< 10 November	12 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 H._P._Lovecraft_bibliography#Reprintings_and_collections. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories

[edit]

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

Non-notable Penguins Anthology of previously published works, suggest deletion, initial prod was declined, Sadads (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to H._P._Lovecraft_bibliography#Reprintings_and_collections per WP:ATD. Nominator ignored suggestion by prod decliner (me) to do this himself. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would even suggest removing the whole reprint section of the Lovecraft article. Such information is neither useful for readers nor is particularly notable, Sadads (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with Jclemens. Endofskull (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Jcelemens. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. • Lainagier • talk • 08:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. Suggest disregard of perhaps-a-bit-pointy idea from nom of deleting target section of merge. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cushions (game)

[edit]

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

Not notable, possibly something made up in school one day. "Cushions Unified Non-profit Tournament", a tournament mentioned in the article, does not appear to exist (no ghits.) The competitions section seems to reference the game's creators by first name only, "Kishan", and "Jack". Editing issues, and creator has essentially no edits outside of this topic: Jak546 (talk · contribs) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also for deletion: Cushions(game) (Is there some Wikiformatting way to add this to the AfD?) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEDAY. Editor has not made changes so I will go with delete→Gƒoley Four (GSV) 21:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Wait until the editor makes the changes they have said that they will make. →Gƒoley Four (GSV) 01:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate game being played across the northwest of England. I will endeavor to supply links and external references in the immediate future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak546 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a day or so. The author made a comment saying he'd put references (above). If he doesn't, I'd say delete. Endofskull (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need for an explicit "wait a day or so". The AFD runs for 7 days. If significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability show up, I will happily change my !vote. But at this point, the article fails the fundamental policy of verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sounds like something a few bored teenagers made up (both the game and the article). Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:NFT. Zero hits on Google UK for this alleged "sport." Ravenswing 14:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Obviously the game is made up. It is a new game. The difference between cushions and snooker is that cushions was "made up" in 2010 not 1874. Wikipedia should be helping the growth of this new game not hindering it. I can personally vouch for the game being played as far east as Redcar. Malcolm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.214 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal experiences with the game can not be used to establish it's notability. (This would be original research.) Wikipedia is not here to further random stuff made up one day, whether in 2010 or 1874. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Fleck Gaiennie

[edit]

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

I have concerns about notability, that this is primarily a promotional page, reliability of the sources (currently just her web page and IMDB), and some concerns that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Eskimo (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no coverage about her in reliable sources. Her body of work as documented in IMDB appears to consist of a lot of uncredited roles. Those that are credited are things such as "Elvis concert goer". There is zero evidence of any significant roles at this point in her career. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have no concerns about the subject's notability; she has none. She's a professional extra. Period. Fails the GNG and WP:BIO. Ravenswing 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a working actress smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? There are more than sufficient film credits in any capacity to deserve the kind of dissing that goes on here.PsychClone —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - You are welcome to improve the article as you claim it can. I fail to see how being an extra in some movies qualifies as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11, entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sneal

[edit]

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

This is a neologism which does not seem to be in wide enough use to warrant an article: in fact, as can be seen from the reference list, it seems almost to be a proprietary term of Dr. Raymond A. Powell and his site snealtime.com. From WP:NEO: Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD and JohnCD's nomination rationale. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Effectively all the references are to this Raymond guy. Initial creator has made no other article edits outside of this page: Dr J Radcliffe (talk · contribs). OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early close. The nominator and a major contributor have rapidly come to an agreement on article merger. No-one else has expressed any opinion at all in 24 hours. It is up to the agreeing parties to enact what they agreed to. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hos-Hostigos

[edit]

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

Kruft that ought to be merged or transwikied because of it's depth and then Deleted anyone have anywhere to suggest for moving it? Sadads (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's less crufty than a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia, but it's a prime candidate to be merged to Kalvan series... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you had brought the matter to my attention personally, I could have quickly done so, but now the article has a "must not be blanked" notice on it... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was going through and doing Novels assessments, where I generally scan for inappropriate articles. How about trim and merge into the suggested series page? Would that be a good solution, Sadads (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain what I'm allowed to do right now, due to the prohibition against blanking... AnonMoos (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy withdrawal per AnonMoos's trim and merge, Sadads (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Hugh de Singleton

[edit]

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

Nothing here to pass WP:BOOK. JaGa^talk 20:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find one significant article in a Michigan newspaper about this book series and its author.[1]. I'm doubtful that this by itself is enough to show notability, but if there are some reviews in reliable sources that might change.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moderately successful mystery series: the first 2 books are in about 175 WorldCat libraries each; the third is just being published. I would normally suggest merging into an article for the author, but her seems to have written nothing else. Still checking for reviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 21:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keepe - they hath existeth in many a library across the world knowne and unknowne, seene and on some unknowne thinge called ye Internete. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 23:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic aliens

