sources? This looks even more unnecessary when it's considered that we don't have an article about the real Johnny Yuma (and I'm not suggesting that one is needed). Deor (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable one-shot character. Nate • (chatter) 08:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the other commentators it should be deleted but we should also delete the other COPS character pages I nominated they are no better than this article.

Dwanyewest (talk) 08:38, 15 February 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. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Darling[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance to support notability. The book he authored is self-published and also appears to be non-notable. A lot of blog entries and references to his articles; however, article also appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Two references are given besides his own book, but they appear to have nothing to do with the subject. His books are published by Xulon Press which is a self-publishing outfit. He is a correspondent for WorldNews Network but that's not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:24, 15 February 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft

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

Non-notable book. It is a sequel to Police Pistolcraft, which was recently deleted by AfD; this article was listed as being under that AfD, but this book is different and should be considered separately. However, the lack of notability of that predecessor has a bearing on the notability of this sequel. Very narrow in scope, only two refs, and the article seems to be somewhat promotional. The article's original author admitted to having a business relationship with the book's author and/or publisher in the first AfD. I don't see how the sequel is any more notable than the first book. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's the key training manual for the Massachusetts State Police; it's reviewed, referenced, and cited with approval at every major online law enforcement news site I can find; it's discussed as either a key text or relevant text in multiple law enforcement training projects, and as such meets WP:BK. More to the point, the article was created less than a week ago, it's being actively improved by myself and User:Drmies, and it's in the middle of a significant expansion, so we'd appreciate it if we could have a week or so to show you what it could be before people weigh in on the topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You might want to add some more of those references to the article in fairly short order (this AfD lasts five days, sometimes more). And if you could, please comment on how this book might be notable when the first book in the series was determined not to be. In other words, how do they differ? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You're misunderstanding the last AfD. It was closed on the basis that the subject page had become a redirect, pointing to a page about a different subject, not on the merits of the article. To reverse the question - if my claims above are correct, and I can substantiate them, would you argue that a book that changed the direction of law enforcement in at least one state police force, which has multiple reviews in reliable sources, would not be notable? I'm not asking did it/does it, I'm saying if I can establish that, do you still say it's not notable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - My apologies for misunderstanding the previous AfD. I might not have started this one had I realized, but I still believe this subject is not notable. But I am willing to be persuaded, and I've reversed course before. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - I suspect DustFormsWords may have a case here, but I will withhold a position a bit until that case is made. In the meantime I would strongly suggest that editors desiring to improve this article review ~~WP:Books~~ WP:BOOK and more specifically Notibility (Books) for advice on structuring and sourcing the article.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will, I'd forgotten there was format help for this kind of thing. Also I think instead of WP:Books you meant WP:BOOK, which is a different (and more useful) page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Indeed, Book not Books, old, tired mind at work. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little help, anyone? - Actually I could really use some help on this one. I'm not a gun owner, gun enthusiast or law enforcement officer, so this is all foreign ground to me. Researching the article is starting to lead me into survivalist and extremist websites, which I'd definitely prefer not to go to on a work connection - or, ideally, ever. Also "police officer" and "readable website design" don't seem to be two terms that go hand in hand; every second place I end up linking to with this looks like something from mid-90s Geocities. If anyone could give me a hand in touching up the article and making it less jargon-filled that would be excellent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this problem myself. Frankly, some of the sites I ran into began to creep me out a little. Part of the problem I have with this subject is that it is a book for a very narrow market, and therefore does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. I realize that we make exceptions for subjects that are notable for a specific field, but how narrowly do we carry that concept, especially when that narrow focus make information difficult to verify with independent refs? Also this article was originated by someone with an admitted conflict of interest, which always raises big red flags for me. But let's keep digging and see what comes up — hopefully not something unseemly. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been argued elsewhere that specialised interest matters can be intensely notable (academic papers that significantly advance obscure disciplines). That's why the general notability guidelines are so broad. You need nothing more than significant discussion in multiple independent reliable sources. Three neutral critical reviews is usually sufficient (and, coincidentally, the article currently cites three neutral critical reviews). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on everything that is here so far this seems to just about meet the criteria for Keep. It meets the base criteria for books, it is used as a training manual which appears to make it meet criteria number 4 for books (although in a rather unorthodox way). It also appears to have enough coverage to meet WP:N. The article needs work, but it seems like a keeper. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I think it barely squeaks by. The article is a bit too long in my opinion, but for such a specialized book it seems to have received enough attention, and Conti appears to be something of an authority in his field. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article is now as deletion-proof as I'm capable of making it. While I'm aware of further content that could be included in the article it won't weigh one way or another in terms of notability. I still feel the article could benefit from expert insight and I've accordingly tried to attract the attention of WikiProject Law Enforcement, thus far to no avail. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability in a special field is sufficient; very little in Wikipedia is notable to everyone. The G in GNG does not refer to "notability to the general interest reader" but the general condition that we use for notability We should probably expand this to cover both books; the other AfD result seems to have been a error which we are now rectifying. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a niche audience, I'll grant you that. And this article depends heavily on few sources, one of which is not a RS and I'm going to remove from the article. But the extensive review by Mroz, in particular, makes the difference to me since Mroz is a prolific writer on the topic of defensive firearms use. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superscope story teller[edit]

