< 29 March	31 March >

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) 12:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Gabriela Florence Sophie Iris, Princess of Saxony and Duchess to Saxony[edit]

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

fails both WP:ENTERTAINER specifically and WP:BIO generally. Being a single contestant in a single show is not a claim to notability under WP:ENT, and may well fail WP:BLP1E. Given that the House of Wettin lost all semblance of control or royalty in 1918, that's not a claim either. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. She may, at some point, become notable as an entertainer. When that happens - and not before - then we will have an article on her. DS (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

she is already notable in her native germany, i have cited articles from independent sources to back that up. House of Wettin remains a noble house. http://frogmatters.wordpress.com/2008/04/ this article is from April 2008, and shows that she is not just some one show reality star. If you put her correct title, Xenia Prinzessin von Sachsen, in a search engine it will come up with more than the 'Undercover Princesses' I believe that that should also be the title of the page. If you check out imdb.com you will also find her listed under other shows. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0533750/ link attached. here you can also find a link to the imdb page for her- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1953830/ Welwynwitch (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So she was in one show, and one episode of another. And that passes WP:ENT? Ironholds (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is inaccurate in describing her as part of the House of Wettin, a status she never had because her mother wasn't from the nobility. For the same reason, she is only part of the Saxony family in NAME, she is not in the line of succession. The titles are wrongly (and unnecessarily) translated (“zu Sachsen” does not translate as “to Saxony”). All in all, her claim to fame is some trash-TV appearances. delete --Snottily (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. I know that some people like to pretend that the old nobility rules are still in force, but even if you buy that the article seems to be still correct in this respect since it just says she "comes from" that house, not that she is a member. Hans Adler 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an average non-notable person with a few very minor appearances on TV which very likely she got only because of her silly anachronistic name. Hans Adler 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "frogmatters" article consists mainly of a press release. Non-notable. Evalpor (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I went to the subject's page and found this description: "She wants to become rich, famous and a good singer." Yes, her and about a billion other people on this planet. As non-notable as they come. Evalpor (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It appears that she's just below the margin of notability, even for me, so I'd merge it into one of her more notable relatives - perhaps Prince Ernst Heinrich of Saxony or Frederick Augustus III of Saxony. It is further unclear if she is, in fact, a royal, as she is offspring of a morganatic marriage. We can re-create when she becomes notable on her own right. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. I also looked on Bing and found quite a bit more than I'd found on Google, but I still can't find any reliable sources, so I'm keeping my suggestion to merge instead of keep. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Below my level also. Not royalty of any existing monarchy. No notable career of her own. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 2 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Noulin-Merat[edit]

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

Non notable theatre designer, I can find no reliable third party sources giving substantial coverage to establish notability. Seconded prod removed with out explanation by an IP. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I have looked for sources that would establish some kind of notability and have been unable to find them. (See also my comments on Talk:Julia Noulin-Merat). The most that can be found are a few one-sentence comments on the sets in some of these productions, all of which are in the local press, and for small regional companies, e.g. Commonwealth Opera in Northampton, Massachusetts, and semi-professional companies, e.g. Guerilla Opera (twice deleted for non-notability). The references used by the article's creator (User:Julia3600) do not establish notability. One external link shows she was an assistant set designer in 4 off-broadway plays. She is nowhere mentioned on the site of Le Théâtre du Nouveau Monde [1]. Nor is she mentioned on the sub-site for La Troupe des abonnés [2]. (La Troupe des abonnés allows amateur subscribers to the TCNM to act in their plays or work with the production staff). The link provided for the Tony Award winner for set design, Derek McLane who thanked her (presumably she was one of his assistants?) at the ceremony doesn't verify this at all, and in any case, this is not sufficient evidence of notability. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 06:47, 3 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Fire[edit]

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

This is a non-notable compilation album from a Time-Life series. Only sources only show track listings and where it's for sale. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. As well, it's not even on the list on the Time-Life article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 4 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Eliot Ness[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Non-notable book. Exactly 2 GHits, both to sales sites for the book, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits. Creator appears to be book author, failing COI. Creator states that talks with literary agent are in progress, failing crystal. No reviews of the book at any location I can find. GregJackP (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to have no coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book has just recently been released. I did do a self publish because I wanted to see something in print right away and give it to a friend who is very ill. However, I sent it to an agent and it is being considered. I know you want "real" fiction in Wiki, but just what is real fiction? Why only some authors? You encourage anyone to contribute to your site.

I worked for quite some time on this book and wanted to retain my rights and see how well it sold before going to an agent. The book is selling well on Barnes & Noble and Amazon. It may not be a book by James Patterson, but it is a legitimate book. I see no harm in leaving this page on here, any more than I would see harm in having any other book on Wikipedia that has been published, regardless of who the publisher is.

I realize Wikipedia has its standards, but I think the article is well written and discusses a book that is available to the public through large booksellers. I haven't had the chance to get reviews for the book yet.

Wikipedia encourages contributions by writers. It encourages people to write. I use the site all the time to get information. I created the page because I like Wikipedia. I don't see the harm in having this page on the site. I beg for reconsideration, or at least give it some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability standards for books. Author can always recreate the page, if and when it becomes subject of multiple independent reviews in reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still ask for reconsideration. There is an article due out about the book in my newspaper next week. It was just released a week ago. I haven't received any reviews yet but have sent it out. I don't have any sales information about the book on the site so this isn't a sales page. Please reconsider deleting the page. One "reliable" book reviewer asked for money to review the book. I'm not marketing the book through this page at all, just giving information. Again, I beg for reconsideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - print-on-demand book, essentially self-published. No indications of notability, as well as the WP:COI issues. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a possible G11, because based on what the author says above, the only purpose of this article is to promote the book. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if it is violating your terms. I only wanted to give people an overview of the book. It is not linked to Amazon or any of the other stores carrying it - I didn't want it to come across as a sales page and actually hinders sales because it comes up first on Google whereas some reviews are starting to come out (by others that actually link to the pages where it is selling). This is not promoting my book, but merely giving an overview of the book. I am through begging anyone for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanovel (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Michelleanovel, please do not take this personally, I'm assuming that you are acting in good faith. It's just that you have a clear conflict of interest, and the book does not (yet) reach the standard of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 4 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rsbot[edit]

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

Non-notable bot that doesn't even exist any more. My db-web tag was removed by a user who claims that it doesn't apply to software. This is a bot that ran on a website, so to me, db-web should apply, but whatever, we'll have to go the long route here. Woogee (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning towards delete: I stumbled on this while searching through redirects to RuneScape and was a little concerned about its notability (how many cheat programs and bots exist for MMOs?) Out of its references, 1 and 3 are external links and not references, and 4 is a forum. Only 2 seems to indicate noteworthiness and that's more about the maker being sued. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject cannot be verified through reliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 16:25, 3 April 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCJDC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/CCJDC

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

Local juvenille detention center, and from what it describes, a high security facility. Poorly written, no assertions of notability, and is a brief descriptive of the facility. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I googled this and found several possibly notable entities with these initials. Our article "(cuyahoga county juvenile detention center)" is # 4 on the Ghits. What to do? Bearian (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to the full title and leave a redirect, allowing for the possibility of a disambig if needed at some point? Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - moved to full expansion of name from abbreviation. Redirect has been left behind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the facility at East 22nd Street is a historic building. It's a Cleveland landmark, and while it's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it's considered to be an eligible property. - Eureka Lott 13:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may have me changing my mind, but this would then assume a complete rewrite nevertheless. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article did need a complete rewrite, and I have just done so. I added references and deleted the unsourced and POV stuff. Please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AFD. MelanieN's rewrite has addressed everything that I saw wrong with the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:13, 5 April 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 Racial segregation in the United States. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersegregation[edit]

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

"Hypersegregation" appears to be a neologism which means essentially the same thing as de facto segregation. The prefix "hyper-" appears to be quite meaningless in this context. I believe we should just make this page a redirect to Racial segregation and then add a brief note to that article, something to the effect of "Sociologists X and Y have proposed the term 'hypersegregation', but this term has not been widely accepted in the media". Most of the content in here could probably be merged if the content weren't so redundant (most of the things mentioned in this article are already mentioned in other segregation-related articles). So that's why I'm proposing this article for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am proposing that we delete and redirect Hyperghettoization, an article about a closely related neologism, to Ghetto.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but read on. The term is used in academic literature (hundreds of printed sources hits). That said, I have no opinion about possible merger IF we can find conclusive sources that say something like hypersegration, also known as [merge target]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both terms are used to distinguish certain African-American ghettos from others. Checking Google, hyper- is distinguished by certain extreme qualities and isn't a completely different thing. Suggest merging both into Racial segregation in the United States. It's telling that neither term is even mentioned in Ghetto#African American ghettos. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure why we need a separate term to distinguish African American ghettos from, say, Hispanic ones. Or why such a term would have the prefix "-hyper" attached to it; this would imply that African American ghettos are "more segregated" or "more ghettoized" than other types, and this is an inherently POV assertion, which makes these two terms inherently POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both hypersegregation and hyperghettoization into an article about racial segregation in the modern USA. Borock (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge with reserved possibility for expansion. I count on Google Scholar 12 papers with "Hypersegregation" in the title (800 combined citations) and hundreds more papers which are directly address hypersegregation. The objections above seem no different from objecting to Reduplication because that term is just redundant with Baby Talk. I would suggest deferring to the experts of the field on this one - the term is clearly defined, for example, in the most-cited article [3] where segregation is quantitatively defined on five axes, and hypersegregation is when a community shows segregation on all five axes (as opposed to just one or two as per normal). In other words, there's much more to this than a lay reader should claim expertise in. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:26, 7 April 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. (except route 8) Scott Mac (Doc) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the issues are similar in all cases.

These 9 articles are on non-notable bus-routes in the West Midlands Region of England. They were all contested PRODs, and I have nominated them together because of objections to opening separate AFDs for other similar groups of articles.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and although these articles describe things which do exist, mere existence is insufficient grounds for creating a standalone article.

None of the articles contains either an assertion of notability, or evidence of notability per WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Articles like these which do not meet GNG are not just a narrow problem of notability, because WP:GNG is a simple consequence of verifiablity: without sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, articles like this are incapable of being sourced according to core policies. None of these articles have any footnotes, so it is impossible to tell where the material has been sourced from; it could be original research, or it could be false.

All of these articles were PRODded on 27 March (not by me), but the PRODs were promptly removed in these edits, all with the edit summary "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". That comment appears to refer to a discussion a year ago at WT:UKBRQDRIVE#West_Midlands_Bus_Routes, where I can find no assessment of any of these articles. It may be that somebody decided they are notable, but I can see no direct evidence of how or why these particular routes were considered as notable.

However, the notes at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article? suggest that editors were applying criteria which completely ignore WP:GNG: "Routes with a significant history", and "major arterial routes from the major cities in the area, with a high frequency". That sounds to be like a good way of selecting routes which could be mentioned in a general article on bus transport in the area .... but since it ignores WP:GNG it is a very bad way of selecting standalone articles.

Some similar articles have been redirected to lists, but many such redirects have simply been reverted, so these articles should be deleted to prevent undeletion without a new consensus being formed. Editors may want to re-create some of these titles as redirects, and are of course free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note. I have struck West Midlands bus route 8 from this nomination, having missed the fact that it is the subject of a book of photographs.[4] However, notability has not been established for the other routes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Procedural: the above as factually incorrect. The PROD was removed from the Route 8 article by me, with the summary "subject of a book and a musical = notability" and not as stated. These facts also disprove the claim that 'None of the articles contains either an assertion of notability, or evidence of notability per WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".' The statement that 'None of these articles have any footnotes' is also not correct, in this case. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Route 8. As above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - indiscriminate nomination which includes both notable and non notable routes. User is disruptively nominating practically any bus route article she finds for deletion. An ANI discussion has been started on these disruptive mass nominations here. Jeni ^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. I nominated this bunch because they were drawn to my attention as contested PRODs, and after doing more research, the rationale for opposing the PRODs did not fit with what I could see either on the discussion page or in the articles themselves, or in what I could find through searching.
Rather than repeatedly abusing contributors, how about commenting on content by addressing the notability or otherwise of these articles? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Route 8 - I missed the fact it has been discussed significantly in the form of a book. Aiken ♫ 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has blatantly not even looked at the article, I certianly can't see a bus timetable on there, can anyone else? Jeni ^(talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not on the article I voted to keep at least. A brief summary of how often the service operates is perfectly acceptable and not in violation of Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Aiken ♫ 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. My reading of that comment is that it was tongue in cheek. These pages most certainly are a travel guide. And just how do you plan on filling out these pages? Are you going to mention the trees on the routes? I believe the routes feature an inordinate number of squirrels. I'll go add that right now. Szzuk (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly you haven't read the articles either. Maybe you should and you'll see that you are incorrect. Maybe also note that I am somebody who has !voted to delete most of the routes as non-notable, and wouldn't say keep unless it was actually notable. Aiken ♫ 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly you haven't read what you've written in this afd. Where are your delete comments? Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no opinion on the others. However, they don't read like a travel guide - not even close! Aiken ♫ 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Lol. True. They would be an awful travel guide! Szzuk (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Route 8, delete all others per nom. Orderinchaos 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I used to know someone whose hobby was buses. I think there are a lot of people like that. Well enough to make pointless wikipedia articles and not know better. Szzuk (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per my !votes in the other bus route AFDs. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8, delete others per similar comments above. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8, delete others - Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep route 8. As per others. Route 8 goes with the Outer circle route 11 too. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep routes 1, 377 & 997, these three groups of routes are/were all part of six routes which as part of a West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive initiative, passengers were able to get refunds if the bus was late, amongst other things. Verseshown (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' all ; bus routes are major fixtures of human geography and thus notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Ok, if I want to find out which busses take me around in West Midlands I go to wikipedia, right? I don't think so. Nageh (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alternatively, I suggest merging all the articles into a single list. Go figure how this is done in List_of_bus_routes_in_the_West_Midlands_county and sub-lists. Nageh (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (Route 8 has been withdrawn from the nomination. Good for Route 8). This is an encyclopaedia. A core policy of this encyclopaedia is, as it should be, verifiability. We don't achieve verifiability by allowing unverified content on the basis that it is a "feature of local geography". We achieve verifiability by requiring significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 6 April 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 Keynote. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locknote speech[edit]

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

Neologism. DimaG (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable neologism for which I can't find significant coverage in any reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A byword of a neologism. Redirect to Keynote. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 31 March 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Lashley[edit]

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

Non notable journalist. DimaG (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability. A few articles listed on Google News, but they're not about her. American Eagle (talk) 04:52, 31 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Scholz[edit]

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

The only sign of notability I can find is that this person has won the Wildman Medal Award, which may satisfy WP:PROF if it is indeed prestigious enough, but the article itself is poorly sourced (and in need of formatting help) and I cannot find much else, or much coverage of her winning the award. fetchcomms☛ 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GS cites seem to be 250, 192, 109, 81, 78 .... for h index = 15, which comes close to a pass in WP:Prof #1. Does the nominator think that citations are of no account? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Number of citations is perhaps not "of no account", but of very little account. In some academic areas it is common for papers to be peppered with citations to passing mentions in other papers of only tangential relevance, for several reasons. Also automatic citation counting can frequently include indirect citations. If the citations are from papers which give significant coverage of Scholz's work then they are clearly relevant, and even minor citations can add up to significance if there are enough of them, but care is needed in assessing their value: utterly trivial citations (which are common in some disciplines) mean almost nothing, and the mere fact that citations exist proves very little. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A lot hinges on the relative importance of the Wildman award and the custom when it comes citations in the field of accounting (as well as the relative importance of publishing - different fields have different customs, and accounting is surely a practitioner's field more than a researcher's). I will note that her vita [5] doesn't seem to provide any other signs of notability. That, and the low rank, incline me towards deletion. Ray^Talk 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' on balance-- on the basis of the citations, which is the most objective way of determining notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see anything of notability in this article, and for what we know even the award she earned could be rather worthless. And if that are all her publications, I vote even stronger for deleting. Articles may list notable publications; none of them seem like they are. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of citation record WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- On basis of citation record? Are you kidding? Every academic must write papers, and nothing here seems notable. Can you show us what would qualify her under #1? Nageh (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on notability of researchers, scholars and academics is found here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Again you do not (want to) understand my question. Verify the following statement: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Where is the significant impact??? Nageh (talk) 10:06, 7 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centerfire Cleaning Solutions[edit]

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

Nonnotable small company - one product review in a trade magazine doesn't make them notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient assertion of notability, article is promotional. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:08, 4 April 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. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck (Lindsay Lohan song)[edit]

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

No charts, no awards, no cover versions by other artists, no confirmed release, no known songwriters. Permanent stub. Fails WP:NSONGS. —Kww(talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, a release date and known songwriters are available. A single doesn't necessarily need cover versions or awards. There are plenty of songs on Wikipedia that haven't peaked in any charts. —Travismullins1996(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Where is a release date available? It isn't in the article, and I haven't found one. As for other articles that fail WP:NSONGS, it's unfortunately true that they exist. I redirect them or nominate them for deletion when I see them.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song was released on March 29, 2010. It's stated in the article. I seen the fake cover art for the single. Should it be deleted since it is fan art and not officially the cover? —Travismullins1996(talk) 05:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being posted on Perez Hilton isn't a "release". The fake cover art will be deleted automatically in a week.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to delete it, the song is new, who would make a cover??? it was released 2 days ago!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.66.136 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination. Looks like a promo or demo more than anything else. Nymf _hideliho! 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article meets the standards set forth by WP:NSONGS: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article currently has references to significant independent coverage in reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.174.101 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That is in the paragraph discussing albums. Notability standards for albums are considerably lower than they are for songs. Note that charting and awards aren't described as necessary for albums, and articles about future albums are explicitly permitted, while future singles are not.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Um, no. It's in a section titled "Albums, singles, and songs." A single, which has not officially been released but still has considerable coverage from reliable sources, qualifies. I think you've misread the sentence. It is saying that demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, and promo-only (SONGS), along with unreleased ALBUMS ... Your grounds for deletion are shaky at best. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The complete paragraph is In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. It's discussing albums. Songs are covered in the following paragraph.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The section heading is "Albums, singles, and songs." The paragraph you refer to begins with "most songs" meaning it is referring to songs, and not singles. Singles are released independently of a later album; they are often packaged as CDs or individual downloads, have their own release dates, etc. Because the paragraph you mention starts with "songs" means it should not apply to singles; as singles are independent albums, they should be held to those standards and not that of an album cut. This article meets the criteria of an unreleased album. It should stay. Unless of course, you think every page about a single should be removed. I'm not sure why you think this article should be removed, other than a personal vendetta against the artist. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per nomination. Kww has failed to me convince me that this does not meet WP:NSONGS, and in fact, that policy page is designed to protect pages like this. In the best interest of the encyclopedia, put away your dislike for Lohan or whatever convinced you to nominate this page. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop attacking my motivation for nominating this article (note that I nominate songs that have not charted, been covered or received an award on a regular basis), and focus on justifying why you think a song streamed from a gossip site should be judged using the guidelines for an album.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have already justified this using WP:NSONGS. Please refer to my previous comment to read that. I am not attacking your motivations -- just questioning them. This single has been discussed in many different legitimate sources, including Vanity Fair and the Washington Post. What is your interest in undermining the public's knowledge? Your argument is chiffon and turns to dust with a casual glance at the policy page you brought up. Perhaps you did not read that before nomination, and only assumed it would strengthen your position. Regardless, you don't have any legitimate ground to stand on here. Please stop wasting other editors' time with this debate; surely your services could be appreciated somewhere else in the encyclopedia. If you cannot remain impartial or unbiased on this topic, you really shouldn't be debating it. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single reliable source that confirms that it is a single, so stop referring to it as such. As of now it is an unreleased song played at the birthday party of blogger Perez Hilton. Nothing else, nothing more. Nymf _hideliho! 12:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Bossy. It's not been "confirmed" as a single, even though it reads "this has been confirmed a promo single." Stuck is a single, like Bossy is assumed to be, written about in several reliable sources including the Washington Post. Stop trying to minimize it's importance. You nor Kww have facts or sources to support the harsh words you're presenting. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bossy was released for airplay on May 7, 2008, and digitally released May 27, 2008. It charted on Hot Club Dance Play, where it was number one on the chart, and on the Canadian Hot 100, where it reached 77. That's a clearly different situation, as that song meets any plain reading of WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 4 April 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) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan X - Shame of Jane[edit]