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been around for a long time yet makes unsourced or unverifiable statements almost exclusively. It has not shown one hint of improving since the last AfD in May 2007. I recommend either a redirect or a merge with Extraterrestrial hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piddle (talk • contribs)

keep although a fringe topic, so home to a reasonable amount of dubious claims, it's a notable topic. A quick check of the history shows it was much better referenced until only a few weeks ago, and the mass removal of references around then seems unwarranted, especially as the only one left was a Youtube link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was going to say delete for the lack of references, but given what you write I will postpone making up my mind on this. __meco (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See all of the sources cited in the first AFD discussion, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is, not surprisingly, a mess, but Nordics are one of the "classic" alien-types. Take your pick of one of these sources. They're also mentioned in various Skeptical Inquirer articles: [2], [3]. George Adamski's stories about Venusians even got him an entry in the American National Biography. Zagalejo^^^ 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pick the first, then. It's ISBN 9781440104718, and it spins a strange yarn of L. Ron Hubbard having Nazi connections and being contacted by Aryan UFO people. None of the potted biographies of the author indicate any qualifications apart from religious ones. And there's no indication as to where the author is getting xyr facts from, or how xe is checking them. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotta love iUniverse... OK, maybe not all of the books will work, but some of them are OK. This seems like it might have an entry on Nordics. It's from ABC-CLIO, and is written by Jerome Clark, who at least cites his sources. I'll try to pick up a copy from my library when I have a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I heard this term, wanted to know what it was, went to wikipedia and got my answer. Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? Lack of references is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for improving the article. Ariel. (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, lack of references IS grounds for deletion per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are a lot of new agey or conpiracy-related topics that most people who follow those scenes will have a ready knowledge of but which articles covering the ubject are consitently removed from Wikipedia because the subject has no coverage in reliable sources, i.e. mainstream or academic media. __meco (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I similarly heard this term and looked it up and came to wikipedia because other sites found through a search engine did not look safe. If Wikipedia guidelines are to remove such articles due to a lack of references, then maybe that Wikipedia deletion rule needs to be re-examined for alteration so as to allow this sort of article. Yes it is fringe material and yes such material is not going to ever be able to be properly referenced, but for those of us who want a safe place to find out basic info about such ideas, what better place to go than Wikipedia? And in reference to Wikipedia references policies, I would feel sorry for the 1st inventor or "the wheel" or any other first that has no precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleher (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, if there are no people who have checked their facts, subjected their work to peer review, and published it, then Wikipedia should not be giving you "basic info", because there is no trustworthy basic info to give. Giving you a bad article that is full of badly researched or even possibly just made up information is not the task of an encylopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This term is frequently mentioned in the literature and must surely be covered somewhere in some serious study on cultural theories of UFO belief/folklore. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The video game Perfect Dark deals with this kind of extraterrestrials. Niwi3 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2010 (CET)
Keep. Article was apparently the target of numerous IP vandals who removed much of the sourcing, leaving the article in a questionable state. The topic is notable enough for article inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Inappropriate AfD as a simple GBooks search would show established use of this terminology. Fæ (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ruthlessly prune non-WP:RS source material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Egypt

[edit]

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

No reliable sources in article - all to company's website. Promotional tone, seems like using WP as a vehicle for promotion. Difficult to find RSes, as "Tour Egypt" is such a general name. ǝɥʇM0N0 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as user who moved article from WP:AFC to mainspace. No reliable sources and general WP:SOAPBOX. N419 BH 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:G3 deleted by User:Elen of the Roads. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Jaime has a Digimon!

[edit]

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

Don't really know what to make of this one... methinks it might be madeup 2 says you, says two 19:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Description of article say "mii"s are the main character. These are user created profiles for the Wii game system. As such, it can be concluded that this is a fan based film that is being worked on. I am all for creativity, but Wikipedia is not the place. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Either totally madeup or someone's attempt to pass off their homemade video as a real movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian (1986 video game)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Obsidian (1986 video game)