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

Contested prod. Collection of books/cassettes with no assertion of notability apart from that of the classical tales they told. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Removal of articles like these lessens Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amentet (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVERYTHING. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Rig[edit]

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

No 3rd party sources available, appears to fail WP:BAND. Gosox(55)(55) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band has released two albums on different labels and has toured the UK. Also, the band should be notable because of Kory Clarke's involvement, who has fronted Trouble and Warrior Soul. I've now provided third party references too. - A7xandquantumtheory

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth, part 2[edit]

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

It's a fake episode that contains no sources and is not real, the real episode is "The Delivery". Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see any reason to keep this. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth (The Office)[edit]

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

It's a fake episode that contains no sources and is not real, the real episode is "The Delivery". Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be deleted now that the real episode has bee announcedTheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps set a redirect to the proper title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setrag Khoshafian[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SPIP as primary editor is a WP:SPA, promotes his company Pegasystems, does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep GS cites 481, 253, 266, 183, 151 etc. h index = 16. Appears to pass WP:Prof #1 although in a highly cited area. The nominator could have found this out himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here's the problem: The "article" is clearly an effort in self-promotion either by Khoshafian himself or, more likely, by his buddy, Kamran Parsaye (Alliswellthen is the WP:Single-purpose account that edited both articles plus an article about a third buddy, Mark Chignell), so clearly it can't stand as it is. So, the question becomes "How could one re-write the article so that it ain't free advertising for Setrag Khoshafian or his current business, Pegasystems?"

I'm not even sure what the WP:lead should say. Perhaps something like "Setrag Khoshafian is a computer scientist who wrote some highly-cited papers on something related to object-oriented databases between the mid-'80s and mid-'90s, but now he's employed by an non-notable offshoring business that sells some IT products on the side"?
Finally, per Wikipedia:Prof note #7, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate the force of the above comment. Although the article is clearly self-promotional, the 'citations' turn out to be on the good side of borderline. The article could be rewritten as suggested. Phrases like "Dr. Khoshafian is a recognized BPM pioneer and expert" are unsourced and should be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Rewritten as who suggested? And what should the WP:lead say? And wouldn't that constitute the "fundamental rewrite" half of WP:CSD G#11 (the other half being "unambiguous [...] promotion")? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotional article (spam) does not appear to be particularly notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nobility is rather marginal and the article is unreferenced. He is not even among the current management of that company. Most of this article is unverifiable. The article is also quite promotional of his latest book, which (by far) is not his most cited one. [45]. Can anyone find sources to write a verifiable and NPOV bio? Pcap ping 09:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ths SOA focus in his bio seems wrong. Khoshafian did publish a few object-oriented databeses books, and they have respectable citation counts around or over 100 for each book. His most cited papers are also in this area. But in the absence of a home page or CV, it's going to be exceedingly hard to write a bio without a lot of WP:OR. Pcap ping 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JBsupreme --Baron Larf 14:54, 17 February 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. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Education Association Council[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable local affiliate of the NEA. Only a few passing mentions in some local media when spokespeople make a comment (see google news results), but certainly nothing approaching significant coverage. The article itself seems to get most of it's content verbatim from the official website. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google news search reveals 60 real news articles on such items as its lawsuits, the Race to the Top, school funding, and charitable work in legitimate periodicals. See also Bing. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I having trouble seeing past the first 10 results on that google news search, but they all appear to be "spokesperson for the WEAC said", and that sort of thing. They may be in reliable sources, but to me they appear to be only passing references to the organisation, and not significant coverage. Given none of them do much else than tell us that this union exists, they don't help it qualify for notability. Seeing as the only sources (that I've seen, anyway) that give us any information about the subject are first party sources, I think there are verifiability problems as well.