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

Deprodded article; this is about a non-notable pornographic film. Many of the sources I have checked are either download links or Wikipedia (and her mirrors). When I looked at Google, most of the links are pointing to locations to download the film. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: News/web searches for English/Italian title all fail to produce anything that would pass muster as a reliable source. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have coverage (which is a shame as it is a well made film :-)).--Sodabottle (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage, totally non-notable. EuroPride (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Rush Limbaugh Show. As per the arguments, not all of the phrases included are notable, or even invented by the radio host. As also noted, it is not Wikipedia's role to provide a translation guide for pop-culture, which is the status that Limbaugh has reached. Although I will not do it, the suggestion that a handful of the actually notable phrases should be merged back into the original article, and this WP:FORK of dictionary terms deleted ASAP is the valid outcome of this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite prior AFDs, I believe this article violates WP:NOT#STATS by being an indiscriminate collection of terms/list of terms used on a show that on its own is not a topic that is notable for inclusion. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It not indiscriminate but reflects the consensus of editors in that article. The Rush Limbaugh Show merits a comprehensive appearance in the Wikipedia as the most-listened to radio program in the United States since 1991. Large articles have pragmatic spin-off related articles to keep the size of the main article manageable. The Jargon article is such an example. patsw (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that comment correctly reflects the consensus of editors at talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Will Beback talk 03:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a few of the terms reported here have ever been repeated in 3rd-party sources, and almost all of the definitions are original research. I've had to patrol this article continuously for unsourced additions. I believe that the most notable terms should be merged into the Limbaugh biography, and the "jargon" article should be deleted. The overall topic is not notable - there are no articles in magazines or newspapers defining the terms Limbaugh uses. This is really just fancruft. Will Beback talk 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily for failing WP:NEO on a massive scale -- Limbaugh's individual insults and intentional mispronunciation of names have not been absorbed into the English language. Maybe a few of the more mischievous or malicious examples can be cited in the main article about Limbaugh, but the article can easily be cut. Warrah (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve (for the reasons from the 3rd nomination, 2007). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will Beback makes valid points, verifiability of most of the entries is seriously restricted. On top of that, what are the chances there will ever be independent references for any of the claims? --Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are right. Some comments will never be repearted by others. But they are jargon words/terms Rush invents, not claims. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is right to have an encyclopedia article consisting of imaginary words (including many intentionally mispronounced names) that were made up by a single person but are never used by anyone else? Warrah (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least some of the jargon words/terms listed were not invented by Rush. "Baba Wawa" for example was invented by Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live, back in the late 70s. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the point of having an article that cites Rush Limbaugh's borrowing of Gilda Radner's jokes? Warrah (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verifiablity of the article Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show is conducted mainly by the Wikipedia editors and not by reliance on reliable source, a third party which is recording the jargon. It in this regard it is clearly a unique situation with 20 million listeners, a limited audio archive, and from this some listeners who are Wikipedia editors and who care enough to contribute to the article and maintain it as current and accurate. We are dealing here with an audible radio program, 15 hours per week, heard by 20 million listeners, so the jargon appears in the article when repeated. The jargon itself spills out of the The Rush Limbaugh Show and into the wider popular culture. patsw (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the show is popular, the list may be interesting to some, however Wikipedia is not the right place for it. A fan site or blog would be more appropriate. Laurent (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the above section (and earlier), a personal definition of indiscriminate in being used. There's a Wikipedia definition of indiscriminate and I don't see any of its six forms applicable here. There is discrimination in the article -- the additions to the article are jargon by their repetition. Many Wikipedia articles on popular culture, especially recorded performances, rely upon the performances themselves for verification and the consensus of editors for deciding if an aspect of it is significant to be be added to the article. patsw (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's makes this article subject to greater scrutiny than, for example, a Howard Stern-related article like the Wack Pack, or the spin-off articles for major episodic television programs in popular culture like American Idol or 24 (television) or Lost (television) patsw (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I think the main problem with this article is that it violates WP:NOR, which says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This article is almost entirely based on a primary source, the Limbaugh show itself. Only a few entries have any secondary source. The definitions are also mostly original research, unless Limbaugh provides the definitions himself. (If he does, then why do we need this article at all?) Will Beback talk 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The experience of Wikipedia editors hearing what 20 million other listeners heard is really a stretch for what is original research. patsw (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two elements of original research. One element is the creation of definitions. If the term is so obvious that anyone can guess the definition then there's no point in having the article. If they require an editor to figure it out then that's original research. The second element of original research is the choice of which terms to include. Secondary sources are filters which help us determine what to add to the project. Without that filter, we're just adding indiscriminate information. Will Beback talk 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is indiscriminate - while the use of the terms on the show is sourced, they are not sourced as being "jargon". Because of this, any time Rush uses a new phrase, all it would take for inclusion is a source to show the phrase was used and what was meant by it, technically making this list infinite. There needs to be better refinement to terms that may be specifically acknowledged as terms repeatedly used on the show that are associated to Rush, and not just the term-de-jour as this lists seems to be. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The judgment to be applied to each candidate entry is the same sort of judgment made by editors in popular culture articles without the concurrent appearance in a third-party WP:RS. These are justified exceptions. patsw (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good AFD argument, per WP:OSE. Will Beback talk 03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, this is basically the reason we discourage trivia/pop culture sections , which can be similarly indiscriminate - they may be easily "sourced" or stated without OR, but then people start including every tiny reference. There's no disagreement that Rush has jargon, but it needs to be true "jargon" that is associated with Rush, not just any funny phrase he uses. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either Rush Limbaugh or The Rush Limbaugh Show. This list is appropriate within the context of discussing either Rush or his show... but not as an article on its own. Also, keep it to jargon coined by Rush rather than jargon he simply uses. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be mentioned at the program's main article; it does not justify a spinout article and encourages neologistic, unsourced trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the current talk(discussion) page for the Article, I found this explanation most helpful:

"Just in case someone decides to revive this for a 4th time let me lay it out:
Notability is nothing more than a term of art meaning satisfying criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Rush Limbaugh is the most significant radio personality in history. His biographical article makes that clear. What makes the jargon article necessary is the biographical article is already long and the jargon being heard by 20 million people is itself of particular significance. It is a proper division for an article into more than one part based upon its subtopic. (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article)
Original Research is meaningless to apply here. Has any entry in the article not be verified by many other editors who have personally heard it? We can't expect there to be a published secondary source for this other than the show's audio archives. If anyone disputes an entry, the editors who are 24x7 members have recourse to their personal copies of the show's MP3's to settle a dispute.
Not a collection of words or definitions is not what this article is. It is, like many other articles, an attempt to inform the reader about an element of the popular culture based upon the wide interest among readers and editors in the subject. patsw (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on my name to go to my page for material I'll summarize this weekend. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Patsw is correct that notability is a term of art meaning "satisfying criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia"... however, the key criterion for inclusion that any article must satisfy is that notability must be established through "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, the fact that Rush uses this jargon is not enough to establish that the jargon is notable. To show that the jargon is notable the article needs to cite sources other than Rush. It needs independent sources that discuss his jargon and comment upon it... something the article lacks. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The man is, as the book says, a big fat idiot. But he and his show are so notable and a decoder ring is often needed to understand him. WP:N this probably doesn't meet, but call it a spin-out article and a WP:IAR !vote (thus the weak part). WP:ITSUSEFUL is sometimes a good argument... Hobit (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had reliable sources for decoding these terms then that position would make more sense. But the definitions are just being created by Wikipedia editors based on their own interpretations of what Limbaugh says. That's exactly what WP:NOR exists to prevent. Will Beback talk 19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - eh, there are two issues: #1 can we find a RS for the term and #2 does Rush use the term. For #1 we can use other sources (see [6]) that aren't about Rush. For #2 we generally allow primary sources to be used for things like that. If there are terms where we can't find a RS for the definition and it's not 100% obvious from context in the primary source I'd favor removing it from the article. But that's not a reason to delete. That said, WP:IAR is rarely a strong reason to do anything, and that's my basis for keeping... Hobit (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - If the definition is "100% obvious from context" then why bother giving a definition at all? Here's one that's been added six times: ;Atlanta Urinal-Constipation: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution[7][8][9][10][11][12] If we remove all of the items with no secondary sources, as I've been saying I'd do for months now, there will only be about a dozen entries, short enough to simply merge to the "Rush Limbaugh Show" article. Will Beback talk 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a non-editor even added this (without a ref) since Rush hasn't said that for several years. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as indiscriminate (how many times does Rush saying something become "jargon" of the show? Just once, evidently.), original research, lacking secondary or tertiary sources for most entries, lacking notability for most entries, and generally unencyclopedic. Conservapedia might appreciate it, if it meets their (seemingly low[13]) standards. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How many times does this discussion have to be had before it can be left alone? Limbaugh's show is highly notable and his jargon is an important and well known part of that show. While the article may need some clean up work, there is no doubt in my mind of the appropriateness of the article overall. All of the reasons for keeping have been well documented in the first three AfD requests that have come and gone without a consensus to delete. It's time to just let this article be and move on to more constructive discussions. Ithizar (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Limbaugh's show is highly notable and his jargon is an important and well known part of that show"... exactly... the show is notable, and the jargon is part of the show. You make an excellent argument for merging. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: . . . Ithizar, you make a brilliant/inspired KEEP-comment! The "Delete-side" has a few good points, but those that overreach (such as calling the #1 radio show host a butt-head) weaken their case. I'm preparing additional thoughts to present on my user-page: Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CES- It's customary to leave only one bolded suggestion for the disposition of the article. This seems to be your fourth "vote". You're welcome to leave as many comments as you think necessary, but we all know you support keeping the article and simply repeating that comment won't affect the outcome. Will Beback talk 04:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will add COMMENTS. And I understand it is not a 'count' that determines, but a 'consensus'. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I have taken the liberty of re-factoring your second through fourth "keep" !votes to "comments"... just to make this clear (you may wish to go back and change the first one to "strong keep") I have not changed anything you said in those comments. Revert my edit if you object. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rush is notable, the show is notable, but the jargon is not, just as many other elements of the show or Rush's life/career are not. Notability is not inherited, etc. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see 181 references in that article, roughly half of which are not to the Rush Limbaugh show. It is obviously not "statistics" in any sense. If you have problems with original research you should be trimming sentences, not deleting the article. For that matter, even if the article were to fail AfD criteria this time, why not just revert the whole article back to the version for AfD Number Three or AfD Number Two when it was not found to deserve deletion? People shouldn't be able to keep running an article through the AfD process endlessly until they get "lucky". And WP:CRUFT is an essay, not a policy; nor does it advise indiscriminate deletion; and if we were to start deleting such articles I'd prefer to start with all the featured articles for video games, as they are of much less historical significance than politics. Wnt (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The number of ref. is now 188 since I added some secondary references (and a couple of primary references) to the top of the "Nicknames Limbaugh Uses For Himself" section. Also, I added a sentence to the lead-in sentence. It now reads as follows:

"Throughout the years on The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh has established several nicknames with which he describes himself on the air. Others also ascribe nicknames or titles that Limbaugh then uses for entertainment or political satire." (Followed, of course, with secondary references) where I add interviews with Rush as Secondary Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Secondary Sources are very important to fill out the explanation to WP readers. They can greatly amplify the value of entries. You may be interested in "Comparison of size/balance" (copied from my user page) :

* Pages in Rush_Limbaugh [ 18 ] // The Show [ 11 ] // Jargon [ 20 ]

* Ref. . . in Rush Limbaugh [ 146 ] // The Show [ 24 ] // Jargon [ 188 ].
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions going back to at least October 2009,[14] I've now removed all of the entires that lacked any reliable secondary sources. That leaves twenty jargon terms, plus four names Limbaugh uses for himself. Of the remaining terms, several include definitions that aren't in secondary sources, so further trimming is still needed. Some, like "Ninth Circus Court of Appeals", seem fairly self-explanatory. One, "Feminazi", is notable enough to have an article of its own. Will Beback talk 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NNC. One term with secondary sources should be enough to save them all. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those entries were removed because they violated WP:NOR, a core policy which says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...", not because they violate WP:N, a guideline. Will Beback talk 20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP procedures, I thought there would be one week of discussion before radical measures were taken. Where's the consensus? Besides, I would contest that all the entries removed had no secondary sources. I'll have to go through each to make this point. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, improvements to the article can and should be made during the AFD process. The removals have been proposed at least as early as October of 2009 and should come as no surprise to you since we've been discussing them for the past three months. They were made more urgent due to arguments that the article was well-sourced; arguments that were based on the large number of primary sources. The article is now based more on secondary sources, as every article should be, so a better assessment of its value to the project can be made. Will Beback talk 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, some editors seem to think that entries in a list like this can be based entirely on primary sources.[15] That drives a great big truck through WP:NOR and is another reason why this article should be deleted. Will Beback talk 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the list can be based entirely on primary sources, but the fact is, it's now based on primary sources without interpretations and secondary sources. From WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."--Drrll (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shorter version with only entries supported by secondary sources has a total of 58 sources, of which 34 are secondary sources, so it is based mainly on secondary sources. The version Drrll reverted to has 188 sources, and almost all of the additional 130 sources are primary. That version is based mainly on primary sources. Plus it contains many unsourced entries. That's a problem with articles like this: they attract poor quality material and editors who insist on bending the policies to keep that material. Will Beback talk 01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the operative word is "entirely" vs. "mainly". The policy specifically prohibits articles based "entirely on primary sources." We agree on unsourced entries.--Drrll (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since both the topic itself and the article content are under question, let me address both. Article inclusion first.

(Inclusion) Policy: What the Wikipedia is Not The article's topic Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show is a split from The Rush Limbaugh Show in order to keep that article of reasonable size. It not indiscriminate but reflects the consensus of editors in that article -- that is discrimination.
(Inclusion) Guideline: Notability The Rush Limbaugh Show merits a comprehensive appearance in the Wikipedia as the most-listened to radio program in the United States since 1991. Large articles have pragmatic spin-off related articles. As popular as Rush is, he is manifestly a target of the left, q.v. Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. His unpopularity, generally, or among Wikipedia editors should not become a consideration for notability. Many of the terms are used by others both on the left and the right -- because they were among the 20 million listeners over the 15 hours per week.
(Inclusion) Guideline: Avoid neologisms doesn't apply here. The definitions are given, and the originator is identified. The article explains the jargon, it is not a list of neologisms.
(Content) Policy:Verifiability This article is an exception to the usual methods for establishing verifiability. We are dealing here with an audio performance which is recorded and archived. So if there's a question of whether an entry in the article actually was spoken, we have the ears of those 20 million listeners and presumably, tens, if not hundreds of potential editors and contributors. If an entry is added in good faith, it can be marked as ((dubious)) and corrected in due course.
(Content) Policy: No Original Research and Section: Primary Sources I make the case here for an exception per the above. Assume good faith among the editors and flag any entry which is dubious for clarification or deletion later. The "second hand" source here is the hearing by the Wikipedia editor/contributor ("I heard it") and sometimes some one making a comment on Limbaugh's jargon in a pop culture or political media ("Fred Barnes repeated it"). The AGF view would be to appeal to more and better editors for the article -- not for its deletion.
(Question) I don't know of an article where almost exactly the same nominations were used for an AFD. Is this a case of keep nominating until you get the votes for delete? What's really new about this nomination -- except presenting another bite at the apple?
(Question) Why pick the week of Passover/Easter to start the AFD for a 4th time?
(Summary) I may have repeated above most of the Keep arguments in the three prior AFD's. Why? Because as they were true in the first, second, and third AFD, they remain true in the fourth. Rush keeps using jargon (though less about Tom Foley and more about Harry Reid now). The Wikipedia's policies are basically the same, and Wikipedia-editor "I heard it/I saw it"-sourced articles and lists are still all over the Wikipedia. The difference is that the genre (i.e. Simpsons, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) is not the politically controversial Rush Limbaugh. patsw (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have made two bold !votes for keep, you do understand that AFD is not a vote and that multiple bold opinions are not given greater weight over reasoned policy-based comments? MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Point#4, we now also have HD video of each and every show available for two weeks. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) You can watch any selected hour of the 15 hours of broadcast each week, if you have the time/interest.[reply]

Concerning Point#4, You also can search RushLimbaugh.com for his selected transcript-sections for the last five years. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Morenooso (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BEYOND SECOND-SOURCING, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS JARGON ARTICLE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED.
I mention a dozen of them on my talk page and will add just a few next. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it interesting that in four RfD discussions these important aspects have not come up.

COMMENT: This is the only article providing an example of 'Jargon'.

A good WP article exists on 'Jargon' to do with language. Enter 'Jargon' in the WP search line and there are some WP leads that appear. The article on jargon in language is excellent and has but one professional example: Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show. Remove this article and that is lost from Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this indicates what is needed is an improvement to the aritcle on Jargon, and has no baring on whether the Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show article should be kept or not. (<Blueboar>)

COMMENT: Our Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show is used as a reference by many.

If the article is deleted a draw to Wikipedia is lost.

Look at how people use our Jargon Article to find what they want via WP:
Results from a few examples of {exact-jargon-wording} in Google search:

Limbaugh Doctrine: (In 2,110 hits, Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show is #1.)
35 Undeniable Truths of Life: (#14 in 1,750 google-hits.)
Queen Bee Nancy: (#7 in 9,700 google-hits.)
Operation Chaos: (#1 in 45,100 google-hits.)
Ninth Circus Court of Appeals: (#32 in 1,500 google-hits.)
Lindsey Grahamnesty: (#100+ in 16,300 google-hits.)
Environmentalist wacko: (#16 in 24,000 google-hits.)
EIB Southern Command: (#1 in 18,400 google-hits.)
EIB Climatologist: (#4 in 550 google-hits.)
Drive-by media: (#13 in 872,000 google-hits.)
Dittoheads: (#1 in 67,700 google-hits.)
Algore: (#100+ in 241,000 google-hits.) (( Rush started the term 'ALgore'; others copied; not giving him credit!))
Sheets Byrd: (#100+ in 16,800 google-hits.)

The purpose in showing these example google-searches is to show how the terms have spread to other sources, originating from the jargon of the show. Most terms are coined by Rush Limbaugh, but some originate from callers or other broadcast media. It also shows the importance of these terms in understanding current politics and how Wikipedia can be used.

And here is one of my all-time favorite entries I've made (finding a great, great secondary source) :: "Four corners of deceit" (In 240,000 hits, Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show is #18.)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=117323

Ellis Washington in WorldNetDaily confirms and uses the Rush Limbaugh term for his article.

Keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh started this term and now a quarter of a million sources refer to those exact words. Further, realize that most of them are not worthy to be an acceptable secondary WP source. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Let's talk about the "elephant in the room", and it is not the GOP .!.

Rush Limbaugh is a leading Conservative in America. He is so popular because he is the voice of a "silent majority" (both parties and 'independents') who hold to traditional founding conservative principles. This view resonated when he started in 1988 and is the reason he has the #1 talk show in America today. Others have joined the Conservative chorus, but who does the Whitehouse attack when they want to demonize the other side? Rush Limbaugh. Who is mentioned on the floor of Congress? Rush Limbaugh. Who did the Republicans honor as an 'honorary Republican Freshman' when they won the House in 1994? Rush Limbaugh. The New York Times wrote about that.

Here's the point: to attract more to Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, expand the coverage of this popular Conservative voice. Do not diminish it.

The majority of Americans think they have traditional American conservative values. Let's attract them. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Which article is more important? Rush Limbaugh or Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show ??

The 'Message' is more important than the 'messenger'. 'Jargon' is the more important article. And it attracts many.

Rush uses political satire. We should include the top 10% (esp. w/2nd sources) and not every new coined word/phrase.

Yes, readers may want to read about Rush Limbaugh, but his witty words are more interesting to most.

Rush says that 'Liberals' don't see humor and take it the wrong way. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: We can thank critics of this Article for making it better—THANKS, senior editors on both sides .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: little of which has anything to do with the issue at hand... whether the topic of Rush's jargon is notable. Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your views here... but these last comments seem to indicate that you want to keep this article in order to push an agenda. This isn't the place to do that. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, CES' comments suggest WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:GOOGLEHITS need to be mentioned here. Also, to paraphrase Thomas Pynchon, vis a vis "Algore" and many other entries, "If Mr. Limbaugh really believes himself to be the only writer at present able to arrive at a play on words this trivial, that is another problem entirely, perhaps more psychiatric than literary, and I certainly hope he works it out." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended—none taken. :-) :-) My concepts are heavy-contenders for best-winning-arguments, IMO-imho .!. My only ‘Agenda’ is Wikipedia Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) nothing more .!. .!. .!.[reply]

Comment. I thought we should assume good faith here. This is a long-standing article of the Wikipedia, it has survived earlier AFD's and has a number of active editors -- this fourth AFD adds nothing new to the three prior AFD's. If there's an agenda being pushed here it is to give Rush-haters a fourth bite at the "delete-a-Rush-article" apple. Let this AFD die, and we can take up issues of "published reliable sources third party sources" versus "I heard it/I saw it"-sourcing by Wikipedia editors on the talk page. Deletion as a remedy for the sourcing issues is overkill. patsw (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As mentioned several times already, WP:NOTABILITY is easily reached by Rush Limbaugh by the size of his audience, the number of stations he is broadcast on, the number of awards he has won, etc. What needs to be determined is how content on Rush Limbaugh is organized. This is a problem not unique to Rush, there are many elements of the popular culture that have multiple linked articles in the Wikipedia -- each of which do not "stand-alone" individually in terms of their own significance but to provide enough depth and coverage as the editing process of the Wikipedia yields. The avoids making The Simpsons a multi-megabyte article for example. patsw (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is radio. It does not have the same army of critics that books, movies, plays, television, music, etc. have. The third-party sources, in essence, are the same as many articles covering popular television programming where the amount of information collected by Wikipedia editors exceeds what other sources collect. The editors police themselves and verify dubious points by examining the source material. patsw (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT-question: This discussion is so good I would like another week! Who decides when we are "having fun" and "have reached 'consensus' " .?. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will close the debate in a while, but it is very unlikely to be extended for another week. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is neither a list of indiscriminate information, nor a dictionary, nor a list of quotes. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 7 April 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Green Road[edit]