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

~~Questionable notability, doesn't seem to be a lot of reliable sources on it.~~

Per the sources and expansion found by Someone I think this can be withdrawn. Google still has a long way to go in topics pre Internet as they have with non Anglo coverage so the fact that this game was reviewed in notable magazines of that period is sufficient. COuld still use more sources though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - First, Ive noticed a technical error - it came out in 1996, not 1986. That's the problem with no references. However, I strongly believe they are out there: [4] - Proof game is still sold (14 years later is a bit impressive), [5] - review, [6] - review, [7]- Review (but having problem accessing at work), [8] - review, [9] - interesting analysis on its commercial campaign, indicating 3 Clio awards wins and "a permanent feature on the New York Museum of Modern Art". This can be proven here [10] - search on 1997 with keyword obsidian - they did win three times for their marketing. Article can grow a ton - especially when you include their award winning marketing campaign. I am pretty confident notability is now established. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Striking commentary because it is for a different game as stated below. (However, adding notes to other pages talk page,as there is plenty that can be added to existing) Turlo Lomon (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, that's a completely different game. Someone another 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more than one game with the same name? If so please cite reliable sources and demonstrate that these are actually notable games by adding to them. It would seem Turlo s referring to Obsidian (video game) a 1996 game by Segasoft whose notability I am not questioning. Google Obsidian 1986 and the sources that turn up are exceedingly poor, so this is a valid nom.. Maybe this is because it was pre-Internet when released so sources may be in magazines.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game was reviewed in both Amtix and Amstrad Action, which scraped notability in terms of multiple reliable sources, I'll see if I can find one of the mags scanned online. Someone another 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are two reviews in Amtix, an original release and another when the game was published on budget label Americana, so there are at least 3 magazine sources out there. I don't believe Amtix has been scanned onto the net, but the complete set of Amstrad Actions have been and I've located and used their review to expand the article. Someone another 22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did manage to get hold of both issues of Amtix! after all that, they're now cited and the article has gone from a sentence or two to a decent start-class article. I would suggest withdrawing this AFD and would also ask anyone with misgivings about an article on an old videogame to consider flagging it up at the videogame project before AFD, we know our stuff. Someone another 02:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hendrix

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Monty Hendrix

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

Questionable notability; doesn't seem to be any independent media coverage on subject Jweiss11 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SOAP. Janggeom (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably the best claim to notability is the competition results. However, none of the competitions are international, so he does not appear to be competing at the top level of any of the syles he has trained in. No other sourcing is available in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no sources to indicate he is a "world renowned" as an instructor, competitor, author, or actor. His best claim to notability is his record as a competitor, but I couldn't find verification of that, either. The article's link to the AAU result doesn't work and even using the "wayback machine" I couldn't find support on old AAU websites. I did see he wasn't named to the 2002-3 AAU national taekwondo team. Even if I could find support, I don't think that achievement (some success at a single national tournament, with no championships) alone is sufficient. Astudent0 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru TV

[edit]

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

I'm not sure if there is a specific notability guideline for TV channels, but this certainly does not meet the general notability guidelines. All I have been able to find are press releases by the company, but there has been no independent coverage, apart from this rehash of a press release, so far as I can tell. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject company claim the article contains errors, despite its brevity, and as SmartSE notes, we lack the sources to verify or remedy that. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jab se you have loved me

[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK ttonyb (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to meet WP:BK#Criteria. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The Eskimo (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonnotable webcontent, likely g3 hoax, article on (14-year-old) director deleted as a7 for lack of assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamer (2010 film)

[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ttonyb1. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, no evidence of notability. (Note: the author of the article has a history of creating articles with no evidence of notability, several of which have been deleted, and others are subject to AfD now. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Rooster: Star Trek and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty (2010 film).) All or most of these articles relate to Project Rooster, the article on which was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project rooster. This looks very much like advertising.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as yet another Project rooster G3 hoax. ALso suggest deletion of the fake DVD covers the author created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonnotable webcontent, likely g3 hoax, article on (14-year-old) director deleted as a7 for lack of assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty (2010 film)

[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, doesn't even have an IMDB listing. Based on the DVD cover it may be an unauthorized derivative work purporting to be based on the Call of Duty video game series--the cover says, "the famous game turns into a feature film series". (Numerous news sources can be found discussing the possible production of a film based on the video gane, but none of them mention this no-budget project or its creative personnel.) As such, maybe this should be a candidate for speedy delete, although I am not sure if it fits any of the specific criteria. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, no evidence of notability. (Note: the author of the article has a history of creating articles with no evidence of notability, several of which have been deleted, and others are subject to AfD now. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Rooster: Star Trek and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreamer (2010 film).) All or most of these articles relate to Project Rooster, the article on which was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project rooster. This looks very much like advertising.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unsourced and the alleged DVD cover has numerous typographic errors. Looks to be nothing more than a hoax.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as another Project rooster G3 hoax. "Thomas Gardner films" does not exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia,[11] nor does Project rooster. The photoshop work on creating his DVD cover is quite creative... but reflects wishful thinking and not reality. And yes, while there were reports in 2009 that Activision/Blizzard was considering a film called based upon the video game and to be called Call of Duty,[12] THIS article is not it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3, hoax. There's no such film outside Wikipedia, I couldn't find any reliable sources to prove its existence. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Cooley (album)

[edit]