Still, if there is some significant coverage hiding in those results I can't see, I'd be more than willing to add them and change my !vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to work on it over the weekend. If I don't get enough reliable sources, then I'll chnage my mind! Bearian (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "non-notable local affiliate of the NEA" is the major teacher's union in the state of Wisconsin and is pretty much the teacher's analogue to the state Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Considering what could have been written (the "every kid deserves a great school" campaign they push on the entire state including during Packers games) this is a pretty neutral article describing the breadth of the union and a short history of it. Nate • (chatter) 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it satisfies the notability guidelines though. I have looked very hard, and have found no independant sources that can attest to any of the non-trivial information currently in the article. As I mentioned, it all seems to be from the union's own website. I'm not questioning the neutrality of the article, I'm saying that unless a topic has recieved significant coverage from sources other than itself, it's probably not notable. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As a state resident who hears about WEAC everyday and knows their agenda I will try to fill it out more with notability of their political influence in Madison and how they lobby. I would also try to search for news involving WEAC and the Milwaukee Public Schools, which is a heavy issue right now due to the controversy of the state wanting to put it under mayoral control. Nate • (chatter) 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any references would be great. Like I said, I've looked, but if you find some I'll be perfectly happy to change my !vote. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP,there are many references to this on the internet and more than others similar on Wikipedia. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, I've started to source it. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major union. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major, news-worthy union. TerriersFan (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above three editors.--Baron Larf 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business engineering and computer science[edit]

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

This generic title (already covered at Business engineering and Computer science) actually contains nothing but a description of a non-notable university course. I42 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual degree programmes generally don't merit their own articles, and I can't see anything to indicate that this one is an exception. Merely offering an innovative combination of subjects isn't enough unless (like Philosophy, Politics and Economics) the combination is widely imitated or affects outside perceptions of the individual subjects. There are no useful Ghits for the English name of the degree, and those for the German "Wirtschaftsingenieurwesen Informatik" seem to be mainly CV's, directories and the like. I'm prepared to reconsider my opinion if someone can find significant coverage in non-English media, but I'm not optimistic; note that the article's links to foreign-language Wikipedias are actually to equivalents of our Industrial engineering article. EALacey (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think individual courses or programmes at specific universities are notable. JIP | Talk 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual program at one university , not notable DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. NW (Talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika railway station[edit]

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

Nothing really notable besides the fact that the word Swastika (not to be confused with 卐) is added in there. Main Edges (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable not because of its name, but because it's a rail station. As WP:OUTCOMES indicates, the community has determined that rail stations are notable. The article would've been created no matter what the name is.--Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OUTCOMES actually says "...individual stations are questionable". My view on this one is neutral though. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdraw due to the statements made by Dylanfromthenorth. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 02:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Taoism[edit]

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

Non-notable and I think recreation of deleted material. As I recall, this was ((db)) deleted a couple of years ago and this page reads about how I remember it being then. Since it wasn't an AfD, there is no page for it and I can't seem to find any deletion log for this page. Either way, this is non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Interwiki link is also dead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears like this hasn't been covered in depth by reliable sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Not a mainstream religion but a fairly significant faith nonetheless. Have a read at their website and make up your own minds. Check here:[46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestokilo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE , This is what I saw at their website - 'You are visitor number 105695'[47], that may give an indication. (Milestokilo (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In response to Milestokilo, the Reform Taoism website is a primary source and thus is insufficient to confer notability on the topic of the page, regardless of the number of pageviews it gets. (And frankly, even if the number of pageviews were relevant, barely 100K in over a year isn't that many.) Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, and thus information in Wikipedia should be based on secondary or tertiary sources, not primary sources. Chuck (talk) 16:43, 16 February 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. Kevin (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Bartenev[edit]