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

Non-notable school Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm certainly not of the view that all high schools are presumed notable. But I do think there is sufficient coverage of this school in reliable sources to cross the general notability guideline. There are a raft of news articles as well as book mentions. Nearly all of them are little more than incidental mentions; but the quantity of the incidental mentions is enough to support a succinct verified article about the school. It wouldn't be enough to support an article on a BLP, but for a school, I think it is sufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the arguments for keeping high schools are at WP:HS/N. Also, as identified by Mkativerata, there are sufficient sources available from which the page can be expanded. Indeed, it is unusual for a Malaysian school to have such good Internet coverage. TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there are really sufficient references to establish notability then it begs the question why this article has existing since 28 July 2006 and has never in its whole history cited a single reference. If either of you think the case can be made that there are references that establish notability then please feel free to prove your case by going ahead and editing the article while the AfD is continuing to include those refs as footnotes. I am not personally involved in the issue, just cleaning up non-notable articles, but I would hate to see this AfD end in a "keep" and then the article ends up as it is today, unreferenced and no indication of notability at all. It is worth noting that generally articles that are AfDed, kept but unreferenced are "stubified" after the AfD is complete. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason why it has remained unreferenced is that there are far more pages that need fixing than editors prepared to do the work and I do more than my fair share of sourcing school articles. We don't need to 'prove the case' by fully referencing it to an artificial time-scale; the fact that it can be readily seen that there are references out there is sufficient. Finally, stubbing a page is an editorial decision and is detrimental to development of the article. Since the content is factual and uncontroversial I will resist any attempt to stub the page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even listing the refs here would be helpful. Indicating keep and then once the AfD is over leaving an unref article as an unref article is not a good option. I would hope that this AfD will result in the article being fixed or deleted, not left in an unacceptable state. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the advice, that is the aim of the AfD as the article will either get fixed or deleted. At this point in the process it looks like it will be fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a fan of the 'all high schools' are notable idea but now most high schools are considered notable I think we need to be very careful how we treat them in countries where sources may be harder to find than in the UK/US so we don't show undue WP:BIAS just because we can't find sources. In this case there even are such sources so I definitely feel that a keep is in order. Dpmuk (talk) 23:05, 2 April 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kovacik[edit]

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

Non-notable "news" reporter lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Gee ttonyb... with respects, his at least 3 'Golden Mikes', 2 Genesis Awards, 2 Emmy Awards, an Edward R. Murrow Award, as well as a 'Greater Los Angeles Press Club Award' and a 'California/Nevada Associated Press Award' seem to qualify him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Schmidt, I agree; however, at the time I nominated the article it did not have any indication of the awards except within the NBC bio. Unfortunately, I had (am having) problems finding independent support outside of the bio for the awards. BTW - Per the article's talk page, the NBC article was written by the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the article creator's unsourced claim on the talk page aside, it may be best to continue judging an RS for its editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and not base a decision upon who wrote something for the RS. NBC News has a reputation that would not stand long if it was determined that they allowed informtion to be posted and then never had anyone check it for accuracy... no matter who authored it. And I'd be more than a bit surprised if any possibly inaccuracy was allowed to remain in a reporter's bio... specially one has been under public scrutiny since 2008. I saw the history and understand your concerns... but I'm on it now. I've begun sourcing it outside NBC, and have tagged it for an assist. So far it's looking better. Not done yet, no... but I think its worth doing. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable news reporter as evidenced by the numerous sources provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robert Kovacik is a highly regarded reporter that has covered many worldly events ranging from the death of Princess Diana to Paris Hilton to the LA fires. Tgarrett24 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 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) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadreza Khalilighazi[edit]

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

Autobiographical article with no references. Claims to be a famous mountain climber but no sources to back that up. noq (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobiography, fails WP:BIO lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. This same editor has created another article on a computer science "method" he "created".RadioFan (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Me neither, seems to be very little out there on him. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:11, 4 April 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Farrage (Fabricator/Craftsman)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ARTIST. Please delete. bender235 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG; various exhibitions etc. Article needs fixing, but not deleting Chzz ► 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, seems notable enough but does require a bit of work. fetchcomms☛ 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * Tom Farrage is one of the best well known metal craftsman in US. He has accomplished numerous intricate and well published projects and his skills are far beyond what most craftsmen can dream of. He has worked with numerous prestigious architects and designers in US and has taught at different institutions and universities in Southern California. Although I can have limited references in hands, I believe this article will grow as more people adding their references and information. I believe he will continue to thrive in his career and contributing to the realm of Art, Architecture and construction. Therefore, I strongly urge that this article should not be deleted. Please see below how I addressed the issues.

The Revised Article has addressed the issue of "notability" with adding more major independent sources including newspaper, print magazines and books. Please note I am not Tom Farrage. I have met him, worked with him and have been following his work over the past 10 years.

The Revised Article has addressed the issue of "Autobiography" with using a different writing style and adding new quotes with references

The Revised Article is in the process of addressing the issue of "Ophan" with adding links from different places

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenworld1000 (talk • contribs)

— Greenworld1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He/She is also the article's author. fetchcomms☛ 21:03, 5 April 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) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Computer Training Method (SCTM)[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news, books or scholar hits on the title. Appears to be an editor promoting a project of theirs. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following identical article under another name:

Delete per nom noq (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely lacking in context and tells us nothing about the method itself: a Method for train and learn computer science include software or hardware to people who are begginers in this fields. This Method created by Mohammadreza Khalilighazi in june, 1999. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. No context, no sources, no Google results. — Rankiri (talk) 21:13, 31 March 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) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National cricket stadium[edit]

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

The concept of this article is original research. Nowhere in this this article do we find reliable sources stating that the listed "stadiums" are "national" stadiums and nor are we likely to find them. The statement "Typically it serves as the primary or exclusive home for one or more of a country's national representative sports teams" certainly does not apply to most of these cricket grounds. The tradition in cricket is not to have "national stadiums" but for the national team to travel to different grounds across the country every season. Mattinbgn\^talk 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the reason for listing, it is a misleading and unreferenced article, as the vast majority of cricketing nations don't have a single national stadium that they stick to. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For other sports there may be scope for a "list of national ____ stadiums". Clearly that isn't the case for cricket. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, commentators above, and the associated discussion at WT:CRIC. Complete OR and an early close would be appropriate. —SpacemanSpiff 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cricket is one of the few sports where countries don't have national stadia (for example, the 2009 Ashes series was played in Cardiff, London (twice), Birmingham and Leeds). So, for this reason, it can be considered original research. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of this ^^ SGGH ^ping! 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nb that the editor chose another stadium instead of the National Stadium in Karachi where Pakistan didn't lose for many a year YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and possibly SNOW per consensus. American Eagle (talk) 04:54, 31 March 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) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Markus[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable actor, possible autobiography. GregJackP (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no WP:RS, article creator is User:Derek Markus. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Doesn't even pass as stub class. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:50, 3 April 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. Indiscriminate list with trivial basis (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Federal Ministers by longevity[edit]

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

Per corresponding deletion debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Switzerland by longevity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers by longevity: the two elements to this list (German Federal Minister and age at death) are unrelated. Therefore the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I42 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I42 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as other articles already removed for the same reason.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fork of List of ministers of the Federal Republic of Germany; no distinguishable encyclopedic value. Being an impermanent appointed member of the federal cabinet has nothing to do with longevity. — Rankiri (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't understand why we should deleted so many articels - is there a problem about space? Btw.: There are a lot of articels like this. Should they all be deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_political_office-holders_by_age
--Statistician (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about space, it's about whether they adhere to guidelines and policy. I believe that there are very different articles in that category. Most concern themselves with age at investiture and that is relevent and non-discriminate - and very different to this article which concerns itself with age at death. As the term of office had finished by that point the two factors are not linked and therefore the list is indiscriminate. There are other articles like this and they need to be considered; I did not bring them all to AfD en masse because that would be disruptive. I42 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These AfD requests for "List of ... by longevity" come up every now and then. Take a look here for example: WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_longevity_2nd_nom. I personally find no use in these lists other than being a curiosity. So I won't even vote on them, but instead just point this out. Nageh (talk) 20:15, 6 April 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. However, I have ~~not actually deleted the page yet~~ temporarily undeleted the article, in order to facilitate the implementation of 5230's eminently valid suggestion of placing the information in the main list. Once that is done, this should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity[edit]

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

Per corresponding deletion debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Switzerland by longevity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One drivers by longevity: the two elements to this list (first lady and age at death) are unrelated. Therefore the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I42 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the most indiscriminate one of these I've seen yet. And also, argh, it's not a list of first ladies by longevity! It's a list of first ladies in order of their husbands' presidencies, along with their lifespans in the right-hand column. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The order by husbands's presidency is just the default order. That's why the table is sortable, so yes, the table can be sorted in order of longevity (also sortable by the name of the first lady). Bcperson89 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gotcha -- okay, that's cool! Learn something everyday. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a junkyard (GregJackP (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nomination as other articles already removed for the same reason.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies the requirements of WP:LIST. Relevant debates also at List of United States Presidents by longevity (no consensus), and List of current United States governors by age (keep). Bcperson89 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of those other articles is now List of Presidents of the United States by age. Both, then, concern ages at inauguration which is not indiscriminate; those articles are entirely different. I42 (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a completely unnecessary fork of List of First Ladies of the United States. Being the wife of a term-limited political figure has nothing to do with longevity. No sources, no distinctive encyclopedic value, WP:LISTCRUFT. — Rankiri (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:LIST. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic". Bcperson89 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:ILIKEIT? Your only argument for keeping the article is based on the straw man claim that it satisfies WP:LIST. Well, no one said that it didn't. We're discussing a possible violation of the two guidelines I just mentioned, and I would still very much like to hear why you think that being a First Lady has anything to do with one's length of life. — Rankiri (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or as above, change to a "by age" article. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since this type of AFD seems to be on its way to a WP:FREQUENT topic, each with its own repetition many of those which have come before it, it may make more sense to escalate this to an WP:RFC to use a wider audience to get a final consensus. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic content—there are no sources that give notability to sorting First ladies by longetivity. As a list on its own, it is completely redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H3llkn0wz (talk • contribs) Pardon me, I forgot to sign. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As per my comment on the related AfD comments page, these AfD requests for "List of ... by longevity" come up every now and then. Take a look here for example: WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_longevity_2nd_nom. I personally find no use in these lists other than being a curiosity. So I won't even vote on them, but instead just point this out. Nageh (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the condition that birth and death dates are included in the main list, and that that list becomes sortable. It must be noted that the birth and death dates are indeed useful and should be included. The longevity is ridiculous and is not a particularly notable listing, and can be determined by anyone with a calculator. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point; include dates of birth and death (if applicable) in the main list. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 21:56, 6 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Radio Promo CDs[edit]

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

Delete. I don't see anything notable about these "radio-only" singles, either individually or collectively. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify - The substantive content here can be more appropriately dealt with on the articles for the albums or the artist, but the aim of the article appears to be to collect these entries in one place and that would be a wholly appropriate topic for a list per WP:LIST. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does a list of non-notable songs make it any more notable? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list isn't required to be notable; the criteria are different and set out at WP:SALAT. Key considerations are whether it is closely linked to an article that DOES pass WP:N (in this case the artist), whether it has well-defined inclusion criteria (it does), whether it is too broad or narrow in scope, whether the information contained in the list could reasonably be considered helpful in developing an understanding of the parent topic,and whether the content violates any of the principles at WP:NOT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been writing an Alexia's singles chronology, much like other artists have on wikipedia. Going from her first single through to the latest. I can't help it if the Italian music market is so that not all single releases are released as physical singles and thus radio promo releases are done instead, but nor can I omit them from Alexias singles discography or awkwardly lump them in on the main Alexia page. I decided to collect them together rather than do inidivual pages. I also (when I get round to it) plan on putting all of Alexias digital 2008 onwards releases on one page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaplex (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation (Discography-fy) - To Aquaplex and others who are interested: Since Alexia is a notable artist, I recommend the creation of a new article titled Alexia discography that includes information about the studio albums plus the singles under discussion here. See the Discographies Project for pointers. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a discography, to be created, per Doomsdayer. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 7 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moyle horse[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable non-"breed"-- only one source even claims it exists, one person's breeding program, previously deleted article Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous deletion is irrelevant, as it was for copyright violation, and this is clearly an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article as it has a four-page entry in a print encyclopedia published by a university press. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "four page entry" I see a four sentence entry on the Okla State Web site that is replicated in Hendricks, which is a single book that is well-known within WPEQ as at best a backup source with many dubious claims in many of its articles...if there are four pages, then please provide link to prove that it isn't all photos. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The horse is its own breed, and should qualify for an article.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that this is a horse breed, and not simply one person's "I'm calling my crossbred mutt herd a 'breed' " claim? -- I am serious, there is no breed registry, no fixed set of breed characteristics, organizations promoting this "breed," no evidence that this was more than one person's experiment that has not significantly outlived the person who started it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a breed, just one guy's cross-breeding program. No breed registry, no fixed set of characteristics that are dependably passed from generation to generation. Hendricks and OSU are both dubious sources at best, although they may work as back-up sources, they are not dependable for proving that a breed exists. Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So which are we supposed to believe, unsourced assertions by two pseudonymous Wikipedia editors or an encyclopedia published by the University of Oklahoma Press? I think our guidelines on reliable sources decide that question. I've noticed for some time that there seems to be a very small group (i.e. two) of editors who try to claim ownership of any equine-related articles based on their personal knowledge rather than any examination of reliable sources, and they seem to have turned out here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Phil, that was a blatent personal attack and completely uncalled for! Dana has several FAs and over a dozen GAs, I have my share of the same, and your comments are way out of line. Our sourcing can be provided as needed and all you have to do is ask. (But yes, the five or six people most active on WPEQ have some expertise in the field, and two of us (at least) have been published elsewhere). The book linked below does have more in it than what was out there when this article was previously deleted, but even from the content, can you tell me that this is NOT one person's breeding program? It says so right in the source. The "breed' is "rare" because no one else cared to create a breed registry or an organization to preserve the type or anything...I guess I have a hard time with the argument that says "just because it is in one book on breeds (and another I located appears to be almost a verbatim copy of the first) and no others, it has to be a breed?" I guess if that's the consensus, then it is, but seriously, if I was a great self-promoter and bred two grade horses in my backyard, would I be making a breed too? Just curious...gee, there's money to be made here... Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The one reference provided in the article is far from trivial (see the online preview) and qualifies under WP:RS. This said, the lack of recognition of this breed should also be mentioned in the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 31 March 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 on Vanity 800 Numbers (editors are encouraged to boldly merge/redirect it if desired, or open a talk page discussion on the subject); delete 800response. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity 800 Numbers[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it's all part of the same walled garden of spam; all the "research" is done by the company itself:

A disputed speedy. This should probably redirect to Phonewords but I thought this would be a useful first step. The article was created by a single-purpose account whose only interest is this industry; the article is essentially peacock terms about how wonderful these products are, everything traces back to a single company that sells these products, the "research" is all done by that company and putatively demonstrates the efficacy of its products, and seems to be cited word-for-word in uncritical publications that don't thereby qualify as reliable sources. The article's creator insists on the article's talk page that it's not Phonewords, it's Vanity 800 numbers -- which, to close the circle, is what this company calls them. Altogether, a walled garden of self-referential WP:SPAM. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Phonewords - At first it might appear to be spam, but there are a few interesting bits of information with references that should be carried over to Phonewords. Since vanity 800 numbers I believe is a valid search term, a redirect should be put in place. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tend to agree, but I'm not aware of any "Articles for redirection" process to which I could have submitted this. Just wanted to mention that the interesting bits of information are almost certainly the product of the company in question; I'd be viewing them with more than a grain of salt. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Vanity 800 numbers, delete 800response. The 800 page is not apparently primarily spam, and the material appears reasonably encyclopedic. the other article is spam, and should be deleted as such. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toll-free telephone number. Delete 800response. Nageh (talk) 20:24, 6 April 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 Userfy to User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy and the Bible.. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodicy and the Bible[edit]

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

This appears to be more of an essay or a series of arguments rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The page was created by its author in order to address perceived issues with several articles, but the appropriate solution would be to discuss changes within those articles rather than this format. Ckatz^chat _spy 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No reason given why article should be deleted. Article has over 200 inline citations. A quick review of a few show them as legit talking about the exact subject the article is about. Not seeing why this should disappear. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Number of citations is not justification for keeping what appears to be WP:OR. There is a perfectly serviceable wikipedia entry on theodicy. The article itself appears to be a lengthy and rambling mess written more like a lengthy sermon. This also reminds me of what we used to call in high school debate a "spread." Throw out so much stuff it becomes impossible to refute the entire thing due to the sheer quantity of so-called support. -Quartermaster (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. I believe a Bible-focused article could work as a spin-out of Theodicy#The_Bible. I haven't read this in depth, but topics like Crucifixion as God righteousing God is not something philosophers discuss at particular length. I've not even heard the word "righteousing" before. Seriously, this article draws on more theological sources than I'm familiar with, so I believe the topic "Theodicy and the Bible" might be worth covering. The author of this essay should be encouraged to make this comply with Wikipedia standards and make it fit as a proper sub-article of the theodicy article. Vesal (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what Quartermaster said (GregJackP (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, but merge worthwhile content into theodicy. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Reasonable article. Not excessively POV. Sourced, and reasonably encyclopedic--not a sermon, perhaps a little too much in the style of an academic paper, and in more detail than our general article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userify. This seems like an interesting reading, but it is not written in an encyclopedic, meant to be informing, way, but rather as an essay. I suggest moving this page's content to a user page and then see how this can be contributed to Theodicy and other articles. Nageh (talk) 20:35, 6 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefox extensions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The list could never cover the wide expanse of addons available for Firefox and other Mozilla products. mono 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO there are tens of thousands of addons available with a few thousand created every week. CTJF83 chat 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an uncompletable list. shoy (reactions) 19:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to list only those extensions that have non-redirect Wikipedia articles per WP:LSC and WP:WTAF. This would only be "indiscriminate information" or "incomplete" as claimed if we attempted to list all extensions, which would be bad for any number of other reasons. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A decent proposal, but how do you intend to do that with IPs and new users? CTJF83 chat 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same way it's been being done—imposing this requirement is only difficult the first time dozens or hundreds of non-article entries are removed, and that's already been done. There's no reason to suspect an imminent overwhelming flood of unbluelinked list entries. —Korath (Talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, not a new article or current event. CTJF83 chat 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could, but it does not. As noted by Rurik (talk · contribs) on the talk page: "The eligibility requirements are laid out in the article source. An extension has to have its own dedicated article to be included here. Therefore, it must meet the notability requirements of an article. That keeps the thousands of addons from being listed here." Thus, it appears to meet WP:SALAT. In response to Ctjf83 (talk · contribs), the same way we do it with any list article; judging by the edit history, this one has not been any more of a problem than is typical, and perhaps even less. Disclosure: I have contributed to the nominated article. --Geoff Capp (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a nice Category Category:Mozilla Firefox add-ons.... CTJF83 chat 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is not redundant to this annotated and non-alphabetically sorted list. —Korath (Talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs an inclusion criteria that is all. For example 100,000 downloads or a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing wrong with limiting lists to notable entries. For example, WP:SALAT#Lists of people specifically says that selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). — Rankiri (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What one person deems notable is different from another. This is a subjective list and could possibly lead to people adding and removing entries based on their own POV if it hasn't already. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After further looking at the article, it looks reasonable enough to keep. It's best to have an edit notice on the talk page with criteria just so people know why an entry should or should not be included if it hasn't been done already. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' appropriate list of major software. Does not appear indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concurring above. Any WP list page of just about anything will by necessity have to be incomplete or require some defined inclusion criteria. I would strongly say that a guideline needs to be set to include criteria on every list page (an example: List of notable asteroids). In this case, popularity, official recognition, and/or media coverage are perfectly reasonable standards for this and future lists - the standard should simply be set openly. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:48, 7 April 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GMail Drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no WP:THIRDPARTY refs. mono 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [16], ZDNet, reviewed by CNet, TechCrunch coverage, LifeHacker, engadget I can see plenty of notability through these news sources. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No arguments for deletion have been made that are different from the nomination in November, so I don't see how this nomination will not be WP:SNOWed. --Karnesky (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - We should keep this article it is important and notable enough to keep. Or, merge this article with Gmail or 'its parent company'.. Whenaxis (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just reading what this is about makes you wonder why this should not be notable. A Google search proves its notability, delivering plenty of suitable refs. Merge to Gmail would not be appropriate, article is decisively different. Add some refs, though. Nageh (talk) 10:45, 3 April 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 (G12) as a clear copyright violation of [17]. –MuZemike 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSBD[edit]

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

Article about a new academic journal, which will not publish its first issue until July. Fails WP:N; the essay WP:Notability (academic journals) discusses relevant standards, and it is unlikely that a new journal can meet them until it has published at least one issue. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First issue planned for July 2010. Not even sure that this is ever going to become a viable journal. Given: "gathers together the cutting edge of student behavior research" and "mathematically rigorous" when there is no content as yet, this could be deleted speedily as spam, I think. --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero evidence of notability. No coverage in 3rd party sources. Hasen't even produced the first "issue". All indications are that it will be a webzine rather than something in print. This article is spam attempting to promote this website. RadioFan (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above and WP:ADVERT.--mono 23:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from here. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 March 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. Arguments based in policy have been given a higher weighting than arguments which are not. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omnitrix and Ultimatrix Aliens[edit]

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

Huge fansite listcruft that is not supported by reliable sources. TN X Man 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into List of Ben 10 characters. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This shoul stay! I have a petition to make it stay. One billion signatures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.95.243 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put this back into ben 10 characters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.95.243 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to present a link to this petition! Cannonbolt2 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But need refinement.Fractyl (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fractyl, it needs refined, but it makes more sense to make this a seperate entity, as the number of aliens will increase in Ultimate Alien and seperating it halfs the length of the characters artical, plus, the aliens are not seperate characters of themselves (minus Ghostfreak), so putting them in the characters artical wouldn't make sense.--Superx (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, all "Ultimate-" alien forms don't need branching off.Fractyl (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listcruft. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think we should keep this page, because the character page is getting too long. If whoever wants to delete it, where are you going to put it? You can't just make the article larger and larger. AlienX2010 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we going to put it? In the bin hopefully, that's what deletion is. Saying that, I'm sure it'll be transcluded to Wikia anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since I'm the one who created this article,this will help people see the aliens more cleary. I created this because at the Ben 10 characters page, there were many problems. One the page was too long and there were many alien profiles missing. Please don't delete this because it's perfect!!!!!!!!!