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

Album that never charted, no real coverage of it, non-notable artist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Cooley Gigs (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable album of non-notable artist. Fails WP:NALBUM. Goodvac (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RiskRank

[edit]

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

May not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:CORP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nomination. Unremarkable company / website. No signficant coverage. Also worth noting link with Shannon Burchett who is connected with the company and also up for AfD. --Simple Bob (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. This isn't even a company, the company is called "Risk Limited Corporation" the page for the company was speedied, the page for their CEO is listed at AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Larry's Retro Corner

[edit]

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

Host's article was deleted for lack of notability; and I'm not seeing any individual notability for the show. This was bundled into the host's AFD, but kept as no-consensus due to no one addressing the show notability in the host's afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just a segment in another show (excluding, from what I understand, the 15 min highlights programme). No evidence of notability. If we delete this, can I ask that we employ common sense and delete List of Guru Larry's Retro Corner episodes with it. Thanks. —Half Price 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, it is currently a full show on Information TV Airing on Sky, Freeview and Freesat. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even assert notability aside from the totally uncited "popular" in the first sentence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Chart and optionally merge some of the information not already in the main article. Can't see any evidence of notability independent of the show it spun off from. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chart is also at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, redirect if The Chart survives, delete if it doesn't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I thought this was to be kept? there are several notable links in there, from press releases from GamesPress.com amongst others. Not to mention the show is still on Sky TV, Freesat and Freeview airing on Information TV --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also to quote Wiki Admin, User:FT2...
"Guru Larry's Retro Corner - No consensus - default to keep without prejudice to any future discussion.
The article here is much better founded. The series lasted, there are cites in the article, there is a visible reason why it might be notable. There is almost no discussion at this AFD either to show any consensus to delete. "
This article was defaulted to keep as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr--FirecrackerDemon (talk) So why are you asking to have this deleted again Hammer? 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the phrase "without prejudice to future discussion". This is the future discussion, and this article will stay or go depending on the outcome of this discussion. Previous AfDs never tie the hands of future AfDs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the same person can put up an AfD the day after? (like what has happened here) That hardly seems a reasonable action.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The previous discussion was closed with the observation that this article was being discussed. Now we're discussing it. Why should we have to wait an arbitrary amount of time to discuss the notability of an article we didn't properly discuss last time? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems like a loophole for someone with a personal vendetta to abuse Etc.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loopholes avoid rules, and I don't understand which rule you think the nominator is avoiding. The only rule you seem to think has been evaded is a rule against nominating the same article for deletion twice, and as I and others have pointed out, that is considered perfectly legitimate. I should warn you that if you are trying to save this article, you are going about it the wrong way. People have previously turned AfDs around by making a good case for notability which persuades other people to change their mind. But when the defence is simply claiming you're not allowed to nominate the article for deletion, that tactic (along with abuse and arbitrary claims of grandeur) usually stops most people listening. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, would information from Information TV's website suffice as notability? (as the show airs on several of their channels on Sky/freeview now. I believe press releases exist on GamesPress.com and also many articvles on places like ThatGurWithTheGlasses.com, ScrewAttack.com, Retroware TV as well. Also uploaded videos on YouTube of episodes.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several refrences to TV networks it currently airs on, as well as several websites.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources added by Firecracker were primary sources. Still doesn't cut it for notability IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't know how more notable a programming schedule from a website owned by the on of, if not THE largest Non-Sky owned satellite company in Europe I can possibly get then. It airs on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses too, a site that was voted on for an AfD itself, but deemed notable enough to keep. So Ergo... --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is your answer. Just because X is closely associated with notable Y doesn't mean X is notable in its own right. Note that none of the individual TGWTG personalities has a page here, because none of them has sufficient standalone notability. Not even the Nostalgia Critic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bundy Jr Had one for well over a year and Spoony's has merged to be more about himself, as with Doug Walker. But my first comment about considering one of the largest Satelitte broadcasters in Europe to be noteable still stands. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on a comment above ("I don't know how more notable a programming schedule from a website owned by the on of, if not THE largest Non-Sky owned satellite company in Europe I can possibly get then"). A program doesn't become notable by being listed on a large station - for much the same reason a word isn't necessarily significant for being in a large dictionary. "Big channel" or "big TV company" doesn't necessarily mean the programs listed on it gained notice from the wider world, and that's the issue notability is looking at. We're trying to assess the quality and extent of attention it got in reliable sources independent of the topic. Its hosting company or broadcaster is not independent, and their mentions of it are not because the wider world took notice but because they want the wider world to take notice - a big difference. Look for evidence it got significant coverage (in the sense of atention, not market size) in other credible published sources that are independent of its makers and broadcasters, or awards, or special mentions, or the like, that's much more the kind of question that helps. You might find the guidance in the introduction here helpful (including the text in the "collapse box"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help (also for the article) I'll have a look around, see what I can come up with. I'd have liked to have put it up as notable for being the world's first full Retro gaming TV show, but I'm going to have great difficulty proving as there's no "first" lists Etc. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy cutting tools