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

Cleared speedy deletion, but all the references are trivial mentions, not enough to clear WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite The article is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten, but the subject himself seems to be notable. See Time Magazine, The Sunday Independent, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Some pretty heavyweight, non-trivial coverage from The Times, Time Magazine and The Independent plus Gradient magazine puts him well past the notability threshold. Needless to say, the article needs a substantial rewrite. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked the nominator to consider withdrawing the nom (here), based on the above references, but to no avail. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references very clearly sufficient. The nom himself said as cited above , "I don't withdraw my nominations as a rule, but that's awesome re: references. " and I think that amounts to a withdrawal. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 16 February 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. (X! · talk) · @232 · 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell (book)[edit]

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

No sources establish the notability of this book. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a google search for "Groundswell Harvard" brings up enough sources for notability.Borock (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Business School (HBS), the Harvard Business Review (HBR), and Forrester Research are not independent sources with respect to this book. Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the book is used by at George Washington University as an assigned textbook- [48], it's been used in academic reports [49], and it's been mentioned in two books [50]. That's barely enough for me. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I'm in agreement with Borock. A search on the internet with 2 different search engines Google and Dogpile bring up enough hits to indicate the "note worthiness" of the article subject. (Milestokilo (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Worldcat shows 877 holding libraries. [51] . CNN lists it as one of the three best business books of 2008 [52] calling it "their definitive guide for the business world " and other in GNews when searched with the names of the authors [53] . DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinde[edit]

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

The article describes a work-in-progress: a currently incomplete historical novel plus associated blog (see [54]). However, no references are given, and I can find no evidence that either the novel or the blog are notable. In addition, the article has been created by Dcfhutchinson, while the author of the novel is Desmond Hutchinson, and so I suspect a significant conflict of interest here. Scog (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly speedy. The article is confusing to read, and seems to be describing, as somebody stated, a brief biography of somebody who doesn't actually exist. Even for a fictional character, the work in progress unto itself is not notable - ergo the characters are not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 15 February 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. (X! · talk) · @229 · 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1563(number)[edit]

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

Number with no assertion of importance. Ipatrol (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NUMBER suggests that a number needs "at least three unrelated mathematical properties" to be notable. We have one here (it's the smallest number with the property that its first 4 multiples contain the digit 6) - so two more are required. StAnselm (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think the only mathematical property mentioned about this number is sufficient for notability. JIP | Talk 07:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StAnselm. Anna Lincoln 08:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, one property does not notability make. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StAnselm. I can't even conceive of any other important property, or find any decent sources. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and rename to 1563 (number)~~ Are you kidding me? This is the the smallest number with the property that its first 4 multiples contain the digit 6. What more do you want? Kidding. Delete. TJRC (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1563, 3126, 4689, 6252 - hey! it actually works! That is so neat. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this number has an article, shouldn't 1564, 1565, etc. all have articles?Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This number has no entry in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1000 (number) which is intended to cover 1000 - 1999. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Thincat (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged the relevant content. Which was one number fact. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thincat (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. closing as deleted (A7) by User:Materialscientist —SpacemanSpiff 02:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kanagaratnam[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS. Should be a Speedy Candidate, but CSD was removed possible COI. ttonyb (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied per A7: no indication whatsoever that the article warrants inclusion (a few Google hits only), and no references whatsoever. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 15 February 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. (X! · talk) · @229 · 04:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superficial (album)[edit]

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

Fails notability for albums.Kekkomereq4 (talk) 10:52, 15 February May 2010 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. There is sufficient coverage for the album (Us Magazine has a blurb, People Magazine has an article, and there are a few others), though I really find it hard to believe that recording cost as much to record as a Los Angeles freeway on-ramp does to build. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Album has received enough coverage to satisfy notability requirements. Mattg82 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The album has significant followers and listeners as demonstrated through Heidi Montag's Twitter page, where she was over 1,000,000 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.243.146 (talk)
- The problem with big numbers is that we don't tend to use them as reliable sources. That, and the article can stand on its own at this point. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dennis the Tiger. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage for this appropriately named album exists in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate pop culture news item and its media appeal is due to the flux of the music industry and this marks it as a representative part of the current trend of popular music.Danickstr (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above Fixer23 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 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.