It's far from perfect, it's entirely unreferenced and belongs on some sort of Ben 10 wiki, I suggest you copy the article here. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because people are complaining that the aliens are hard to read and it is too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frgrfss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking Frgrfss's disruptive edits for one moment. I'm prepared to defend him here. The information IS relevant. Just not own article worthy. Hence my above vote to keep the info in the character article where it belongs... Cannonbolt2 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, if we wish to keep it we should remember Wikipedia:Splitting as well. The Omnitrix and Ultimatrix Aliens on its own is 75kb in size. Keeping it in the main article would make it quite unwieldy to read (Besides, it is such detailed information, that i doubt it should remain in the main article in the first place). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if thats the case, then a seperate article is the way to go! However, if this AfD passes, I think the article will need moving to List of Omnitrix and Ultimatrix Aliens. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it must stay here. We must keep this article. Who votes to keep this article!!!!!!!!!!1

Delete Looking at the arguments for "keep" above I read: "This shoul stay! I have a petition to make it stay. One billion signatures", "But need refinement", "it needs refined, but it makes more sense to make this a seperate entity, as the number of aliens will increase in Ultimate Alien and seperating it halfs the length of the characters artical, plus, the aliens are not seperate characters of themselves (minus Ghostfreak), so putting them in the characters artical wouldn't make sense", "Please don't delete this because it's perfect!!!!!!!!!". Not one single "keep" comment makes any attempt to address the reason for nomination given in the nomination, "Huge fansite listcruft that is not supported by reliable sources". Nobody has made any attempt to provide reliable sources, and as for "fansite listcruft", I should say the whole character of the "keep" comments actually confirms this, rather than contradicting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poorly sourced fancruft from start to finish. Reyk _YO! 05:27, 7 April 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) 04:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Wizelman[edit]

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

Feels like self-promotion by a motivational speaker who I don't feel meets our bar of notability. However, there are solid claims to notability made in the article, so I'm taking it here rather than speedying or prodding. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self promotional and non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 3 April 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) 04:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poet Mohammed Al-Otaibi[edit]

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

repeatedly recreated article about a poet with no WP:reliable sources and few claims to notability noq (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As well the only "reference" is a forum which is not even in English. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:04, 3 April 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) 04:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naseba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No-notable organisation - fails WP:CORP. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - on using a script to nom this, it seems that I nommed it last time (where it was deleted for the second time, the first time was in 2008), I guess I forgot about that. I guess this is a G4? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in previous nomination to be deleted that none of the administrator found press release, articles about us. We are listed on the french "marche libre" since 2006, we are producing 47 events arounds the world, we own the biggest conference company in china and we are the most present event company for B2B in Middle east. Finally we host the biggest air show in Egypt. We might not have the time to publish press release to make public knowing us but we are one of the leader in our industry. Could I someone explaining me what are the reasons behind the deletion of my company article. Romain Tordo - email : romaint@naseba.com

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaintordo (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references that establish notability are found. Press releases and other promotional materials do not, I think, meet the criteria. The article is not neutral in tone, and the author appears to have a conflict of interest. Hope that helps, --Nuujinn (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REVOLVEr (T-Pain album)[edit]

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

While this will likely easily meet notability guidelines once released, the current article is unreferenced original research and likely based on blogs or other unreferenced sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Repost. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolver (T-Pain album)—Kww(talk) 21:24, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the issues involved are almost identical:
National Express West Midlands Premier 934 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Express West Midlands Premier 934)

This is a non-notable bus route in the West Midlands (county) of England. It clearly fails WP:GNG, because there are no references at all, and the only external links are to primary sources, in the form of bus company sites.

The article's lead does contain which might be intended as an assertion of notability: that it is the second highest numbered bus route in the West Midlands area, but that's really a piece of trivia barely worthy of mention.

The articles were PRODed last year by an editor who later redirected the article instead. That redirect was promptly reverted, and the article was taken to AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)).

I do not understand why the AFD was closed as "no consensus", because no valid arguments were offered for keeping it. The two "keep" arguments were "Could potentially be useful" (an invalid reason per WP:USEFUL), and "This is one of these routes, like the 997, which is a Partnership route with WMPTE (Centro)". I see no evidence that the latter is any reason to keep an article.

The AFD followed a discussion at WT:UKBRQDRIVE#West_Midlands_Bus_Routes, where it was one of a number of similar articles which two editors wanted to keep on grounds such as "important regular service", "important CENTRO partnership bus route" and "route formed from shortening of major route", all of which seem to be at best marginal assertions of notability, and certainly not evidence of notability.

I have brought this article back to AFD because it appears not to have improved in the last year, and because I do not think it is appropriate to leave notability to be assessed solely by members of a WikiProject sub-group.

Given the history of this article being restored when redirected, it should be deleted to prevent any such restoration without a proper consensus. After deletion, the title may of course be re-created as a redirect if editors genuinely believe that this cumbersome title is a likely search term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a generic "West Midlands Bus Partnerships" article. Combining the partnership-makes-it-notable routes into one properly sourced article would be the only way to justify any form of inclusion. Otherwise Delete per nom. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per when I first nominated it. No useful redirect here, it doesn't even follow the naming convention. Jeni ^(talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an NN bus route, unless there is some measn of protecting the redirect so as to prevent it being reverted to an article Isave by an admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-reasoned and clear nom. Orderinchaos 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a well-written article on a bus route, for which all information can be verifiable. Provides important details, including its history, like such an article should. May be lacking sources now, but these can be provided by the right expert. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 7 April 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) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Worlds[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable software (albeit from a notable publisher), released just a few days ago. References are based entirely on PR material. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found no signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable software, promotional. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it has sources, as weell as this only the game of this genre (space 4x-strategy) that has been pibliushed this year (Idot (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 4 April 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. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus routes 542 and 543[edit]

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

This is an article on a pair of non-notable bus routes: the article makes no assertion of notability, and there is no evidence of notability per WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (The article has no footnotes, and the only two external links are to primary sources).

This article was WP:PRODded on 27 March, but the PROD was promptly contested on the grounds that "West Midlands bus routes have already been pruned down leaving the notable ones remaining". This is an interesting reason, because the maps I have found place Essex nowhere near the West Midlands (region) ... and whatever the PROD-remover's idea of geography, there is no sign of any reason to treat this topic as notable per the notability guidelines.

There is already a List of bus routes in Essex and an article on the operating company Arriva Shires & Essex, which provide more than sufficient encyclopedic coverage of bus services in the county. Per per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the encyclopedia should not try to function as an alternative to the travel information published by the bus companies.

Nothing in this article is verified per WP:V, so none of the content should be merged to other articles. After deletion, the title may of course be re-created as as a redirect, e.g. to List of bus routes in Essex. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just three years in operation, operated hourly, little/no news coverage. Not even worth a redirect. Aiken ♫ 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meet our general notability guideline. It does not assert notability and does note cite any third-party reliable sources that attest notability. MRSC (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. GNG must be applied here because without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is not possible to have a reliable article. I wouldn't support a merger of anything here, because it all appears to be unverified. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sicne it does not appear possible to prevent redirects being reverted to articles on NN subjects, contrary to AFD outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect There's nothing here to justify keeping this. Articles on far more notable routes with much longer histories have disappeared on several occassions, and I see no reason why this should be any different. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. There must be millions of bus routes in the world, why do we need an article on these two? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - decidedly not notable. ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I created this page, and would prefer it to be kept, as it gives useful information. But, I can understand that the routes are not notable, and should maybe be deleted if no one else wants it. Instead of being deleted, I think it should be redirected onto List of bus routes in Essex. Alex12341000 (talk) 16:15, 1st April 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to the list article where they are described, per nom actually. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is writing articles about bus lines like collecting stamps? I don't get it. (Don't take it too personal.) Note that there are dozends of articles like these - just look at all the blue links in List of bus routes in Essex (and it's not only this list). What do we want to do about all these? Listify? Merge into single article? Are history sections notable for a list or merged article? Or delete all? Nageh (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bus routes can be notable, and many of them are. They have rich histories, and are in the news a lot For almost any bus route, the information provided is verifiable. This article should be split into two, one for 542, and one for 543. Dew Kane (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, every day they are in the news! (Sorry, could not resist.) Nageh (talk) 08:54, 7 April 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) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Martin[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable sources covering the subject that would establish notability. A search for significant reviews of the subject's books are equally fruitless. The article was highly promotional in earlier incarnations prior to my remval of the material. This included material copied verbatim from a press release, and a solicitation to the reader to buy the subject's book by clicking on a link. Whpq (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article seems to have been created for promotional purposes, and even still is slightly promotional (links to info about Dr. Martin's books hosted on his website). I also was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. If his work has been reviewed and cited as to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, I am unable to find such reviews. If reliable sources demonstrating notability can be provided, I may reconsider. PDCook (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:Author. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily closed as moot. The page now is a redirect to 4MyPasswords, the page this nomination claims should be the head. As a redirect, AfD no longer has jurisdiction. Note that the target page is proposed for deletion for reasons unrelated to this nomination. If it is deleted the redirect should be also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4mypasswords[edit]

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

Accidental duplicate of 4MyPasswords Jseidel123 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 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) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getplus[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Given sources are either incidental mentions or even no-mentions. Haakon (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

getPlus is used around the world on 100 of millions of downloads. The most downloaded application on the planet: Adobe Reader is solely downloaded via getPlus; the second most downloaded application on the planet: Adobe Flash si also solely downloaded via getPlus. Hence, if getPlus article is deleted I recommend we delete all download manager articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.60.138 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This is a HTML-based download manager developed by NOS Microsystems Limited. getPlus is used in the distribution of Adobe Acrobat Reader 8, 9, Adobe Flash Player 10 and Corel Software So that's what that annoying thing is. This is a component of some surely notable software, and would not be out of place in the articles about those packages; but this has no stand alone notability in itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, an article about the same product seems to have been deleted through AfD consensus seven months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetPlus Transfer Manager Haakon (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't indicate notability, a search for sources yields nothing that indicates notability, and there seems to be an ongoing campaign to get the product name inserted into as many articles as possible which makes me think this is done to promote a non-notable product. --bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also note that the WP article for NOS Microsystems, the company behind the product, has been speedily deleted for lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Speedy delete under CSD G4, as it is likely to be a repost of GetPlus Transfer Manager, deleted via a deletion discussion, though I cannot be sure since, not being an admin, I can't check whether it is substantially the same. Any admin reading this might like to check, and if so then speedy-delete it. If not then still delete for lack of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 1 April 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. Per inclement weather in Ramakapa. Tim Song (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakapa[edit]

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

No evidence for existence of this village (in South Africa anyway, I see a few hits for a location in India). This is either a hoax or extremely non-notable. Only "support" comes from a account registered solely for the purpose of supporting the article, providing a link which doesn't support a word of the article. Per WP:SPI/Backsllash, this appears to be a case of socking or meatpuppetry. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of existence, let alone notability. Creation of the article, editing it, and support on its talk page come from Matapula, Boanergesza1, and Jamie s alexander, none of whom have any other editing history. I think it's 99% probable this is a hoax and the three accounts are sockpuppets, but in the very remote chance that I am wrong then it's totally non-notable. The one link given in the article as a "reference" is a link to a page which does not even mention Ramakapa. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backsllash/Archive, where it is decided that all of the three accounts mentioned above have been created by users involved in sockpuppetry, though perhaps two sockpuppeteers rather than one. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't listed in any of the international geographic names databases and is entirely unreferenced. Because of the sockpuppeting involved, this is most likely a hoax; if it's not, it's not notable anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax, snow, now. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't even sound like an African name (it sounds Indian), and SA's official gazetteer turns up nothing. Orderinchaos 03:47, 2 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic engineering in the United States[edit]

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

Page was created with note that is was a place holder stub and tagged by its creator for expansion. That was in June 2009: nothing has happened since, save a DEFAULTSORT being added two days after creation. The only substantive content is actually a referral to another article and I am guessing that the intention was to expand it with more referrals to other articles. It may be that the subject is worthy of an page, but I doubt it. Besides, even if that is the case it might be better to delete this and wait for the real article to come along. As it is, this page is of no use. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle The article seems to be more about "Opposition to and support for genetic engineering in the United States." The original title is a bit unwieldy since it trys to be both about the research itself, some of which takes place in the USA and some elsewhere, and public opinion about the subject. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not about genetic engineering in the US based on the content that is there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is to have an article about genetic engineering and the use of Genetically modified organisms but a title of Genetic engineering and genetically modified organism in the United States is a little unwieldy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). The topic is notable and therefore deserves an article. I created it as a stub (and possibly forgot about it) hoping that another editor may expand it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note to nominator, AFD is not cleanup. If you believe the subject is notable enough to have an article, then don't nominate it for deletion simply because you want a fully made detailed article there instantly. Use the talk page to discuss hwo improvements could be made, what should be added, etc. This is clearly a notable topic. Dream Focus 06:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I just added a section in section for those opposed to Genetic engineering, listing one of many examples of health concerns. Genetic_engineering_in_the_United_States#Health_concerns There is a lot that could be added. And the talk page has never had a single post from anyone on it. AFD should be a last resort, not the first thing you do. Dream Focus 06:27, 3 April 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) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchi Ojha[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Only claims to fame are being a student, participation (not winning) in a youth swimming competition, and participation in a chemistry competition. Supplied references do not support claim of winning this competition nor do they demonstrate the notability of the competition itself. RadioFan (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. Majority of small number of ghits appear to be facebook. noq (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Winning a student chemistry olympiad alone is not sufficient.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. –Grondemar 11:57, 31 March 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. Claimed WP:N is not sourced, nor findable. WP:EXISTSINANOTHERWIKIPEDIA is not a reason to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilina Dikidjieva[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The only claim of significance in the article is "She won two major international architectural competitions earlier in her career", but it does not say what competitions they were. The external links from the article include two links to pages referring to competitions in which Dikidjieva was a competitor, so presumably these are the ones referred to. However, in neither case did she win. In the 2009 NY Coo Gallery Open Art Contest she was one of 17 runners up who were awarded "Judge’s Choice Awards", not one of the three individual winners. The World Trade Center Memorial Competition was won by Michael Arad, and Vassilina Dikidjieva entered but was not even a finalist. (The finalists are listed here.) Both the claim in the article and the links were added after the article was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (no indication of significance) and appear to have been put there to make it look as though there is significance. Nothing else suggests notability, either in the article or elsewhere. There is one other external link, which is to a paper which contains a few passing mentions of Dikidjieva, but does not remotely suggest notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, claims of numerous awards are not backed up with refernces to reliable soiurces. Zero Google news hits on the name. Only Google web hits are to the entry in the World Traid Center Memorial competition which was an open one. This does nothing to demonstrate notability. Agree with nom that the runner up award does nothing to demonstrate notability, notability of that competition is questionable as well. RadioFan (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. Well i felt encouraged by other wiki entries (such as [[18]]) and in the same category / List one R.T. Houben; and i assure you that Vassa is by no means inferior to these two younger self promoting artists, or less notable. It will be a pity to delete her, pls. Thx, best rgds, Thx, rgds, Ecce Nemo =Nobody]]Talk 22:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is never very useful to use "other articles exist which look no better to me than this one" as an argument in deletion discussions, for two reasons: (1) the other article may have sources which indicate more notability, and (2) the other article may indeed be no better, and deserve deletion itself. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Moreover, you know, in the Bulgarian language WP these requirements are much eased: i noticed one young man Iliya Jelev, b.1961, finished a provincial school in 1987 wh actually CREATED HIS OWN ARTICLE, here [[19]] - without ANY SINGLE outside verifiable support. When i remarked this to ADMIN, she responded that this is not FORBIDDEN, so ... there are quite a few others too. And for painters OUTSIDE support is not always easy. Pls, let's encourage V. Thx, rgds, Thx, rgds, Ecce Nemo =Nobody]]Talk 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Here is the quote of self-creation:[reply]

(тек) (пред) 13:48, 23 септември 2009 BloodFire (Беседа | приноси) м (4115 байта) (fixing masked redirect) (връщане)

   * (тек) (пред) 06:36, 4 декември 2008 Michaello (Беседа | приноси) м (4064 байта) (Cyrlat: 1 repl;) (връщане)
   * (тек) (пред) 11:09, 26 март 2007 Elkost (Беседа | приноси) (био-инфо) (връщане)
   * (тек) (пред) 16:54, 20 януари 2007 BloodIce (Беседа | приноси) (пооправяне) (връщане)
   * (тек) (пред) 16:44, 20 януари 2007 BloodIce (Беседа | приноси) м („Илия Желев Категория:Български художници“ преместена като „Илия Желев“: хмм) (връщане)
   * (тек) (пред) 16:38, 20 януари 2007 Iliyazhelev (Беседа | приноси) (Илия Желев)

Comment I don't know how accurate the above account of practice at Hungarian Wikipedia is, but in any case it is irrelevant, as English Wikipedia is autonomous, and works by its own policies and guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Second prize (out of some 500+entries internationally) in the prestigious Shinkenchiku-sha Co., Ltd. Central Glass International Architectural Glass Design Competition No 16 of 1981 for Meditation Chapel; and was mentioned by Bernard Tshumi in his studies on DisProgramming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecce Nemo (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and i am at a loss about how to point to PAPER support that is not digitized online, but easily available at major public libraries - is it admissible? Thx, rgds, Ecce Nemo =Nobody]]Talk 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is permissible. It is more helpful to give citations to online sources, as that makes it easier for others to check them, but this does not mean that references to printed sources are not acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That doesn't look like sufficiently notable. Nageh (talk) 20:52, 6 April 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) 04:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cage rugby[edit]

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

Contested Prod + Prod2 - Non Notable 'new' sport. Codf1977 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially a very notable new sport! it has been taken up across the North-West of England extensively. This page is simply an explanation of the key elements and rules of the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovens10 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — Markovens10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Potentially a very notable new sport is not enough: there is no evidence anywhere that it is notable now: in fact not even the creator of the article claims that it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No coverage to back up claims of extensive take up. noq (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of evidence would you expect? the game is widely used amongst universities and schools across the merseyside region. its notable across the area. Potentially it will become nationwide/ global. It is already being used in Natal, South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovens10 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability needs to be demonstrated by significant coverage in third party WP:reliable sources. The only external reference in the article is to the company behind it. There is nothing to back up your claims independently. noq (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds interesting, but it hasn't made the news or a book. Until it gets noticed, it's not notable. The famous Natal Sharks play rugby and call their home field the "Shark Cage", but they don't play a sport called "cage rugby". Mandsford (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable game at this time. Article creator seems to be here primarily to promote Rugbyperformance ltd, as his only other article is also about a product created by that company -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christhedude- There is now no mention of Rugbyperformance Ltd. on either page. Mandsford- The Natal Sharks use Cage rugby in their academies. Cage Rugby is set to be rolled out across London this summer. The aim of this page is to give people who will be involved an idea of the reasons behind the game and an oversight into how it should be played. The game will be run by a community interest, n-profit organisation based in London (ie not Rugbyperformance) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovens10 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at the time he posted the message there was - you removed it with this edit - please stop tring to make others look mistaken. Codf1977 (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he did say "there is now no mention......", so I don't think he's trying to claim it was never in there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it looked like that. I did write 'now there is no mention' so that you would know I deliberately removed it to stop people thinking this was a plug for the company.Markovens10 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markovens10 says "Cage Rugby is set to be rolled out across London this summer", following on from his/her earlier comment "Potentially it will become nationwide/ global". I thought I had covered this above where I wrote "Potentially a very notable new sport is not enough: there is no evidence anywhere that it is notable now". Markovens10 may like to read WP:CRYSTAL for a more detailed explanation of the fact that a Wikipedia article needs notability now, not speculation that notability may perhaps appear in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ovens also said 'What sort of evidence would you expect? the game is widely used amongst universities and schools across the merseyside region', as well as in South Africa. Thus it is notable in these areas. What sort of evidence does Wikipedia need to prove notablity? Third-party evidence? Markovens10 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markovens10 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above WP:Notability needs to be established from WP:reliable sources - the articles linked to explain what counts. And yes, it does need significant coverage in independent sources. noq (talk) 08:35, 1 April 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) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip spice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated for deletion but kept. The impression I get from reading that discussion is that most of those who voted to keep did so on the understanding that reliable sources to satisfy the notability criteria would be found. Eleven months on and that doesn't seem to have been possible. I've had a quick search and not been able to find much so I think this isn't notable according to WP:N. Adambro (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited in the article, despite plenty of time to find them, and no evidence of notability found elsewhere. (In the previous AfD discussion three of the four editors saying "keep" explicitly said that they were saying so to give more time to find sources.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a stub, there is no references or external links, I couldn't find anything on chip spice on Google and it doesn't describe it well. Whenaxis (talk) 11:16, 2 April 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 web, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MaxHugoVideos[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:WEB and this is a non-notable channel. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 07:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No attempt is made in the article to indicate any significance at all, so this should be speedily deleted under CSD A7 (web content with no indication of significance). I have tagged it accordingly. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 March 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) 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ferguson Testimonial[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD was removed without reasoning. Original reason for PROD was "this is not a notable football match". – Pee Jay 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:EVENT. I can see a lot of news articles about the match, but the coverage is transitory and it appears to have had no lasting impact.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One football match, with nothing whatsoever in the article to indicate anything special about it, no sources given, and only minor coverage found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk)
Merge and Redirect - to Alex Ferguson, the match happened, but I agree it is not notable for it's own article however it is worthy of a brief mention in his article. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a mention of the testimonial match at Alex Ferguson. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opps - must have miss typed 'Testimonial' into the find box when at that page - simple redirect then. Codf1977 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mention was only just added before JamesBWatson left that message. – Pee Jay 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to write "There is now indeed a mention of the testimonial match.." and missed the word "now": sorry. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable in the scheme of things, already mentioned on Ferguson's page. Only reason I could think to redirect rather than delete is to prevent recreation, but I think it implausible someone would type in Alex Ferguson Testimonial without having gone to Alex Ferguson first.--ClubOranje^T 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't see any need for a redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is sufficiently covered at Alex Ferguson and isn't sufficiently notable to merit an article of its own. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 4 April 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) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Barker[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Unreferenced. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. J R Barker is a not uncommon name but on GS I find cites in management science of 1087, 114, 89, 43... which is a good start. Could the nominator comment if these are for the correct person? If so there are plenty of references. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Nothing whatsoever to suggest he is any more than a very ordinary run-of-the-mill academic. The fact that a few citations can be located proves nothing: all academics write papers, and papers get cited by other academics, even if they are of minor significance. I have found no evidence that Barker has received particularly significant attention, and the article does not even suggest that he has. Part of the original text of the article was written in the first person. The article is essentially a very short C.V. or resume. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP policy regarding notability of academics, researchers and scholars is determined by WP:Prof. Attempts to change this policy should be made on the talk page of that article, not here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD debate, the nominator seems to have done an inadequate job. He finds no references, whereas the first person to wander by and click a link finds 1000 plus (a few citations indeed!). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Because you don't like the way that the nominator handled this it does not follow that they are trying to change policy, and I wonder if you really thought that was the case. If you have found 2000 reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (or even one) then it will be very helpful if you can give us links to some of them: simply stating that they exist is not helpful. I have spent a considerable amount of time searching, and have not found them. Also I wonder whether "the first person to wander by and click a link" implies that all that was done was clicking on a link: if so that is not enough. You need to sort the wheat from the chaff, e.g. the mentions of this James Barker from other James Barkers, the passing mentions from the significant coverage, the multiple mirrors of an original article from those originals, the reliable sources from the unreliable ones, etc. You may of course have done this, but it is not clear from the above comment that you have. If you have then please, as I have suggested above, give us links to the good sources you have found. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any academic who has written a paper that has attracted over a thousand citations pretty clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 1. I don't understand how these can be described as "a few" citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Phil Bridger he appears to pass WP:PROF #1, but also I think he passes #8 as editor of Management Communication Quarterly [20]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The editor of the journal is affiliated with Dalhousie university whereas the subject of this nomination appears to be from New Zealand. Are they the same? If they are different this will reflect on citations. The article is poorly written and needs improvement at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Barker's staff profile at Waikato lists him as the editor for MCQ (that's how I found out about it) so I'm quite sure they're the same. I tried searching Dalhousie for his name but found very little there. I don't know why MCQ lists his affiliation as Dalhousie; maybe it's a mistake, or maybe he was there at some point and moved? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that settles the matter. Passes WP:Prof #1 and #8. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' as editor of major journal. The material needs to be added to the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 6 April 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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Fudge[edit]