[edit]

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

Non-notable product, advertising. WP:N, WP:NOT, etc. Just appears to be some brand-name safety cutter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a commercial link. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Defense Industries

[edit]

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

pure unadulterated spam, COI article created by company president WuhWuzDat 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does nothing to show how the company meets WP:CORP, pretty thinly-veiled buzzword-laden WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely-English advertising: developed strategic partnerships with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to integrate UAS platforms into routine law enforcement operations. ...creating a fully-autonomous, fangs-out airborne support unit for police departments... provides sophisticated and covert eyes-on-target capabilities to SWAT and other law enforcement teams ... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. The article will be Kept (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Spoony Experiment episodes

[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this page is warranted. The Spoony Experiment itself is only just notable. This page is not much more than a list of links, bordering on SPAM. —Half Price 16:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can understand episode lists for TV series, but for a web series it's really stretching it. Also, spammy spam is spammy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into parent article. I see no distinction between series based purely on medium; there is nothing that make a series more or less worthy of a list of episodes just because it is watched through a television or a computer monitor. If direct links are an issue, they can be edited out. I can also update them to the standard episode list format and add more information if necessary (assuming keep or merge is the final decision). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't make it clear that I also find this page guilty of LISTCRUFT. I believe it is 'a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' and is 'unencyclopaedic'. —Half Price 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that those apply to this list. List item criteria is quite clear, the subject is notable, the items are verifiable, everything is neutral. Episode lists of notable series are generally considered "encyclopaedic." What is wrong with this list? Why is this list different? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't agree that just because The Spoony Experiment exists then this should. It's just a list of links - no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. —Half Price 11:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty discriminate to me: it relates directly to another article and its content is limited to (a) The Spoony Experiment show and (b) the episodes thereof. The list is bound by the selection criteria evoked by the list's title. It isn't likely to expand widely out of control or start including random material. More than that, it's not just a list of links; it's a list of episode names, order, release dates and content - that is to say, a standard encyclopaedic episode list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All shows that are notable, have a list article listing their episodes. This is ALWAYS done. Dream Focus 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chukchi, a disambiguation page covering the people, the language, and the peninsula named after them. The existing content remains in history; no need to delete anything that I can see here. This seemed the obvious Right Thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chukchee

[edit]

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

Article already exist

hello,

I'm nominating this article for deletion, because it is a synonym of "Chuchi people", and this page already exist. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis James

[edit]

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

This is an elaborate hoax, which has been maintained for two years by four SPA editors and a number of IPs, though in April an IP tried to blank it with edit summary "This whole page is a fake"; unfortunately he was reverted as a vandal and no one checked the article. Congratulations to another IP who yesterday wrote on the talk page "Guys, this is all made up... ", and to Utcursch who added a hoax tag, both these additions being promptly removed by an IP.

The references that work are from GATFXC.com, which records high-school track and field results. They date from 2009 and 2010, and show a non-notable high-school athlete finishing 51st, 123rd, and anywhere from 4th to 131st. All the detail about his early spectacular professional career, 17 gold medals, sponsorship deals etc. is fantasy - the sources are deadlinks, and my searches find only stuff based on Wikipedia mirrors. It is inconceivable that so starry a career would have left no trace online. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are able to find any sources from newspapers or such about his high school career, why not just edit his page to be a High School athlete? OmniousOK (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not likely that a high school athlete will be notable enough to have an article - see WP:ATH#Athletics/Track & Field and long-distance running for the standard. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought I latched on to a good thing here. I saw some old Washington Post articles for this subject and thats one of the reasons I edited it so religiously. I agree with all thats said here though, and to be honest those IP edits did do some damage in my opinion. OmniousOK (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax -- the achievements seems to be made up. Even if the guy is a real athlete, he's not notable. utcursch | talk 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I'm very skeptical of the claim that the subject became a professional track and field athlete at the age of 9. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A whole host of evidence, on-wiki and off-wiki, has led me to suspect that the single-purpose account OmniousOK (talk · contribs) is in fact this article's creator and sole editor. See also Reginald James (AfD discussion) for prior related AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 5k cross country time of 19 min (which appaers in valid source) is slow for claimed 100m and 200m times. Age and birthdate are incompatible with claimed pro record. Racepacket (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Independent of the result in the relevant SPI case, this reeks hoax bigtime. Explain to me (being involved in track & field IRL) how you conceivably go from 49.97 (which would be an outstanding high school time) in the 400m in 2007 down to the high 50s in 2009. Explain how this athlete goes from 2:09.58 in the 800m to 2:17 in 2009 and 2:30 in 2010; while I'm at it, how is it possible to run a 52.9 in the 400m and then run 2:30 in the 800m? It makes no sense whatsoever. I also question the validity of File:Curtis James 2009.jpg; the summary says he's "leading the pack" in a cross country race with a 3 1/2-second lead. Where is the rest of the pack, then? If the pack is not shown in that picture, then he either has a commanding lead or is dead last. –MuZemike 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo and caption are highly suspicious. Racepacket (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the note about off-wiki evidence in the SPI case for more on the various images. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good reasons to doubt this is genuine have been explained above, and the only sources are highly dubious and not suitable as the basis for a BLP. Sources do not support notability per WP:ATHLETE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Considering the number of SPAs involved and the length of their involvement, suggest Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion on the context of the article should be made on it's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I endorse this close. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