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

Article is about an person's Xbox Live gamertag; they are free to say in userspace but not in main namespace. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 06:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this for speedy deletion as being about a non-notable person; if for some reason that's declined, then delete per nom. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm willing to accept the view that "real person" for the purposes of A7 extends to individual gamertags. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Only the crazy fictions of CSD would permit gamer tags or pseudonyms to escape the guideline. At least when animals were escaping the criteria, however absurd, there was some logical, if not rational, basis for it. In this instance, gamer tags clearly qualify. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy salt and delete - Fails notability by WP:POKEMON - don't bother merging him with the list of live non-notable people. kgrr ^talk 10:17, 30 March 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. Noting that the article was substantially changed during the debate, there is also no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian soldier[edit]

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

I have several problems here. First, it's essentially a dictionary definition as-is. Secondly, the phrase "Christian soldier" has had and still has a wide variety of meanings. The second point is what worries me most. GHits, GNews and GScholar are conclusive about one thing: this phrase means whatever the utterer wants it to mean. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, WP:OR and nomination. The article does not consist of any information beyond a definition and it is not immediately apparent that it is possible to write an encyclopedic article on this subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
- Google Search Results 1 - 100 of about 131,000 for "Christian soldier". (0.31 seconds)
- Google Scholar Results 1 - 100 of about 3,670. (0.30 sec)
These Google searches confirm the article has the potential to expand, which is all that is needed to "keep" an article at Wikipedia. WritersCramp (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Results 1 - 10 of about 280,000 for "red scarf". (0.26 seconds) Word combinations do not prove notability. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was expecting an article on the expression from the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers", which is not remotely connected to what is said in this article. Alternatively it could be about literal soldiers serving in a nation's armed services who happen to be of the Christian faith. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the one source cited does not support the article's one sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could see how there might be books written about this sort of thing, but I don't see any evidence this article envisions to be that. Really, I'm not sure exactly what the topic of this article is, other than a dictionary definition. Because this is articles for deletion, I support the above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Hutaree, the Michigan militia group. The group says Hutaree means "Christian Soldier". Note that this is all a current event under development. kgrr ^talk 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to redirect to Onward, Christian Soldiers. This is 1,000 times the more common connection. We should not let a tiny nut group define this expression. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that there are millions of Christians serving in various armies in the world today and in history, literal "Christian soldiers." As well as millions of Christians who consider themselves "soldiers" in the "Army of Christ", who would never consider taking part in any terrorist activities. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that the conquest article is only a dictionary definition is wrong. There is plenty of room for expansion. The deletion +tag was posted when the article was only one day old! WritersCramp (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concerns extend well beyond that the article is imperfect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many entries/items within Wikipedia that are not in the dictionary. As a trusted reference guide, I (and I assume others) use Wikipedia to understand items in the press. I don’t know this fundamentalist group, nor do I care to be part of it – I came to Wikipedia to understand it. It’s a shame that Wikipedia removed or deleted this item purely because of its popularity in the press and the accusations of this groups members. To make my point - “Charles Manson”, a convicted criminal has a Wikipedia entry and his name is not in any dictionary, can we delete that entry too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.63.131 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 76.230.63.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment To be frank, I don't know what you are trying to say here. Nothing you say seems to respond to my nomination or any of the other comments. Nowhere is anybody proposing that this article be removed because of its "popularity in the press" and "accusations of this groups members," nor do I think in nominating this I'm setting any form of precedent for removing an article on Charles Manson. So, in short... huh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hutaree or Christian Patriot movement (the more general article). Page is redundant and has zero content. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of potential places to go with this title: Church Militant, Salvation Army, Military order, Crusader, Military chaplain, Muscular Christianity, etc. What's wanted is a general article which discusses military metaphors and aspects of Christianity in a general way. It is not difficult to find a source which discusses this in a scholarly way, e.g. The growth of Christian militarism in mid-Victorian Britain. I suggest that we rename the article Christian militarism and develop it further from such sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I posted a notice on Project Christianity to try to get more opinions here. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree on one key point -- there is very likely a place for an article of this type, on Christian militarism or what-have-you. My concern is with calling it "Christian soldier." I wouldn't even be comfortable with a redirect, because if you Google this phrase and read its history, it becomes very rapidly plain that it doesn't always -- doesn't even usually -- refer to militant attitudes in Christianity. Indeed, it seems to have been borne as a sort of ironic phrase, that a "Christian soldier" is one who advances Christian views in a Christian way, meaning peacefully. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There probably needs to be a class of extended disambiguation pages that point to a variety of more specific concepts with a tad more explanation than the disambiguation style guide allows for. This is a subject that invites that kind of treatment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate it. Dabs should probably start having refs, and so this article is on its way to something good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there ~~could~~ should be articles on Christians in the military, Military metaphors in Christianity, and the Crusades and other historical efforts to spread Chrisianity "by the sword", maybe Christian imperialism? What is not needed is an article on the expression "Christian soldier" as used by a group of 10-12 people in Michigan. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one needs to move "onward" to another website for its WP:POV problems. The premise is that, because certain militia groups refer to themselves as "Christian soldiers", then that should be the accepted definition. The article gives a nod to the 19th century hymn Onward Christian Soldiers, which is about spreading the gospel, not about joining Hutaree. If there's a notable group that calls itself the "Christian Soldiers" (plural), fine, but a "Christian soldier" is not a term that can be co-opted by a small group of people. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition and could be deleted on that ground, but it also gives a small extremist group unbalanced ownership of a term which has historically been associated with the peaceful spread of Christianity such as in the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" or the "Salvation Army." Edison (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a short article that gives just basic information and not much beyond that. It is a dictionary definition and some Biblical examples that are just put there and not elaboratng on what a Christian soldier is. If there should be a wikipedia article about militaristic imagery in the Bible, then it should be more detailed and put in an article which would possibly be titled Militaristic imagery in the Bible or Biblical militaristic imagery; something like that. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig would be my first choice, but unfortunately, there really aren't many articles (yet) to disambig it to. There are a number of redlinks in the discussion above that have potential, but at this point, I'm not really inclined to redirect it to a fringe group like Hutaree, but to be neutral, we can't pick them over the more commonly-known "Onward, Christian Soldiers". At this point, it would be best to set it as a disambig with the few other blue links we have (chaplain, crusader, Salvation Army, etc.) and let the somebody write an encyclopedic article under a better name. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disambiguation is the only option aside from outright deletion that I personally think is reasonable, because it addresses most of my concerns. I share your concerns above that content to direct a disambig to either doesn't exist or exists in minimal form, currently. I also add to this a concern that such a disambig page could end up being a POV coatrack (for example, Christian Soldier really, really shouldn't redirect or disambiguate to Hutaree, in my opinion...that's not a generally accepted meaning or definition of the term). To be clear, I still favor deletion over disambiguation because I have concerns with disambiguation, but if consensus moves towards disambiguation I won't be crying in my beer. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages are easier to keep NPOV, because there is so little room for rhetoric. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly true in general. My concerns apply very specifically to this particular case. It seems to me a messy disambiguation page. Minimal rhetoric, certainly, is an advantage to this proposal, which is why it'd be my second consideration after outright deletion, which I still favor. Regardless, I respect the opinion! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is clear there is no consensus, so the best option is to leave the article and let it expand over time. WritersCramp (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD hasn't been open for 48 hours yet. Consenus can't be judged yet. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or seriously re-work article from first sentence onwards. The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings, and the statement "is a person or group of people that believe in the use of force of arms to do Gods' work" is highly disputable. Quite apart from the fact that a group is unlikely to be called "A Christian soldier". PamD (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the conversion to a disambig page. Revert or fix as you see fit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued with that work. PamD (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article, even after sincere efforts to improve it, is still misleading. When a person says "Christian soldier" 9 times out of 10 he is quoting "Onward, Christian Soldiers", or at least refering to it. That is where "Christian soldier" should be redirected. There does not seem to be an article on Christianity and war. There should be and it would be of top importance both in Project Christianity and Project History. But that is not a reason to save this article and hope that it grows to fill in the gap. Borock (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current state of the disambiguation effort demonstrates why I have such a problem with it. We have disambig links to Hutaree, which is a highly controversial disambiguation of the phrase "Christian soldier" to say the least (we're essentially letting an extremist group co-opt the phrase by their own assertion), to the Onward Christian Soldiers song (which I'd favor redirecting this article to instead of deletion, if consensus exists), and then to an array of non-violent Christian organizations that seem loosely, at best, connected with the phrase "Christian soldier" -- their connections exist either through the use of the word "Army" in the name (The Salvation Army) or usage of the word "soldier" in some of their founding principles. Either way, I don't understand or see as reasonable disambiguating to any of these.
I think PamD's comment above really nails it for me. "The combination of two such common words has a multiplicity of meanings." Either way, my personal opinion is now basically 1) Redirect to Onward Christian Soldiers, 2) Delete, 3)Disambiguation. I don't think disambiguation is necessarily completely un-viable as an option, I just don't think it's useful and is potentially very troublesome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above Original author has reverted article back to its original article form, which is certainly the editor's right. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be motivated by the spirit of recentism and seems to hold no real relevance except in the context of Onward Christian soldiers. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism: It seems ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb keeps deleting information from the article to support his deletion +tag. WritersCramp (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for assuming good faith. What a lousy thing to say. Check out the "vandalism" I just performed on the first paragraph, wherein I added content that might actually make some people reconsider outright deleting the article. I've included several of the various meanings the phrase can have, and repaired your sentence leading to your citation to accurately reflect the citation's contents, which in no way support defining Christian soldiers as "A Christian soldier is a person or group of people that believe in the use of force of arms to do Gods' work." That is simply nowhere in the citation.
It is not vandalism to correct your sentence to reflect what your citation actually says, and I think you should retract this absurd accusation. It is not appreciated, nor is it warranted. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at this discussion, and looking at the article, at the moment it seems pretty clear that it means almost anything that the words "Christian" and "soldier" could ever possibly mean in proximity to each other. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace by disambiguation page. I can see no point to this article, which mixes unrelated concepts. There is point in Military metaphors for the Christian church, Onward, Christian Soldiers, Christians in the military, etc. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If gives more weight to finding consensus, I am more or less fine with disambiguation. There are more raw !votes here for deletion than anything else but I am, after a few days away from Wikipedia, coming back to this and beginning to think the folks suggesting disambiguation are making the most grounded-in-policy arguments. The arguments for deletion seem perfectly rational to me but perhaps not as specifically grounded in policy. As nom, I still prefer deletion but disambiguation is a completely fine outcome, as far as I'm concerned. So... uh... take all that babbling to mean what you will, sirs and madams! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it's now a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the disambiguation page. Jll (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note, above keep !vote refers to the disambiguation page version. The article is currently experiencing some edit-warring back and forth between article and disambiguation states. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Christian soldier is an article not a disambiguation page. 10:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs)

Comment It has just been reverted back to a disambig page, a change which I endorse Jll (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me that making it a disambig page addresses most of the comments above. It seems that User:WritersCramp is unhappy with that, but I'm not sure why. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambig page, with additions, especially Church militant and Christian militia (currently a redlink but badly in need of being a disambig page of its own, since it can refer to anything from Hutaree to civil war factions in Lebanon). Ginsengbomb's comments above make most of the essential points. Wareh (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added those two links to the page, and turned some of the red links above blue. I leave it to someone else to list Christian militia groups, most of which already have individual articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' That the phrase has multiple meanings and can be used in a variety of contexts is all the more reason to create an article explaining them -- especially since there is no simple single redirect available. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment That is certainly why we have dab pages. We don't have articles devoted to a variety of loosely-related topics that happen to share a name. We have disambiguation pages. If this ends up as a dab page (and this seems like the emerging consensus), I will definitely pay close attention to it, lest people start popping things like "Terrorist groups" and "Extremist militia" into the page. But that's content, not topic, so I don't forward that as an argument for deletion, just something I'll be looking out for. The phrase is so wishy-washy in terms of what it is supposed to mean that it makes for a potentially messy dab page, but that's something that can probably be addressed on an ongoing editorial basis. Anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:49, 6 April 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) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenz Choi Cruz[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Orphan, rarely visited page, no google search matches. Similar article titled "Lorenz Martin Choi Cruz" by the same user has been speedy deleted on 11 November 2008. Five images have been uploaded by same user to wiki commons. Elekhh (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage for this individual. Please note that of all the information provided by the nominator, only "lack of notability" is a reason for deletion per WP:DEL#REASONS. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find significant coverage either in Latin or Hangul search. (The hits in Korean are for unrelated people with the same name, such as Starcraft player Choi Yeon-Sung). cab (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:48, 3 April 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. There's a consensus that any WP:COAT or WP:SYNTH issues can be corrected through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian freedom of movement[edit]

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

I'd say this article meets WP:COAT. The major issue is that we already have so many articles for Israel/Palestine and these sorts of issues are heavily covered in Palestine, West Bank, Israel and the apartheid analogy, West Bank security barrier, Human rights in Israel, 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip, and then explained further in the "aftermath" sections of latest Israel/Palestinian battles. In other words, it seems like a regurgitation. Also, as I mentioned in the talk page, the title is rather confusing. What is Palestinian freedom of movement? Are we referring to the Palestinians born in Lebanon and Jordan who are denied access into the mainland? I've heard "freedom of movement" mentioned in editorials and rights studies but I can't find a comparable article that says anything about "freedom of movement." That would just classify easily under Israel human rights, no? It doesn't seem particularly notable from my POV - and we all know where I stand on this topic. :D Anyways, I really don't care much either way but I think a lot of Israel/Palestine articles could use a lot of delete/merges. Way too many articles. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and useful. Ian Pitchford (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, WP:COAT is grounds for editing, not deletion. The number of articles probably reflects the number and complexity of issues and the increasing attention it is getting from the media and the public sphere. Unomi (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well-researched and sourced and very relevant. More could be added about restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, in Israel, the 1967-occupied territories and elsewhere; this is an argument for improving this article, not deleting it. RolandR (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources about the specific topic mean it's notable in it's own right. The fact that it's mentioned in, or partly overlaps with, other articles is surely only an indication of the topic's importance. Misarxist (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important topic. If the article doesn't meet encyclopedic requirements, edit it, don't delete it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a bad start for an essay, but clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH. This is a novel synthesis of disparate bits of information. IronDuke 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article does not violate SYNTH because the expression and concept of "Palestinian freedom of movement" is used in sources. Some of the information may be be "disparate bits" but it does not appear to me to be a "novel synthesis". Others are already doing this in the literature. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of work is needed on the article to make it NPOV. Currently, it is still mainly a screaming POV synth put together mainly from one source: an anti-Israel organization. --Shuki (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is B'tselem an anti-Israel organization? Unomi (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because its sole purpose is to single-out and berate Israel for any wrongdoing and alleged wrongdoing. Btselem, like many other 'pro-Palestinian' organizations, is more interested in only attacking Israel than actually helping Palestinians or showing some credibility by attacking the many other countries that are in wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing of these people. A real pro-Palestinian organization would build hospitals, fund university scholarships, create work opportunities and export markets. Not Btselem. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that defense of human rights is inherently incompatible with being 'pro-Israeli' ought to be a rather anti-Israeli comment, right? --Soman (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defense of human rights is the defense of all human rights, not just one side. Picking sides is anti-humanist and hypocritical to a 'human rights' organization. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a reason to delete an article. Any WP:SYNTH in the article can be fixed by editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What actually applies is POV fork. - 173.52.124.223 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be a POV fork, but calling it such is meaningless unless you specify which article you think this this is forked from. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is topic that of itself that is often discussed in scholarly literature. Sources such as
Halper, Jeff (2000). "The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control". Middle East Report (216). Middle East Research and Information Project: 14–19.
Katherine Wing, Adrien (2002). "Healing Spirit Injuries: Human Rights in the Palestinian Basic Law". Rutgers Law Review. 54: 1087–1096.
Hass, Amira (2002). "Israel's Closure Policy: An Ineffective Strategy of Containment and Repression". Journal of Palestine Studies. 31 (3). University of California Press: 5–20.
show that this is a notable, and encyclopedic, topic. nableezy - 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is an important topic and existing problems are fixable. Zero^talk 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take a day-trip in the West Bank, and see for yourselves. The AfD nomination is, imho, done in bad faith with the direct purpose of whitewashing Israeli abuses. This behaviour needs to be addressed further within the Wikipedia community. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did yesterday and today. I saw some roadblocks and they inconvenienced me just as much. Some prevented me from making a ten minute drive and relegating me to take the long way of about 40 minutes, most of them are for safety reasons preventing access to a main highway (Route 60), and some are to prevent Israelis from travelling on Palestinian only roads. An hour ago, I passed by the car of someone who was injured and hospitalized when he was stoned for no reason at all except for having a yellow license plate. A roadblock would not have prevented that crime, but at least they did prevent crimes using guns in the past. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't soapbox. Tiamut^talk 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever :-) --Shuki (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and per WP:SNOW, close this AfD. Tiamut^talk 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is notable. The article needs major improvements as most of it is sourced to primary sources. I'm not ruling out a merge in the future, but wp:not#essay, wp:synth, and wp:coatrack should be resolved more by editing colloborativly then by deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:11, 1 April 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) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WS-Policy4MASC[edit]

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

I was an endorsing prod. Original prod was: No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources

That's relevant, as was my comment that an IEEE conference note doesn't indicate sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG. Deprodded by author. Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Also in its present state it is essentially a list of abstractions not readily comprehensible to the general reader, so if it is kept (which I hope it won't be) then it will need a total rewrite. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional, and almost completely lacking in context to the point of unintelligibility: WS-Policy4MASC is an XML based language extending WS-Policy with five types of policy assertions: goal policy assertions, action policy assertions, utility policy assertions, probability assertions, and meta-policy assertions. Goal policy assertions specify the desired state. Action policy assertions specify actions taken under certain conditions. Utility policy assertions specify the monetary value of each possible state. Probability policy assertions specify probabilities of each state. Meta-policy assertions specify which action policy assertions are conflicting and which conflict resolution strategy should be used. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - There is no references on the Internet. It's written like a promo or ad. Whenaxis (talk) 11:19, 2 April 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) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sironta[edit]