[edit]

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

This article is in violation of the policy Biographies of living persons. This article was not written to be truly about the lawsuit mentioned and is a Coatrack [WP: COAT] ( This particular lawsuit was filed March 3, 1992 and dismissed only 3 months later on May 27, 1992 and did not even go through the pleading process; this lawsuit is insignificant and as written only serves to damage a living person.)

This article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations made in 1991 about a living person, which allegations were later proven to be untrue and the truth was published in numerous well respected media outlets: |The Boston Globe, ABC, Time Magazine, LA Daily News, Business Wire. The false allegations were made during a 1991 broadcast of a CBS 60 Minutes program, and when the truth came out CBS took the unusual and appropriate action of repudiating the broadcast and removing the tape and transcript from public access: “The ‘60 Minutes’ segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: ‘This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.’” The Believer. In light of the reliable published sources, this article is inaccurate and damaging to a living person, and I request that this article be deleted.

As interesting background information, this editor does seem to have a history of violating [Biographies of living persons] and [Neutral point of view] specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. This edit history shows that his NPOV on this living person, and related topics, spans a plethora of articles where he is the single biggest contributor: http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Est_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture 80% of the edits (211) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Outrageous_Betrayal 80% of the edits (273) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/The_Hunger_Project 38% of the edits (220) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard 26% of the edits (434) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/EST_training 27% of the edits (244) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard_and_Associates 38% of the edits (144) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard 38% of the edits (70)

It is concerning and against WP:BLP for an editor to continue to publish inflammatory and damaging statements while fully aware that there are numerous published reliable sources that refute those statements. I respectfully request this article be deleted based on WP:BLP violations. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's subject satisfies WP:NOTE. The nominator's concerns have been already raised and addressed, point-by-point, at the article's talk page ([13] [14] [15] [16]). The nominator is exhibiting behavior similar to that of Spacefarer (talk · contribs), who was warned for spurious nominations of multiple AFDs on this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am of course aware of Cirt's response to my comments on the Talk page of the article and my opinion is that in no way are they a satisfactory answer to my concerns. For the sake of clarifiacion, I would like to point ou that I did not propose this Deletion on the grounds of lack of notability - I proposed it because it is a clear abuse of Wikipedia to damage the reputation of a Living Person by propagating defamatory allegations which have since been acknowledged as being unsound and unjustified. DaveApter (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Note also the links above to six reliable sources in the media reporting on the unsoundness of the material in the 60 minutes program.DaveApter (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given what is being dicussed here, I hardly think my suggestions were spurious. Spacefarer (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, in response to "this article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations, which were later proven to be untrue": read WP:V! The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. —bender235 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has neglected to mention that I am the single most prolific contributor to Wikipedia of quality-rated-content on this topic. This includes one Featured Article (Getting It: The Psychology of est) and multiple Good Articles (Mork Goes Erk, Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, Outrageous Betrayal, Werner Erhard (book), est and The Forum in popular culture). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cirt as usual, has created a Fine Article with a plethora of diverse sources establishing Notability and to Boot 60 minutes segements on it. Also Concerned about Open COI on the nom part (though I applaud his decency on being open about). If the Nominator has concerns about WP:COATRACK then the solution is to make it NPOV. However Cirt has once again created a Neutral (From my POV at least.) It is not an Attack page or Coatrack in my opinion. Also may i Note the stats you have cited are accuate but its worth noting that EST-Popculture, Outrageous Betrayal are both GA having gone through some form of Peer review and been promoted as Neutral and Factually accurate. YOu have also failed to provide any evidence Cirt violating [Biographies of living persons] and [Neutral point of view] specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. Please bring up such accuastions on the appropriate notice board as mudslinging here is counter proudcitve. Also you Cirts edits at Werner Heart seem to mostly be reverting vandalism and such [17]. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good and notable to me. Quite an important incident in it's own way. Not a coatrack at all. If the proposer states that it is out of date because there have been subsequent decisions made about the broadcast, then by all means up-date the article - with appropriate sources of course. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the references provided in the article, I have to disagree with the nominator that the lawsuit is "insignificant". It appears to have received wide coverage in major publications, which is not surprising given the prominence of the plaintiff. 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Obviously notable. If there are issues with the content which can be demonstrated with reference to verifiable sources then those issues should be hashed out on the article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate EST articles; the lawsuit (which never resulted in a decision or precedent) isn't independently notable per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. No reason to fork this off from Landmark Education litigation. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson. THF (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Erhard is not part of Landmark Education (from a quick scan of the articles, they bought his est thingie), and this case did not involve Landmark Education. That would be reason enough not to merge this with that article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:PERSISTENCE. It has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, a decade or so after the conclusion of the lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge with Werner Erhard or rename the Landmark Education litigation article to EST and Landmark Education litigation or some other appropriate title. The only non-contemporary sources discussing the lawsuit do so only in the context of articles about Erhard, so I disagree with the WP:PERSISTENCE claim. And more than half of the sources in the article appear to be violations of WP:SYN. THF (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), it would be an inappropriate merge, because of the attempts by the subsequent company to differentiate itself from the former and its founder - I would imagine this AFD's nominator would also object to those two being conflated together. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)3[reply]