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

The article contains no assertion of notability. Furthermore, I am unable to find any verifiable sources related to the software. The article reads mainly as an advertisement, laying out a brief history (the software was just released in 2010 according to the article), and then listing features. No references, only links are to the download page, the official software page, and the company page that created it. Aka042 (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why you want to delete it, this article is similar to other collaborative software articles: Collanos, O3spaces, etc. The software was released on 2010, but they have worked on it since 2006, as the article says. It cannot be an advertise because it is open-source freeware. Marj9543 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment In answer to "I don't understand why you want to delete it", I should have thought that the answer was explained above: "I am unable to find any verifiable sources", "No references", "I am unable to find significant coverage". In answer to "this article is similar to ... Collanos, O3spaces, etc", the answer is that both those articles do cite sources to indicate notability. In answer to "It cannot be an advertise because it is open-source freeware", I suppose that depends on how you interpret the word "advertisement". If you take that word as referring only to advertising for commercial purposes then perhaps "promotion" would suit you better: either way the point is the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability can be produced: so far there is none. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but all Collanos cited sources or references are from Collanos website, so don't worry, when I'll put the references when I have time for it, no more than one day. Marj9543 (talk)
Delete. I think the project management spammers have concluded that the "project management" label isn't helpful, but this would appear to be more of the same: a P2P collaborative tool used for exchanging, creating and editing documents that require teamwork. This is still advertising: Sironta born from a need that Techideas team found since its inception. As a company that worked on different projects with different partners, it had severe problems to collaborate externally by sharing information, documents and simulations in an efficient manner without violating the confidentiality that such projects require. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already included the references and cover. Thanks for helping and making wikipedia better. Marj9543 (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 March 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) 04:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay & Jack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jay & Jack

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

Nominated for lack of notability: only one reliable reference can be found, this one, and that is not enough to pass WP:N. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source was found because a vandal deleted the other two sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You added spam and press releases. I'm not talking about what I found in the article (which was nothing, besides a link to your blog) but what I found doing a good-faith search for real reliable sources. As for your "vandal" comment, I have no comment, but I've left you a message on your talk page regarding your repeated deletion of the AfD template. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay and Jack are quoted in this article by Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly, and interviewed in detail in this article by the Associated Press. The latter source, combined with the Daily News article provided above, satisfies the notability requirements under WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Removal of the AfD template is appropriate at this time. Jrsightes (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No, removal of the template is appropriate after an administrator determines whether the article is to be kept or not, thank you very much. Play by the rules, please. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not one of the listed administrators of this site "thank you very much." Your bizarre, unilateral jihad against this particular article notwithstanding, I have read WP:N completely, and the references listed in this article more than adequately satisfy the requirements of that WP.
  - Thank you, User:Jrsightes. Next time, please sign your name (using four tildes), and mind your manners. I have not called you any names; I've only asked you to play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one has called you any names either. I am playing by the rules. You are the one seeking to subvert the rules and tear down this article despite its conformity with the rules. Throughout this debate, you have violated WP:AGF by baselessly accusing other editors of self-promotion, and referring to their good-faith contributions as "spam." Jrsightes (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now find three credible references in this article, 2 of which are footnoted in the article iself. here, here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spork4beans (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spork, it's nice to have a rational discussion; thank you for your contributions. However, I beg to differ: the first two sources only mention the subject briefly and don't discuss it in any way. Only the third link, to a brief interview with the two, can be called significant and in-depth. In all, in my opinion that does not add up to significant discussion in independent reliable sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've examined the references and most of them are quite unconnected to the topic; the few that aren't seem trivial. There is no real notability here IMHO. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:13, 31 March 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, G12, without prejudice to recreation in a non-copyrighted fashion. While the notability of this organization is beyond dispute, enough of the wording of this particular article is derived from copyrighted material on the SAIEE Website that it is best the article be blown up and rewritten from scratch. A derivative of a copyvio is still a copyvio. Blueboy 96 12:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAIEE[edit]

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

Advertisement, only sources on article seem to point to the organization instead of independent sources. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National professional organizations of electrical engineers are generally notable. For similar organizations in the United Kingdom and the United States, see Institution of Electrical Engineers and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, although both of these have significant international memberships. This Google News archive search shows over 700 hits. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say a reword's needed. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 04:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National organization with a voice in the S.A. Power Solution being devised for a Nation. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a prominent and well-covered organisation. More than enough for an article here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the silliest deletion nominations that I've seen for some time. I generally keep away from any of the social networking parts of Wikipedia where people create drama about editor behaviour, but maybe someone who is more au fait with the correct procedures could advise the nominator to fix that signature. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I said earlier that a reword is needed. I would like for this to be closed... Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 08:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC) And yes, the signature will be fixed.[reply]

Keep. A reword is done, and the article's feeling well. Also, the signature is fixed: Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 08:04, 2 April 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 a1, no context. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair bear[edit]

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

Fictitious, not something real. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:49, 30 March 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 a3, no content after unsourced content (all of it) is removed, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration of life day[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable, clearly made up holiday. Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. liquidluck✽talk 03:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP: "Feel free to add your own commandments!" -- I'm halfway tempted to add "Celebration of Life Day will be celebrated by not creating Wikipedia articles on non-notable topics." Glenfarclas (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ((db-hoax)) CTJF83 chat 05:39, 30 March 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) 04:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Munich Times[edit]

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

Possible advertisement. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... This article *could* be improved, but I'm not sure... --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's an advertisement it's a pretty lousy one, so don't delete on that score. The article can most definitely be improved, which is a good argument for....... improving it, not deleting it. Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far as I can tell, there's no paper in this "newspaper". It's a website, and a non-notable one at that. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very recently started, no indication of notability at all. Hans Adler 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability is not established. Not published to Google News, not mainstream, and as the others said, likely doesn't even publish anything in the real world. American Eagle (talk) 04:59, 31 March 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 a5, transwikied. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vact[edit]

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

transwikied dictionary entry Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A5, "Any article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g., to Wiktionary) . . . ." Glenfarclas (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A5 tagged CTJF83 chat 05:43, 30 March 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. Most of the keeps are procedural. The remaining ones are less convincing than the deletes. Fram (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 77[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Yet more non-notable London bus-routes, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. They are already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded these, but the PRODs were contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there was no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. (Since I AFDed a few other bus routes and drew attention to this, another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport has agreed that 187 is clearly non-notable ... but has also proposed a set of notability criteria significantly looser than WP:GNG).

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

This nomination is likely to followed promptly by a boilerplate "Procedural keep" from an editor who has disrupted many similar attempts to delete non-notable bus routes, whilst offering no evidence of the notability of the topics. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material retained, or redirected and resurrected like route 187, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Yes, this is a copy and paste message, but there is no other way of countering these disruptive mass (copy and paste) AfD nominations from a repeat disruptive editor. Jeni ^(talk) 02:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as predicted. And thanks again for clarifying that your aim is to keep the discussions away from AFD, so that you can apply looser criteria than GNG, like you did here.

There's a really really simple way of countering an AFD: provide evidence of notability. And you consistently refuse to do that, preferring instead to block any deletion of a non-notable bus route, because you don't want to apply the community's agreed notability guidelines.

And, of course, you know that there is almost no discussion at that location on the notability of individual routes, but still you repeat the claim that there is. Do you think that repeating an untruth often enough makes it true? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some useful resources relating to this specific route can be found at http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/077.htm and http://www.flickr.com/photos/castlekay/2551004765/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is either of those two sites a Reliable source? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak on 66. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. I'm gobsmacked at the sources put forward by Eastmain. How anyone on earth could consider them reliable is beyond me. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are there for London Buses route 66 at least, and what OR remains there certainly isn't fatal. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work on 66; I'm moving to weak on that one because now at least it meets WP:V. However I still suspect (although not strongly) that it doesn't meet WP:GNG for the reasons Orderinchaos and BrownHairedGirl set out below; the route doesn't seem to be the subject of any of the sources in a significant way. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because WP is supposed to be a collection of articles which would be of interest to persons in all nations and for many years in the future. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. We also do not need a List of bus routes in London. All we need is an article about the London bus system and at the bottom of that an external link to the official website of the London bus system so that interested persons can find the latest, up to date, most useful information that they need to use the system, or for whatever other reason they are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 66 and 67 77, Redirect others to List of bus routes in London. I had intended to redirect these anyway but hadn't got round to it yet. The other two have more claim to notability as they have been around for longer and been operated by more companies. ~~I have a reliable offline source which I can use to reference parts of 67, and will do so as soon as I have access to it (about 6pm today, if that's all right).~~ I was wrong about 67 (got confused with 167), but following Colonel Warden's sourcing of 77 I feel that now justifies keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - I don't really know if any of these routes are notable or not, but it needs to be hashed out in discussions outside of AFD. It's not easy to sort through such mass nominations, and some municipal transit routes are notable. For example, Toronto's transit system runs trams (locally known as streetcars) and includes 501 Queen which was named by National Geographic to its list of the world's top 10 trolley rides.[21] A mass nomination makes it difficult to do adequate research as to what should be kept and what should go. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just made a large number of changes to London Buses route 66, including expansion, updating and sourcing. This includes five sources, although only two meet WP:GNG. Can someone take a look at it and see if it justifies retaining now? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that Maclachlan's book only gives the route a brief mention, so I only see one ref which is relevant to GNG: the Time Out story. That's marginal: it's one good story that's genuinely about the route, but seems to be only the one. I have been trying a variety of searches to see if I can find anything else, but I see no sign of anything. I don't really think that one good essay on a topic makes for notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another go using offline references. The route has been covered in reasonable detail by Buses Magazine on three occassions over a seven-year period. Hopefully this meets WP:GNG? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or travel guide. notability does not appear to be satisfied. Edison (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the improved London Buses route 66. I think it meets notability now. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. All should be deleted. procedural keep is a non-argument. Projects don't own the articles and if that is the only reason someone thinks they should be kept, I don't even know what they're doing in this discussion. The threshold for inclusion isn't "a project is talking about them"--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources on London Buses route 66. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect all 66 is interesting but the sources don't seem to quite qualify under notability (the info would be interesting in another article however). The others, however, are much more clear. Orderinchaos 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do the sources not qualify under notability? The Time out story linked to above is a WP:RS, as are the three recently-added Buses Magazine articles and the book source (although this only gives very limited coverage). I can see that the others fail either reliability or independence, but these five together are enough to show at least a reasonable degree of notability. On the other hand, if you can suggest an article which the material could be moved into I could accept that as an outcome. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it meets our sourcing criteria but not our notability criteria. By this, I mean that all information on Wikipedia should be properly sourced. This is. But non-notable topics should not have their own article, but there's no notability threshold of this type (beyond standard Wikipedia editing guidelines) on the content of other articles which relate to the topic whose notability is beyond doubt. It's information, as I said, which I'd actually like to see on Wikipedia. To give one example, a featured article on a suburb of Perth contains detailed information of this nature about bus transport in the suburb. One in particular of the bus routes has at least 6 articles in community newspapers (not cited in the article) but as it better fits in a wider narrative of public transport in the area, it is where it belongs. Orderinchaos 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orderinchaos. Alzarian16 has done great work sourcing the facts in the route 66 article, and the result is the only bus route article I have seen so far which has sources for all its facts ... but none of those seems to me to amount to substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much why Afd was the single worst place to have this discussion. The basic facts can be sourced for every single route you are trying to delete, in third party reliable and independent sources, using trade/specialist publications, i.e., not stuff you can find in a dumb google search. That's not to mention there are many books on the subject too. Christ, entire books have been written on the detailed history of some routes, vehicles and operations, and by virtue of its nature, the London system is one of the most meticulously documented systems in the world. Whether that meets what you think is substantial coverage, I have no idea, and we at the relevant project certainly have never had the level of interest needed to develop proper guidance on that issue, but as you seem to think even the most famous tourist route in the middle of london has notability issues, and you also made a mistake on number 73, which even the average Londoner knows about, then I don't know where that takes us, especially as by doing this through mass Afd and mass tagging, rather than centralised discussion, you have alienated the very people who know the subject and Wikipedia's rules and regs. I don't have the first clue what anyone is asking for here in terms of significance, and the generalised vagery of the GNG is frankly worthless in that respect for this topic. It's not like bus routes are written about in the news everyday, or are the interest of high scholars, but it is patently just defacto wrong to think that in a place that documents every road, station, school and even temporary footbridges, that bus routes do not have some place aswell, NOTTRAVEL withstanding (I was never a fan of all the travel info guff, you will see that in some of my work on operator articles). All credit to Alzarian16, but I think he is on a hiding to nothing here, most if not all of these articles will clearly now be lost, whether they are ever going to be able to meet some as yet unknown bar of topic specific notability. Anyone wanting to know this info should stick to the London Omnibus society, paying for the privelage of course. The idea that this info is better presented stuffed into regional articles might make sense to some people, but they are frankly looking at this as travel information, and not as what it is treated as in any other serious information source, as matters of historical record. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, thinking about it, you pretty much always have to pay in some form or another if you want to learn anything about the history and operation of bus routes in this country, beyond the basic travel directory info. I can find out more about the latest advances in engineering or physics subjects for free than I can about this stuff, and a source of proper historical info in this field is practically gold-dust compared to such other subjects. I find it hard to believe that would be the case, if this was all JNN. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, if "a source of proper historical info in this field is practically gold-dust", then it helps to confirm my impression of the lack of notability of the topic.

The number 73 bus is an interesting one. I have lived and worked in London, and at various points either my home or office were on the 73 route, so of course I know it: the 73 is one of about two dozen routes I could describe in detail from memory. However, the fact that I and my friends know that route does not lead me to assume that everyone does, because I have no way of of knowing how representative my experiences (or yours) are of "the average Londoner"; they are wholly subjective. That's one of the reasons why wikipedia doesn't rely on the subjective impressions of editors in determining notability; we look instead for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I missed those on the #73, and was happy to promptly withdraw the nomination, but on many other routes there seems to be no one making any remotely plausible claim for notability.

Wikipedia does not have articles on things just because they exist, or because some eager editor has done lots of original research. We have articles because WP:GNG is a consequence of the core policy WP:V: that there should be sufficient coverage in secondary sources to allow the creation of an article which is properly referenced, without original research or synthesis or reliance on hobbyist sites such as http://www.londonbuses.net, which appears to have been the source for much of these articles.

As to the possible alienation of editors working in this field, I'm afraid that there does seem to be a serious WP:OWNership problem in some quarters; WikiProjects do not own articles, and there seems to have been a bit of a walled garden here. One of the reasons that so many non-notable articles have survived so long is that they seem to have been assessed against a notability threshold which simply ignores WP:GNG: see Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article?. Hopefully, the wider scrutiny which the AFDs bring to the topic will not just remove some of the many non-notable topics, but will also help guide the bus project on the community's approach to the notability of bus routes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a walled garden, it is merely a project lacking in interest, which is why editor alienation is the last thing that is going to improve anything. I had no hand in that guideline, and it patently isn't a proper guideline which has undergone any kind of scrutiny, but you are acting as if we have all signed up to it. I don't think I ever even properly read it before, and I declined the invitation to participate in the route project because it doesn't actually interest me that much compared to other related articles. My reference to 'gold dust' was about quality, not scarcity, you totally misread that. You keep banging on about V and GNG, but these Afd's frankly aren't guiding me anywhere, all you are giving me is the generic mantra I know off by heart, but you seem to have no idea what I am on about with regards to the specific subject (and seriously, I am not dumb, I do not measure notability as mere existence in the way you describe, not in the slightest; the number 73 is actually known by a few people bizarrely throught the totally unrelated kids programme of the same name). Like I said, it would be possible to VERIFY every single one of these articles from reliable, independent, third party sources. That is a basic fact that the Wikiproject members already know. Depressingly, we seem to be stuck on the point that somehow, these are just travel guides and directory listings. They aren't. The only reason sites like londonbuses.net are used is as I said, because the real information is not free. (and you would be surprised at the reliability of such hobbysists anyway, they are usually working from their own reliables sources for their 'hobby sites', but that's neither here nor there) Like I said, this whole subject is more than covered in reliable sources, and repeating generic mantras at Afd is not going to square the circle of defining what constitutes significance in this topic, because V does not automatically lede to N, not at all. I could give you book references, journal references, all manner of different sources, then you have to tell me how much coverage is sufficient, or worse, you have to believe the project members when they tell you what in the grand scheme of things is significant. It all depends on how you want to define independent. A simple example - if you classed 'independent' as merely Buses Magazine, then the simple fact is that changes to each and every London bus route is a notable event, operating arrangements is a notable event, entire pieces are devoted to vehicles and operations. This is before we even get into jazzy stuff, like technology demonstrators and other innovations, or the last vehicle type phenomenon, or centenary liveries, etc etc. Significance = mentions in Google news, is not going to cut it, V! GNG! is not going to cut it, not in the least. If that's what is happening here, just delete the lot, Wikipedia simply doesn't deserve to host this content. MickMacNee (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos: I can sort of understand your view, although I don't agree with it, but I'd be interested to know how it tallies with this comment over at WP:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all. Good informative articles. Wikipedia isnt a Travel Guide but our scope encompasses some TG type info. Additionally the articles are encyclopaedic in nature with historical background rather than focussing on sight seeing. Noteability is already established for route 66. The rest need references, but they don't seem easy to find on the web, so to give the road project a fair chance the articles should at worst be nominated at a rate of one per week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All The nomination is frivolous and vexatious as well explained by User:MickMacNee. All London bus routes are extensively documented in considerable detail by reliable sources and I have added a citation to the article for route 77 to confirm this. As it happens, in tonight's Evening Standard, there was a full page article about route 22. When substantial sources of this kind present themselves so readily, it is disruptive to attempt to delete the articles en masse without due diligence and discussion at the article per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Route 22 is not part of this nomination, nor is it part of any current AFD discussion. The extrapolation is bizarre: one bus route has received some coverage, therefore these one must have. If we followed that line of logic, we'd have to rewrite the notability guidelines to say that "if one instance something is notable, all other instances must also be assumed to be notable".

Colonel W has already tried this attack-the-nominator line at WP:ANI (where he also threw in an accusation of a nationalist plot), and got nowhere with it. The personal attacks should not detract from the fact that the purpose of this discussion is to discuss content, not contributors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a good citation for route 77. The source also supports the notability of all the other routes in this particular bundle. The point about route 22 is to show that substantial coverage of individual London bus routes is commonplace. It does not seem to be easy to locate them by Google searches as the numbers are not helpful for searching and many sources are offline. Improvement of each one of these articles within the 7 day timescale of AFD is therefore not reasonable when so many are nominated together. The nomination does not satisfy WP:BEFORE because it has been made without proper engagement with the topic - it's just a drive-by (pun deliberate) and there has been no attempt to consider alternatives to deletion such as merger with the other articles about London Transport. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, with more of Colonel W's relentless assumption of bad faith. Instead of asking "did you consider merger", or even "why did you not consider merger", he baldly states as fact that "there has been no attempt to consider alternatives".
That's wrong. I did of course consider merger, and I rejected it.There is already a List of bus routes in London, which sets out the key details of the routes. The extra information in these articles (beyond what's in the list) is either unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources such as hhtp://www.londonbuses.net ... so a merger would involve adding unreferenced material to a well-referenced list.
The rest of CW's claim involves a bizarre leap: substantial coverage has been found for one out of more than 400 bus routes, so it must be commonplace. Alzerian16, who has put more effort than others it actually trying to clean up and source these articles has repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case, and many of the routes are sparsely documented in secondary sources. Col W has added one ref to route 77, and triumphantly points to it as if it answered everything. But what we actually have is a book on the route system as a whole, which according to Colonel W's reference mentions route 77 only one page. Ruddom's book is one of a series listing the routes, but one mention on one page of a 180-page book is not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG; it's probably more than a list entry, but not much more.
Ruddom's book does demonstrate, of course, that London bus system as a whole has been well-documented, but that's never been in dispute. Even the buses project agrees that most routes are not notable; only Colonel W seems to believe that they are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found substantial coverage for many of these routes already - sources that I've not cited yet. I'm no rush to add them to the articles immediately because there is no pressing need and I have other things to do. Given that these routes are much the same, establishing a few examples of good sources is sufficient to ascertain the general level of notability. The rest is a matter of laborious research and painstaking editing and we have no deadline for this as we don't get paid. Your relentlessly hostile and negative rants are disruptive in that they are scaring off the volunteer editors who are familiar with the topic and understand its notability. We have several statements that editors are not prepared to work on these articles in such stressful and tiresome circumstances and this activity should please cease before it damages the project further. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go yet again: when the evidence is questioned, Colonel W's response is not to engage in reasoned discussion, but to launch into is more personal attacks.
So I'll try again to return the discussion to the substantive issue: why do you think that a brief ref to route 77 demonstrate its notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should get outside while it's still sunny but, to show I'm not bluffing, I've just added another citation to the route 77 article expanding its detail about the A/B/C route variations and its use of Routemasters. The large work from which this comes contains much information in its 288 pages but it will naturally take time to expand and cite all the relevant articles. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a whip to drive such editing work. So, I'm off out now but if I should come across any buses, I will take their pictures for our use and so the project will be well served. More anon... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ref sounds like a very useful resource for expanding the coverage of the Routemaster bus and it would certainly be sufficient to establish notability of the Routemaster if anyone was daft enough to question it. But so far as route 77 is concerned, this looks like another trivial mention which assist in the verification of a minor point, but does not amount to evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources". A synthesis of a set of brief mentions does not establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all all information contained in these articles is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The system is notable. The individual routes are not notable unless you've been holding back on sources. An interested editor has already pointed out that he can't find notability for almost all of them. Aside from another editor's claim that the equivalent of a route name drop proves notability, there is nothing to go on that shows these routes are notable.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is holding back on sources, they exist and could verify every single article, but there is no point even looking further when at the moment, the definition of what constitutes notability for this specific subject is not being expanded beyond the usual generic buzzwords. What do people expect? A review of the number 98 in Heat magazine? A Newsnight special on the number 44? It's nonsense. Yet people seem to think that that is how you determine what is and is not part of the 'sum of human knowledge', or what defines what independent third parties take note of. This is why it is all still behind a paywall and still primarily in print, because teh internets and its bastard child wikipedia wouldn't have a clue what to do with it, as these Afd's demonstrate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of material exists in rare printed books (which are a form of paywall), and is used as a source in wikipedia; one example is the pile of volumes of UK and Irish election results for the last two centuries on which I spent several hundred quid, and many other editors hunt down and use elusive sources. In each case the same criteria apply to notability: we need significant coverage in reliable sources, and we need evidence of it. Comments about "bastard child wikipedia" don't address the fact that no evidence has been produced significant coverage of these topics in reliable sources, just vague assertions that exists somewhere. We might as well say "keep because there is lots of stuff in libraries, but I couldn't be bothered listing it or identifying it because "teh internets and its bastard child wikipedia wouldn't have a clue what to do with it". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the name of two reliable and independent organisations who document this subject in meticulous detail, week after week, year after year. That is not vague assertion. All I see in return is repetition of the same mantra, without seemingly any recognition that this progresses the debate not one inch. I had no clue at the start of the debate what you think constitutes evidence of significane in this field, and I am still none the wiser. MickMacNee (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's required is the same as the same as in any other field: substantial coverage which directly addresses the topic, and evidence of the existence of such coverage rather than simply saying "there's bound to be some over thattaway".

At the moment, most articles on bus routes are dominated by long splurges of unreferenced, trivial detail of route changes. You objected at ANI to me tagging bus route articles to note the lack of evidence of notability and the reliance on primary sources, but said "in my experience on the topic I would bet £1,000 that 99% of these tags will still be in place in two years". So you want to keep articles which don't assert notability, don't show evidence of notability, and combine a few primary sources with a pile of unreferenced material, and you'd put a lot of money on the problem being unresolved two years from now. What is the basis in either wikipedia policy or in commonsense of keeping such huge swathes of unencylopedic material for another 2 years? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been engaging with the sources and the level of scholarship in them is quite amazing. For example, the latest issue of London Bus Magazine has a long article about bus services in Watford which has much fine detail about route reliability and fare changes for individual routes in years like 1987. There are multiple magazines of this sort with hundreds of issues over time but none of this is online, it seems. I have bought samples of these and a selection of books covering the London area in various ways. The books again have copious amounts of detail about the routes. Then too we have the mass media like Fay Maschler's long article about route 22 in the Standard the other evening or the coverage of route 30 in the 7/7 bomb attacks. Some of this may be online but only for recent years. To get more of the same, one has to get behind paywalls or visit somewhere like the British Library.

So, there's plenty of sources which testify to the notability of these routes - it just takes time, effort and money to compile and cite them. But why? None of this material is BLP or controversial in any way. Demanding that all these article be given more sources right now is neither practical nor reasonable. It takes us away from other work to no good purpose. It alienates and drives off editors and readership. Per Tacitus, "they make a desert and call it peace". Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent source for writing an article on Bus transport in Watford, and I hope someone does that. But scouring those sources for the trivia on each individual route is rather different matter, which I presume is why MickMacNee is prepared too put a lot of money on it never happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying 'its bound to be there'. I know it is there. I put money those tags not disappearing because on wikipedia, there are not enough people who have a clue about or an interest in the subject to put in the hundreds of hours necessary to work on the articles. And that workload does not go down by insisting articles like Bus routes in Watford would be much better. That is why your tagging is pointless (and the main point there was not the tagging, it was the pointed tagging of every single article, to solve an issue that is better dealt with in a centralised discussion location for what is a single issue. Imagine if someone did that to film articles of a particular genre, if their basic argument was that the genre wasn't notable?). Speaking as someone who is knowledgable of both Wikipedia and this subject, I'd much rather spend my time on other articles. That is not because the information is not notable, it is because the risk of Afd campaigns like this makes me baulk at wasting time on it. The vast majority of contributions to these articles are made by well-meaning but not Wikipedia savvy contributors. I have in the past tried to coach people, steer them clear of recording TRIVIA and creating travel guides, but I and the tiny amount of other editors like me who can do this are being screwed here from both sides. Yes, unreferenced content is bad, but please, don't even pretend that there is not huge swathes of it all over the less viewed topic areas of Wikipedia. Even the articles that are highly notable on this topic are in an utter state, and you want people to scrabble around for this non-urgent issue? I think your comment that things like historical data on routes/vehicles/operations is 'trivia' betrays your lack of understanding of the subject matter, which must give nobody any confidence that it would be worth their time to have an in detail, topic specific discussion of what significance of coverage means to this subject. It may come as a shock to you, but as far as replicating the breadth and depth of many subjects stored in the real world's knowledge banks, Wikipedia sucks hard, and there is an oft-circulated graph that illustrates that fact pretty well. Articles like Bus routes in Watford would be utterly pointless, a wasteful and disorganised way of recording pretty much the exact same information, given that London bus routes range over huge areas of the capital, and what is contained now in one article would have to be spread across god knows how many. Infact, that looks more like advocating breaking WP:NOT#TRAVEL than having route articles; which nicely highlights another oddity of this debate, people cannot genuinely believe that readers would use these individual route articles for their daily travel planning needs, surely. Wikipedia records the prime time schedules of television networks for posterity, meaning I would use Wikipedia to research the history of stations and programming, but that hardly means I would use, or advocate the use of, Wikipedia as a Radio Times though. And without individual route articles to link all of those articles, (as well as operator and vehicle pages), the utility of such articles would be dubious at best, and would be more likely to fester as unreferenced, un-updated and uncared for backwaters of irrelevance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, my view is that most bus routes are not notable, but some of them may be. Tagging the articles reminds editors that notability needs to be established, and it includes links to show how it needs to be established. There's nothing pointy about that reminder that articles have identifiable problems which needs fixing, and if I encountered a batch of film articles with the same problem I'd tag them in the same way. Whatever solution arises out of any centralised discussions, the articles will either be merged/deleted or will need to be improved. If they are merged, the tagging is irrelevant and has done no harm; but if they are kept, it helps guide editors. What's not to like?

As to the rest of your comment, I don't know what to make of it. You say that "even the articles that are highly notable on this topic are in an utter state", and I agree ... but you also reject every possible solution. No deletion, no merger, no improvement: just leave them as they are, in an "utter state". And you can't blame the poor quality on AFD: many of these articles have existed in much the same sorry state for years.

My suggestion was not for a Bus routes in Watford article, which would indeed have all the flaws you mention, though an enhanced list such as List of bus routes in the Bronx might work. I suggested instead a Bus transport in Watford, which could chart the history of bus services in the area rather than trying to describe what happened to each route. Themes such as tram replacement, nationalisation, wartime services, decline as car ownership grew, deregulation and privatisation, the development of bus priority measures, etc .. they could all be handled much better in an overview article (or series thereof) than in lots of individual route articles. The WYPTE article is an example of a step in that direction, though it has a lot of room for expansion, and by focusing on the company structure it omits everything before 1974. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or in the alternative merge. Information is verifiable, and sources have been added to show their verifiability. Thanks. Okip 15:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The test in WP:GNG is not just verifiability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sources. There are many more sources of a similar kind covering other periods of the history of these routes and so the notability of the topic is well-established. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This is more than merely a list of bus routes and there is significant encyclopaedic content - historical development of the routes, etc - within the articles which is not in the list article. To many, bus route history and the like is utter trivia, and I can understand the nominator's rationale. But there is significant and surprising available coverage in books and pamphlets demonstrating notability for individual routes. On the web I found these following a quick search:
- http://www.eplates.info/077s.html
- http://www.friendsofhoneywood.co.uk/Transport/1980s.htm

I42 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All with a possible weak keep on 66, although the relevant details would be better merged elsewhere as an interesting historical aside. The article on 77 is now a wonderful example of how material can be gussied up into a simulacrum of encyclopedic content, even while persisting as overgrown, unsourced trivia; oh the power of the footnote. To me, any interesting historical marginalia is better included and maintained in list form. Eusebeus (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has more citations than articles which you favour such as Symphony No. 84 (Haydn) which just contains trivial information like the prominence of woodwinds in this work. Haydn wrote so many symphonies that they are numbered like London buses and philistines might likewise urge they they be deleted so that we only have a summary list of works. But de gustibus non est disputandum and so some take great interest on one sort of topic while others exhaustively study the other. We have room enough for all and so I favour a comprehensive coverage of all such well-documented matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an exceptionally apt comparison; why, in the dusk with the light behind them, a Haydn Symphony and a London Bus Route are almost indistinguishable. Eusebeus (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that comparison is unlikely as that Hadyn symphony is obscure - it doesn't seem that it has been performed in public since its first hearing. In other words, it was a run-of-the-mill potboiler - a makeweight or filler to satisfy Hadyn's contract. Route 77, by contrast is vigorous and active, being used and noticed by thousands of people every day. Both topics are covered in relevant specialist works but, in objective terms, the bus is far more notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOL! Why my fair Colonel, if you're in the UK, you could have heard it only a few weeks ago. Fear not, you may acquaint yourself with this fine work at many venues in the future; it's played frequently. Since you seem to have suggested this is a contest: Haydn Symphony v. Bus Route (of which only a few are relevant). Anyway, I admire the spirit, Colonel: don't let knowledge impede argument. (K, let's let this go now- but I'll grant you a Parthian zinger and promise not to respond so you may redeem yourself, tell me I'm so wrong, and generally feel better!) Eusebeus (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reference was this snippet: The Haydn yearbook, vol. 2, p. 124 : " certainly the least known of this set of six ... very seldom played in public ... has it ever been performed...?" Perhaps the piece is better known now but I fancy the bus still has the advantage. Anyway, my general point is that it is better to cultivate our own patches and compete in the excellence of our work, rather than to decry that which we do not understand so well. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 5 April 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'm not sure I agree, but that is irrelevant, because the consensus after two weeks is clearly to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kol Ami of Frederick[edit]

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

Individual synagogue/congregation with, as far as I can tell, no indication of notability per WP:ORG. I speedied this per category a7, but another user has asked for a full discussion at AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. This is just one of hundreds (thousands?) of Reform temples across America. According to this page, its only real claim to fame is having received a Torah scroll rescued from the Holocaust, which is not enough to justify this article's existence per WP:EVENT. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that I have added sources to it. The sources cover more than one event in different years, and there are multiple sources for each event. I do not see "hundreds" or "thousands" of something as being a reason for deletion. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point about there being thousands of other congregations is that most of them aren't notable. This congregation (which doesn't even have its own building) hasn't done anything that makes it notable -- the events described in the article, even though sourced to local news coverage, just aren't anything that is particularly different from the things that every congregation does. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general notability guideline 1.) does not require the subject to be different from any others of its type out there, 2.) This discussion is not about other congregations or how many there are. It is about this one. and 3.) does not require the subject to have its own building. If you can make that out from the sources, that only helps toward establishing notability. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very low standard you set would make almost every religious congregation notable, since all get local coverage of their activities, In fact most articles about individual religious congregations at AFD have been deleted. Edison (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both the previous sources and the ones recently added seem to be plenty enough to establish notability. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dew Kane. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small and non-notable religious congregation fails WP:ORG. Having routine coverage of happenings, such as this one and every other one have, does not make every religious congregation notable. Edison (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the sources, they appear to provide a history of the congregation and other information you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. Most of the sources are strictly about the subject, and not something else that trivially mentions them in passing. And the sources are distinct from one another, and written on different dates in different years. Nearly 100% of the information in the article is fully sourced from several good sources that are independent from the subject, and the article needs only minimal cleanup. Sebwite (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced and useful. I think that as long as the congregations have enough press coverage to be well-sourced from independent, reliable sources, this and other articles on congregations of whatever faith are useful additions to Wikipedia.OldShul (talk) 21:10, 4 April 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artnear[edit]

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

Notability. Advert. Haruth (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also related advert / article at Hopnear. --Haruth (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an advert in my opinion. I added the article(s) after finding many pages on other apps, both that I use and others that I do not and which seem inconsequential. It seems to me the bar has been set. See for example:

List of iPhone Apps
Mars Hill Church iPhone App

By these standards I would argue to keep artnear. The media coverage of artnear includes the following:

By these standards it could be appropriate to kill hopnear. Bombaybeauty 018:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haruth. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:50, 3 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 79[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 01:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what you said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 187, where the route has already been discussed at the link you provide, and pronounced objection to be a particularly good example of a bus route article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mass AfD'ing so many articles rather than combining them, the only sensible thing to do is copy and paste (in the same way you are copying and pasting nominations). I question if you are even looking for any sources per WP:BEFORE. Jeni ^(talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You offer no substantive reason to keep any of the articles, but per the evidence above you disrupt the removal of any of them. That's why they go to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose on the basis of the existing discussion which you are trying to disrupt with these AfDs. I'd expect much better from an admin to be honest, but from past experience with you, your current actions are not surprising. Jeni ^(talk) 01:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense: there is no disruption to any existing discussion. You are simply trying procedural games to preserve articles on through non-notable topics such as this.

Indeed, Jeni, I do remember a prev encounter with you: I still refuse to allow serially disruptive editors like you deter me from using the using the community standard procedures. Last time I encountered you you abused rollback to blindly mass-revert my edits; this time you are swamping deletion discussions with irrelevancies. Same old Jeni :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to love bringing up irrelevant articles these days! Since you are also bringing up the past, you'll find I have never abused rollback, apart from instances where I have accidently clicked it, followed by a self revert. When your edits were being reverted I was using the built in undo function to revert edits which contraviened Wikipedia policy, with edit summaries to that effect. You may wish to go back and check your facts before you throw such accusations around. Same old BHG it seems :( Jeni ^(talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I checked my facts. Now, please will you check some facts and return to the topic of this page, which is a deletion discussion. Do you have actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments in relation to the notability of this particular article. As has been pointed out *so* many times now, I am !voting keep on the basis that a pre-existing discussion is currently in progress to determine the general notability of London bus routes, it can be presumed then that whatever comes out of said discussion will be ported to other bus routes countrywide. Your mass AfD nominations do nothing to help the situation. Please do stop asking me how particular articles meet the GNG, as you are fully aware that my comments aren't based on that. I'm getting a bit bored of hearing you now, if I'm honest. Jeni ^(talk) 02:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, there is no pre-existing discussion of this bus route ... so I';m not surprised you are getting bored of repeatedly implying that there is.

But you are now making your real position clear: you don't want to have the discussion at AFD, because you want the WikiProject to able to unilaterally override the community's agreed notability guidelines, just like you wante to do with this West Midlands article. Thanks for clarifying that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are managing to link to that diff on average 3 times in each AfD now, that is pretty amusing! Any relevant reason you like to keep bringing it up? I mean, if you seriously have a problem with the particular edit I made which you keep quoting, then surely reporting me for vandalism or disruptive editing would be the way forward? But we all know there was nothing wrong with my edit, so please, please, do drop it, I get bored of broken records. Jeni ^(talk) 02:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change of the record, Jeni: it's WP:GNG, a smash hit at AFD for years, and I'll keep on playing it.

So, once again: any evidence of notability per WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. No evidence this bus line satisfies WP:GNG Edison (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Aiken ♫ 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Reso lute 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no evidence of notability and a lack of reliable sources. Orderinchaos 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Not much material here, and certainly nothing notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some points on a topic may be verifiable does not make the topic notable. The fact that the system is notable as a whole does not confer notability on its individual components, and no evidence is offered either for the claim "the majority of London bus routes are notable" or that this is one of that allegedly notable majority. We need evidence of notability.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. Details ephemeral. NebY (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn trivia with a shout out to BHG for a very thorough and thoughtful nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 12:48, 6 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 187[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for this London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 01:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, do please read the nomination before commenting. This article is one of the few which has already been discussed at the link you provide ... and it was praised as a [particularly good example of a bus route article.

Do you have any evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I keep saying, I do read your nominations, but generally fall asleep. You can't prohibit me from expressing my opinion though. Jeni ^(talk) 01:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop disrupting deletion discussions with bogus procedural arguments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mass AfD'ing articles when there is already a centralised discussion on the very subject. Jeni ^(talk) 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read my response. Jeni ^(talk) 01:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have scoured your response, and see no evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG ... and now an other editor has commented at the other wikiproject discussion you linked to, agreeing that route 187 is thoroughly non-notable. Yet still you persist in trying find a ruse to oppose deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comments regarding the notability of this route nor am I attempting to make any. Please, and I say this in the politest way possible, shut up. Jeni ^(talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I thought that was the game: to just shut up anyone who wants to delete an article, rtaher than discussing its merits. Thanks for confiring your disruptive intent.

However, this is a deletion discussion. The issue at stake is the notability of the article. Do you have any evidence that this bus route meets WP:GNG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my flippin gawd, you just don't get it do you? Do I have to spell it out for you in simple words? I shouldn't have to, this isn't simplewiki. "I have made no comments regarding the notability of this route nor am I attempting to make any." Jeni ^(talk) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you have nothing to say on the notability of the article, stop posting disruptive nonsense to the AFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please? Stop biting each other's heads off! BHG, maybe consider holding back on nominating any more articles and joining in the discussion? And Jeni, maybe consider not commenting here if it's not about the article's notability? Both of you need to stop squabbling about this. Aiken ♫ 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. No evidence of notability beyond directory information. routine information, and original research. Edison (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London I was the editor who praised the article, and now accept that I was wrong to do so. As a plausible search term it should be redirected rather than deleted, but I accept that it probably doesn't justify an article, unlike many others of the type which do. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. I don't think it's a plausible search term. Aiken ♫ 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Reso lute 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fundamentally unencyclopedic. Suggest compiling all these articles into a wikibook, not a bunch of separate encyclopedia articles. That puts all the info in one place, which is probably what readers want anyway. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Endorse IP's suggestion above mine too, the information could be productively maintained on another WMF project according to their rules. WP's are entirely "is it encyclopaedic? is it notable?". Orderinchaos 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Inclusion of such articles makes us an indiscriminate collection of information. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there is a reasonable list article and I do think it's a very plausible search term. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that the article should be deleted, I'm not seeing why Godwin's Law needed to be violated in doing so. Orderinchaos 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:58, 4 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 384[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable London bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It os already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 01:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do try reading the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read, fell asleep. Still entitled to state my opinion, regardless of whatever rubbish you come up with. Jeni ^(talk) 01:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where is this discussion of individual bus routes? Is there any purpose to your disruption other than trying to keep the sort of zero-notability you defended here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A directory listing in a bus schedule does [[WP:NOT}not justify]] a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new source I added is reliable, sencondary and shows significant coverage. Up to this point a redirect or delete would have been fair, but it does now show some notability. The lack of notability was partially my fault for not finding this source when I added the other 3. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? Londonbus routes? looks like a hobby site. Not a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site covering the contract award is reliable and independent. Londonbusroutes was already in place before I made the edit I was referring to. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Reso lute 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable and lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that true of any article, since reliable sources are needed for one to be created? Do you want the whole of Wikipedia abandoned, or is there something special about these particular articles? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between an article, which involves creative input to explain its topic, and a directory which just gives raw information, such as where buses stop and how often they run. If any London bus route has any importance beyond that, important as that is to its riders, then its article should be kept. Of course I was joking by using Hitler as an example. I missed April Fool's Day by one day. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as original creator. It could potentially be a notable article and as an example of one in Manchester, Greater_Manchester_bus_route_192. Simply south (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:51, 4 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 260[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material resurrected, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do try reading the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was read, most of it was rubbish tbh. Jeni ^(talk) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So where is this discussion of individual bus routes? Is there any purpose to your disruption other than trying to keep the sort of zero-notability you defended here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A series of unverified assertions or a directory listing do not justifiy an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Aiken ♫ 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Reso lute 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I find them very interesting and have no interest in riding them. Aiken ♫ 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an article on the whole system being interesting, and I'm sure we have many good articles on transit systems. But why would an article on a bus route be interesting? I sincerely want to know. Also I did not vote to delete because I don't like buses, because I do like them. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about if it interests you or not. It's if it's notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nobody enjoys everything. I find buses and transport interesting, and that includes the routes. However, I voted to delete most of them because they are not notable. But on the other hand, I have just created a new route article that is notable. Aiken ♫ 22:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would make an article on a bus route interesting (as opposed to just useful to potential riders)? I sincerely would like to know. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find articles on cricket incredibly dull, and I would never read them or find them interesting. However, cricket is a notable topic, and so are the matches, players etc so they warrant articles. The same goes for some bus routes. They are notable topics discussed significantly in mainstream sources. If you don't find them interesting, so what? You don't have to read them, but they're still notable. Aiken ♫ 23:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about cricket either. However an article explaining the game would be interesting, but not blow by blow accounts of matches. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The issue here is notability, and the question of whether any editor (or group of editors) finds a topic the most fascinating thing ever or an instant anaesthetic is utterly irrelevant to whether the topic is notable. Please do read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:54, 4 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 80[edit]

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

Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBeing a trivial thing that exists in a directory does not justify a stand alone article. See not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Reso lute 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete/redirect Lots of coverage showing up, but nothing significant except in unreliable sources. I'm disappointed as the route seems to have some history behind it, but it doesn't seem close to meeting WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London buses are used by many thousands of people; their routes have been around for many generations and so there is much history.

Keep I have added some citations to reliable sources. There are many more such sources available covering other periods in the route's long history and these testify to the route's notability. The comments above, which were based upon the unsourced state of the article, are thus obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Sources appear to be little more than name drops and directory listings. These do not establish notability any more than my surname appearing in a telephone directory makes me notable. Reyk _YO! 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to a list of routes. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 7 April 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 69[edit]

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

Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the disruptive procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every trivial thing that exists in a directory needs a stand alone article. See not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. This one is basically an A7 candidate. Reso lute 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Orderinchaos 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Nothing worth keeping here. I would have redirected already had I known this article existed. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway, keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:43, 4 April 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 was heading for delete, but after Colonel Warden's rewrite a consensus has either been people wanting it kept, or indeed switching votes. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 68[edit]

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

Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG.

I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example, this comment praises London Buses route 187, but I see no evidence there of notability.