Fair enough. Right now, it's a WP:POVFORK from Werner Erhard, though. The article is really about the Sixty Minutes expose of Erhard (the material from Boing Boing in the lede has nothing to do with the subject of the article). The material is notable enough to be included in the Erhard article, and once it's in there, there's no reason for a standalone article about the particular lawsuit. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others at this AFD page, myself included, respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. Background is necessary to understand the context of the lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anyone disagree with my assessment other than you. I see WP:ILIKEIT. There's clearly COATRACK: a 21st-century controversy at Boing Boing has nothing to do with a 1991 lawsuit. There's clearly POVFORK: the question remains why this isn't mentioned in Werner Erhard. If that article neutrally included the relevant information from this article (as I think it should), this article would be a complete duplicate. As it is, this article is doomed to be an orphan. THF (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information belongs in both places, this article and of course at Werner Erhard. If you feel so inclined, you may wish to attempt adding some sourced material to the Werner Erhard page, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually question. Is there a specific notability guideline for legal cases?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; Wikipedia:Notability (law) was rejected, so it falls back to WP:GNG. – iridescent 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Nakon 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an encyclopedia, and it is a noteworthy piece of history. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat Erhard's Streisand effect. WP:RS and WP:V, and then a host of other dispute mediation services are the directions this should take. The article appears to adhere to WP:BLP. If it lacks sourced refutations of the allegations, then these should be added to it. AfD is not - in my view - a place to settle content disputes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article does indeed contain sourced refutations of the allegations, see sect, Aftermath - and my point-by-point responses at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above claims by DaveApter (talk · contribs) are frivolous. This was a lawsuit brought by Erhard himself - which resulted in all allegations being dismissed. The only people who could have been "defamed" by this were the defendants. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added a short summary of this article to the article at Werner Erhard, see diff, we will see if that remains in that article or if it gets removed by WP:SPAs. In any event, this article is too large to be merged there. Best to just link back here for more details, using ((Main)) template. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content added to the subjects BLP is plenty. Minor legal issue not worthy of an article, bloated report about a barely notable issue related to Scientology. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes notability. Most of the objections can be handled by appropriate changes to the nominated article and related articles. The article is eminently readable, which, though not a justification for inclusion on Wikipedia, is still remarkably refreshing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is against WP:BLP to repeat unsubstantiated allegations, and that is what this article appears to be written to do. The legal case itself encompasses very little of this article, as there is not much to say about the case itself. Also as user THF points out above, more than half of the sources in this article are violations of WP:SYN. The allegations are unsubstantiated, have been refuted in reliable publications, and they were withdrawn from public record by the party responsible for presenting them in the first place. This was dealt with in the Werner Erhard article where editors determined that it was a violation to repeat unsubstantiated allegations in a biography about a living person WP:BLP. What is in the article is the one clear fact, which is that CBS removed the video and transcripts from their archives.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — MLKLewis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: MLKLewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic - including copyright violation and plagiarism, see [18]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making this about other editors. I got tired of looking at Cirt's comments on my talk page. Here is my talk page for anyone who want to see it to look at. The serious issue to be addressed here is that this article is a WP:Coatrack that violates WP:BLP.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but other users disagree with those assessments about the article ([19] [20] [21]). -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. MLK: where is the discussion in which editors "determined" that it was a violation to repeat unsubstantiated allegations in a BLP article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are this: 1) Erhard filed to dismiss his own lawsuit. 2) One of his daughters, Celeste Erhard, said in another lawsuit (that was also dismissed) that she exaggerated some statements. 3) No one else from the 60 Minutes broadcast recanted their statements. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bbb23 -- notability is not a problem here, and any other problems can be dealt with in the usual way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With that many sources, it's clearly a notable topic. Lawsuits don't have to go to trial to be significant. Will Beback talk 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stub and rewrite entirely. The topic is clearly notable but the current entry is the poster-boy of WP:COATRACK. A NPOV version of this could be 1/10 of the size.