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the disruptive procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't. Jeni ^(talk) 00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural keep~~ Keep as discussed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl. GNG is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles on bus routes because, among other reasons, each bus company should be maintaining its own website where accurate, up to date information is provided to the public. No need for us to duplicate their efforts.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every trivial thing that exists in a directory needs a stand alone article. See not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Not to mention that this article doesn't even attempt to establish notability Reso lute 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Notable routes (which do exist, see for example Dublin Bus route 46A) can have articles; others should be listified. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not on the timetable ground - it's possible for a good bus route article to be written based on historical and current sources - but this one isn't one of them and is not going to be one of them, as there does not seem to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only. Karanacs (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Nothing worth keeping on this one, as the lack of sources or any sort of history shows. Move to keep. Has a lot more going for it since Colonel Warden's expansion and sourcing work, including some fairly significant coverage in reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as Adolf Hitler. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the London Blitz, but at heart the same.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler? Seriously, your comment is misinformed, insulting and completely fails to address the point of the discussion. You've posted the same ridiculous essay on several of these AFDs too... Aiken ♫ 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States you have the legal right to agree with Hitler that the British are stupid. In some other countries expressing that view would be a crime. I happen to think the British are smart enough to post their own website giving the public the information on their bus routes without WP getting involved beyond providing a link to that site. (i.e. "WP is not a directory.") However as I said Nazism is not illegal in the United States and I don't think it should be banned on WP, so feel free to express whatever views you like. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is invalid as, apart from it not addressing the topic, it duplicates another !vote from the same user above. Perhaps he has been confused by the great volume of these hasty and disruptive nominations. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing disruptive is your false claims.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs for the two separate !votes by the same editor: 1 2

Disclaimer (as per talk page request) Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just done some work to improve the article, adding historical detail from a variety of reliable sources. This demonstrates the topic's notability and invalidates all the delete !votes above which are based upon the lack of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just made this false claim on another article for the equivalent of 3 sentences, I won't buy it until you actually provide the text of those sources that demonstrates there is anything more than a single sentence in any of those sources about the subject. The first little bit you've written is nothing more than a dolled up basic description of existence. It doesn't look like you actually got anything of substance from any of those sources that wasn't general statements about all the routes. All you've written was when it was made, where it ran (taken off a map), and then descriptions that would describe the entire system (like the switch to routemaster operations). Absolutely nothing specific or special to this route.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken - the sources provide detailed text which is particular to this particular route. As you do not appear to have studied the sources yourself, your comments appear to be guesswork. I cannot provide copies of the sources for you as this would breach their copyright. If you wish copies please buy them yourself, as I did. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- because Wikipedia is not a directory. This article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Like Crossmr, I am hesitant to place much weight on Colonel Warden's sources without being able to see the text because I have known that user to frequently present passing mentions as substantial coverage. I am also not very impressed with the procedural obstructionism of some of the early keep !votes. Reyk _YO! 05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to remain civil when we see hostile editors voting blind in this prejudiced way. The sources in this case are indeed quite adequate to establish notability. The Routemaster Omnibus, for example, has a full page about the route with many paragraphs of text specifically about it. The entry has a bold heading for the route and so is clearly about the route specifically and is in no way a passing mention. I have no personal knowledge of the route and so all the information which was added to the article was taken from the various sources. There are more such sources which I have yet to inspect for this particular route. And I have yet to comb through the internet looking for everything that's out there. But I just made a quick trawl for this case and in just a minute found this article by a Time Out journalist, which provides a good account of his personal relationship with this particular route which he describes in great detail. Taken with the other sources, such material is more than adequate to support an article and this is just what I have found in a few minutes of lookup and searching. I am not a bus enthusiast and so am having to develop some familiarity with the topic from scratch to respond to these numerous nominations with their absurdly impractical deadline of 7 days. The shame is that the editors who do know more about the topic seem quite cowed by the relentless philistinism of those who demand hours of effort without pay, recognition or respect. I exert myself on behalf of readers like Dubmill who seem unwilling to represent their strong views at AFD - perhaps seeing it as a place where they will be scorned and treated with contempt, as we see here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having difficult remaining civil while editing this particular subject, I might suggest a different subject or a step back. There is nothing difficult about remaining civil. We are responsible for and control our own actions.--Crossmr (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice above accused me of making false claims. Please see Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should just stop making false claims about people. If you cannot remain civil, and refrain from commenting on the contributor, not the content, you should definitely walk away. Aiken ♫ 13:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you have one editor calling other editors Hitler, and then you have another editor saying he does not trust Colonel, showing extreme bad faith, and you have the audacity to lecture Colonel about civility? I appreciate you calling out the editor who called other editors Hitler though. Okip 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden has posted almost identical disruptive comments on several AFDs, accusing the nominator of many things he has no proof of whatsoever. Instead of analysing the article on its merits he went on the attack and criticized the process in which they were nominated, accusing the nominator of not having followed correct procedure. He has also attempted to discredit the very valid delete votes from people. It seems he is unable to disagree without attacking the person he is disagreeing with. This is very sad and I hope he will change his approach to AFDs. Aiken ♫ 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked the nominator - my point has been to call for the nomination to be speedily closed. Per WP:SAUCE, editors who ask that the work of other editors be deleted should not complain if, in turn, there are requests that their nominations should likewise be terminated. AFD nominations are not sacrosanct and, as they are time-consuming and fractious in controversial cases of this sort, we should better reserve them for cases where there is more likelihood of unanimity. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing nominator the article has gone through signifigant improvements since the article was put up for deletion.[22] Okip 14:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the improvements don't change the fact the route simply does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Aiken ♫ 14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per sources added. As Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books wrote: "...a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come." Okip 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the New York Review of Books does not let anyone say anything they like in its pages.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colonel Warden has found sources, which he listed in the discussion above. I believe notability is established. Many of the deletes seem to just hate all bus articles in general. Dream Focus 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that somebody hasn't cracked this whole AGF thing. :(
But which exactly are the refs which establish notability through significant coverage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that Google maps' satellite pictures of neighborhoods and so forth are extremely interesting to look at, but that's not a reason to have an article on every square block pictured. I think an article on a bus route is kind of the same thing. It's interesting to check it out and see what kind of places you would be passing as you rode the bus, but that's not the same as notability here on WP. Also I am a big fan of public transportation and like to ride it when visiting a city -- and it's thousands of times more important to human life than lots of things that are WP notable -- but still we shouldn't have articles on individual bus routes. You can go to the bus companies' own sites to check them out. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely cover all human settlements now and all city streets in notable places like central London have articles too. Your opinion that we should not cover such topics is not supported by policy or the general consensus. And software developers are starting to rely upon this level of coverage by building apps for devices like the iPhone that will let you call up the relevant Wikipedia article when you point its camera at something. Bus destination boards are a natural visual cue for such an app and so it makes sense to structure our coverage of buses in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something like that would be useful, and fun. I just don't think that is what an encyclopedia is for. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon it.

2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people. Dew Kane (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. It was a joke as Steve Dufour has said, both here and on his talk page. Bad and tasteless joke, sure, and one I hope and believe he won't make again. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It lacks notability. That in all the years of its existence one journalist managed to get an article about his personal experience of it printed in a listings magazine does not confer notability. To extend User:Edison's comment, not every trivial thing that has ever been mentioned needs a stand alone article. NebY (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a Time Out journalist is not notable. How about a sometime chief editor of The Times - England's premier journal of record? Sir Simon Jenkins described this route as the "Queen of buses" which seems like a pretty good accolade. And that's just what I found in another brief search. Every time I take a dip in the sources, I have no difficulty finding something and this is good evidence that there's a lot more to find. Just how many sources are required to satisfy you? We currently have 8. Please specify and justify your requirement, bearing in mind that this topic now has more citations than the main article on Bus. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, that Simon Jenkins praises it in passing does not automatically make it notable within the terms of WP:GNG or even in the eyes of the man on the Clapham omnibus. Congratulations on finding more mentions; I note that you increased the above figure from 5 to 8 in recent minutes. Quantity, however, is not quality. These days, any local feature accumulates multiple mentions and the wonders of the internet allow us to find them quickly - as you demonstrate. Whether that feature is notable within the terms of Wikipedia is another matter. NebY (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have yet to add a single reference to any article, let alone 8. Please explain your certainty that none of these references are substantial. Have you obtained copies of these works, as I have? I have added many sources to many articles and consider these ones to be quite good. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you do not have the research skills you think you have, at least as regards myself. But it's clear this is time to walk away from an exchange which is becoming personal. I'll leave it to you to have the last word; mine remains Delete. NebY (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I held off commenting in order to see what could be done with the 2-sentence stub that had been first sent to AFD. The results now show an encyclopdic and sourced topic that serves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (to follow up on my earlier Keep). The article is much improved now, and the references are good. A Wikipedia article about a bus route should discuss its history, as this article does, especially since this information is unlikely to be available on the bus operator's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the changes made since nomination - sourcing seems to have improved sufficiently. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It would be tragic to loose this outstanding article. Colonel Warden has treated us to a master class of quality encyclopedic writing. The article now reminds one of Chelsea Bridge a FA class transport article that Iridescent enlivened with human interest. ... "Bare-knuckle boxing... A city dependent on a network of hollow elm trunks to carry its water supply... Biker gangs fighting to the death with spiked flails and sawn-off shotguns... A river filled with animal carcasses... Iron Age Celtic warriors... A gunfight between the Prime Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea... The birth of football as a spectator sport... " ... The Colonel has performed a similar feat here on a slightly smaller scale. Only a very strict interpretation of GNG could find the references fail to demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ruthlessly applying the tightest standards may be appropriate for a harmful BLP or a fringe theory article that might help fraudsters, but seems without justification for such a harmless little gem as route 68. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:33, 7 April 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. Tone 15:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Reynolds (film producer)[edit]

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

Filmmaker who does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete without prejudice. Most politely, article needs a sandblasting. In 2004, Reynolds was called "up and coming". In 2007 his received note for his film Tomb Raider Ascension.[23] If an article existed for Tomb Raider Ascension I'd say redirect to it, as THAT work appears to have enough to show its notability,[24] [25] but I cannot find more about the individual himself in RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls a bit short on WP:BIO. I agree with MichaelQSchmidt - he needs more coverage independent of the one project in order to make the WP:BIO bar. B.Wind (talk) 06:42, 31 March 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. Tone 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Edge[edit]

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

Dispute PROD. Non-notable internet business. Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ukexpat. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily redirected to LOL. It is already covered there, and LQTM already exists as a redirect. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lqtm "Laughing Quietly To Myself"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lqtm "Laughing Quietly To Myself"

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

Prod contested with the explanation, We feel this is a relevent acronym as it is quickly becoming part of pop culture. Most notibly by George Braun, Demetri Martin, and an upcoming inclusion on Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately it is unreferenced, and there is no assertion that the acronym caught on. Plus, the thing about the SNL inclusion being "upcoming" makes it a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (well, sort of). Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to LOL#Variations on the theme, as with ROFL, LMFAO, etc. There's enough out there to support a redirect and a brief bullet point on this (see, e.g., this book and mentions in the NY Times and LA Times as you can see here), but there certainly isn't enough to support a full article on this initialism. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Glenfarclas above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with a merger, but a redirect should have the title LQTM, which, incidentally, is already a redirect to LOL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:46, 30 March 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. Tone 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABLE Business Excellence Award[edit]

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

Non-notable award sourced only to sponsoring organizations' websites Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage about this award to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find significant independent coverage either, and although I would support merging to either of the entities that grants the award, neither seems to have an article. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:05, 30 March 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. No reliable sources were brought about that would merit an article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot immunity[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research and coatrack of examples, tagged as uncited since 2007, but not a singre ref to a scholarly source. Compare with similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character shield. Xuz (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and shear off the list, leave only a few (less than 10) prominent examples. References should be able to be found for this concept. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple reliable, scholarly, third-party sources that use this particular term to describe this type of plot device, then keep; else, delete. Bwrs (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, and probably abandoned or hopeless article: no one bothered to improve it during the week of being tagged. Mukadderat (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The examples section is a little bloated and can be cut to the most important. Plot immunity is important part of fiction and should be kept.Camulus (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's interesting, but it's totally unsourced, and it's about an exception to a (fairly obvious) rule, rather than a rule itself. The title is a clever disguise for what would probably be called "List of protagonists killed off in the middle of a story". I'd love to see it improved to the point of being kept, so no !vote at this time. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- YOur "list of..." idea would fall under "not an indiscriminate collection", unless you find scholarly sources which discuss the issue of protagonists' life span. Timurite (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely unreferenced original research. If evidence can be provided that this is a notable concept - that is, discussion of the topic by reliable, scholarly sources (not blogs and forums) - it should be kept, but as it is it flatly fails our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, this article appears to have existed since 2003 without ever containing any kind of sources whatsoever. That's got to be some kind of record (and not the good kind). Robofish (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits for the term in google books and in google web search only wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. Timurite (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Camulus, this article shows a key concept that is existent in many works of fiction. While it is not sourced, the concept of the idea can easily be seen in many works of science fiction. Deleting this article would be a shame, in my opinion. - Rickington (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What "key concept"? Which scholarly sources descibe it? Xuz (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time to delete: no one came with reasonable references during twoo weeks of discussion. Laudak (talk) 01:23, 5 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kooboo[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user from the company. I have been unable to find any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No claim to notability. Codf1977 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - , per nomination. Not Notable. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:46, 30 March 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) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Ninjas[edit]

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

No indication that it meets the notability and RS guidelines. 67.180.84.52 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: metacritic lists a review from the December 2009 PC Gamer UK. Didn't find any other sources. Nifboy (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too think this page should be removed because it has few outside sources aside from its own website Iamcool234 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although we can't see the PC Gamer source it's likely that it's a small box-out review rather than a full-sized one. The only additional source I could find is Big Download (part of AOL), which is short, unflattering and doesn't give enough material to get this beyond stub-class really. Whether this passes WP:N or not is highly debatable, but that's an aside to the practicality of actually trying to build the article up with next to nothing. It didn't generate enough interest, not hard to see why. Someone another 04:00, 3 April 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 Darkwing Duck characters. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidator (Darkwing Duck)[edit]

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

This Darkwing Duck character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Darkwing Duck Wiki. This level of detail is a holdover from the old days when Wikipedia was heavy on "I watched a TV show" articles. The summary in List of Darkwing Duck characters is sufficient. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone with a Wikia account wishes to do it, don't forget to credit the original source in the edit summary to satisfy the CC-BY-SA licensing requirements^[26]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is true with Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an "account" needed to use wikia. In fact, one does not even need a User Name to create articles on entertainment wikis under Wikia. One should, of course, follow policy concerning credit. Mandsford (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "needs an account" bit is a per wiki thing and isn't global across all wikia wikis. For example, wowwiki requires an account for editing, but they're a wikia wiki. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be merged to List of Darkwing Duck characters like the other characters since there is a lack of independent info to demostrate they have notability outside of the show. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Never heard of Bud Flud The Liquidator; fails notability by Wikipedia:Pokémon test kgrr ^talk 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Darkwing Duck characters. Ray^Talk 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into the List of Darkwing Duck characters, as was done with other characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:40, 31 March 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) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naelee Rae[edit]

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

This child actress has barely any credits to her name, and basically nothing in Google News. Fails WP:BIO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and send to WP:Cleanup. Yup... a youngster with a short career... but she seems to sneak up on WP:ENT with 19 episodes of The Backyardigans and 4 episodes of The Guiding Light on top of her film and stage work. While nothing major, sources appear available to verify the informations in this BLP.[27] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still on the fence about this one, but here's a question. Are voice roles considered equivalent to live acting roles? To me, voicing 19 eps of The Backyardigans isn't very notable. Voice roles aren't specifically mentioned in WP:ENT. Regarding her soap opera role, 4 episodes as a 10-year-old is what I would call a very minor role, and not notable.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... she has other roles, but yes... she's quite young. In other deletion discussions about voice actors, some have been kept and some deleted... and this because while ENT does not list voice acting, it does not specifically exclude them... and it might be seen that voice actors could reasonably fall under ENT's "or other productions". Does The Backyardigans have a significant cult following or large fan base? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not thrilled about the article being kept in its current state of sourcing, but there are enough sources out there to verify that she passes WP:ENT. I see no need to create a distinction between screen and voice actors. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:08, 5 April 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. Tone 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hutchinson[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's criteria found. The references basically give a filmography (even the NY Times), but no significant coverage of the person. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple significant roles, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - no significant coverage in secondary sources, roles are not significant and long-lasting in impact. Ray^Talk 19:58, 30 March 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. Tone 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change-Pro[edit]

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

This software fails WP:N as I can't find significant coverage of it in reliable, third-party sources. There are a lot of promotional puff pieces written about this but I haven't found coverage in reliable sources. Them From Space 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this software. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ray^Talk 19:57, 30 March 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. Tone 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incesticide/In Utero Box Sets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Incesticide/In Utero Box Sets

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

Non-notable one-off box set. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this box set, and in any case there's no reason this material can't be covered at the existing articles on In Utero and Incesticide. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dustFormsWords. Ray^Talk 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge As Ron Ritzman said, the information can be merged into the appropriate articles thus elevates the need for one article on two different boxsets. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:11, 3 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CKKA[edit]

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

Nominated after discussion at Martial Arts project. It appears to fail WP:GNG and I couldn't find any reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello again, Papaursa. I have added some links, but I am not entirely sure if they establish notability. I'm rather certain there's other stuff out there to find though. Silver seren^C 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't see notability or significant coverage of the organization by independent sources. The two references are to the organization's own website and a member school. The external links are to member schools (or in one case to a person who was made an honorary CKKA member). Papaursa (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The new sources do not look like reliable sources. I think a good-faith effort has been made to find reliable sources for this small, young, two brother non-notable martial arts organisation. jmcw (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources using "Canadian Karate Kung Fu Association" just now, but have not yet found anything that clearly supports notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the currnet sources do not establish notability. A quick search I did on Google failed to turn up anything more substantial. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:43, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Sosa[edit]

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

non-notable Alan - talk 21:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable, with a downcheck for misleading assertion. The article claims "He was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award in 2005 for Outstanding Animated Program (Less Than One Hour)." But actually, he was not nominated personally. The nomination was for an episode of The Simpsons. The episode itself was nominated for "Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming Less Than One Hour)". He was somewhere way down the list as an assistant director.Emmy Awards, 2005 --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find significant coverage of the subject. MelanieN has adequately refuted the sole claim to real notability contained in the article. Ray^Talk 19:55, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anasoft[edit]

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

Non Notable company - fails WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recently deleted as a G11 and G12, non notable, no non trivial sources, couldn't find any.—Sandahl (♀) 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being in a top-10 rank somewhere, should be notable Dew Kane (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Cannot find significant coverage in secondary sources; the rankings are merely listings. Owing to large number of same-name companies all over the world, initial google hit count is deceptive. Ray^Talk 19:54, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gephi[edit]

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

Non notable open source project. Only version available for download is an alpha release from February this year. I cannot find any significant coverage in WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find much sourcing either. Ray^Talk 19:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Gephi is relatively new, but it is hardly "non-notable." For example, Google Summer of Code has eight proposals for work on Gephi this year, and several interesting data visualization projects have been published in the lay literature. Rneches (talk • contribs)

Can you add references from WP:reliable sources to verify WP:Notability? noq (talk) 06:49, 1 April 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. Tone 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Victor Disc[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish notability as a valid album. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:20, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABrowse[edit]

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

This software lacks independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Attempts to merge it to the parent OS have been rejected, so it should be deleted, as it fail WP:N. Pcap ping 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has media based sources Dew Kane (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "media-based sources" are Syllable (the developers), and two stories from OSNews, which may be reliable but weigh in at only a paragraph each and can hardly be considered "significant coverage". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this software and the sources in the article are insufficient per my reply to Dew Kane above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~delete. Per DustFormsWords's reply to Drew Kane. --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? Sorry? My comment to Dew Kane was a rebuttal of his Keep position on the basis that the sources were either not independent or not significant. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering your side of the issue, really the other "ABrowse" is a proxy (Old lockergnome article)... --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lockergnome's not a reliable source either; it takes user-submitted content with no editorial oversight. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But this proxy is poof. Only ads remain of the domain, abrowse.com. --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC) - But let's get back on topic. I go with a weak delete.[reply]

Delete No coverage beyond brief mentions, and most of that not in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 30 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's asian fetish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joe's asian fetish

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

No reliable sources, only one actual third party source 1 which is weak, no evidence that group passes wp:band Beach drifter (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity Shii (tock) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that Joe's Asian Fetish (different capitalisation) has been speedy-deleted three times. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem that a review, and various other pages which detail the act are available as independent information. Upon Google searching the band, the majority of first page listings are for this band, and listings continue for the first four pages of results. The band have been on iTunes around the world and performed live gigs and tours. It would seem that having worldwide released album, would warrant a Wikipedia article, given that people around the world may want to read up on the band. It seems that the band do pass the guidelines, however not to some users satisfaction. Then maybe the guidelines should be changed or altered so that it is clear what does and does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. For example, do the band need to be signed to a record label, have produced however many music videos, or released so many albums and reached whatever placing in a records chart. If this is the case, then it would seem many pages on Wikipedia would not qualify, and actually there are a lot of other articles which are just as deserving (or not deserving) of an article, as this band. Logansmith1 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having revised wp:band, it would seem that this band qualify for a Wikipedia article on the grounds of sections 1 and 11, there are independent sources and they have also had radio coverage on XFM Radio for their cover of Ever Fallen in Love, as stated in the article. Considering that only one of the criteria must be filled for a band to qualify for an article. I believe this to be more than enough grounds to keep the article. Logansmith1 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 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.