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable lawsuit in American defamation law. It seems not to have affected The Forum long-term, as I personally know three friends who have attended it. Not a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what basis do you claim that this is a "notable lawsuit in American defamation law"? Can you identify a single book about defamation law or defamation court case that has cited to this case? THF (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that you mention it, no, I can't ID a single law school textbook that features the case. The problem is that hornbooks feature almost exclusively appellate cases, and cases that are ended at the trial level hardly ever make it into such books. But that does not infer that it's a non-notable case. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A case that is never noted seems to be the very epitome of a non-notable case. THF (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, I added some material, and added the information to the lead that Erhard's daughters subsequently retracted the allegations, and that CBS was reported to have withdrawn the program due to factual discrepancies: given the seriousness of the allegations, it seemed incompatible with BLP policy not to have that info in the lead. --JN 466 05:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eminently enyclopedic. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. This article is not a "conspiracy to defame him." (ironic quote from article) Rather, it cites events and a law suit that had significant coverage and the accusations were "factual discrepancies".--NortyNort (Holla) 09:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have started a new section on the talk page to discuss the WP:COATRACK issues on the entry. As I voted above, I think the entry should be kept, but it needs serious reworking. Please join the discussion here: Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo (talk · contribs) is repeating himself. AFD is not for cleanup. Multiple users above agree the article is high quality, not pov, not "coatrack", see ([22] [23] [24]). -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of those address the COATRACK concern. How many people have really delved into the content of the entry? I'm inviting people who want it kept, like myself, to get into the content a bit more and to address some of the concerns brought out by the nominator and "delete" voters. What's wrong with that?Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) at the article's talk page, that "cleanup" type concerns should be addressed, after the AFD has run its course. -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether cleanup is done now or later, the scope of AfD is deleting articles: and clearly this article is not going to be deleted. It only remains to close this AfD and get on with the content discussion on the article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment by Tagishsimon (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the first attempt by this editor to create coatrack articles to air these allegations. see Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#Coatrack_or_not.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveApter (talk • contribs)
Keep - The only coatrack I see here is this AfD being filed as an apparent attack against another editor, as half the nomination is more about that editor rather than the article. The subject matter is clearly notable and widely covered by reliable sources, and makes quite clear that that CBS later deemed the material to be inaccurate, to the point where they withdrew the claims and no longer make the show or transcript available. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the facts you present about CBS are being hotly contested by the very editor I presume you are referring to. I point this fact out because the situation is not as simple as all that. That said I'm all for closing this as keep so we can get back to fixing the entry, as it is notable but not without problems. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge This article is an issue regarding WP:BLP. Spacefarer (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC) — Spacefarer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This user was previously blocked for socking on this very topic, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was NOT blocked for socking. I had two accounts, editing in different areas, and have this one account now. It seems like your edits often follow in a similar manner as this comment, trying to connect things that are not connected and to turn them into something that is false. Spacefarer (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See block log for User:Spacefarer, the block edit summary reads: "Abusing multiple accounts: please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway". Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the apparent issues with SPAs here, this article satisfies its notability requirements. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep has it been covered in multiple reliable sources? Yes, so fix the perceived POV/coatrack issues, not AfD it. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is incredibly well sourced and does not violate NPOV. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator is jumping to several conclusions regarding the motives of the article's creator, and such speculation is not grounds for deletion. Do I myself think that the article may be too long, and that maybe it might not warrant a separate article? To a degree, yeah. Do I think the same thing about almost half the articles I see around here, many/most of which aren't nominated for deletion? Yeah. So, my opinion don't count for much. It meets WP:N, and that is pretty much the only point I can see to delete it. Maybe, in time, it could be merged into some other article, but this probably is not the place to discuss such things. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it's obvious to me that the purpose behind filing this AfD was not to get the article deleted: there was never any prospect of that, as the nom must have known. Instead it seems the intention was to get attention focused on the article, so that other editors would see the problems (ostensible or otherwise) the nom perceives and get involved with editing the article. Now, there's nothing wrong with more people paying attention to the article. But I think AfD has been misused to this effect. If the nom wants the article to get attention, he should use the relevant noticeboards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge -- I know that most people are voting to keep this article. Taken alone it appears to be noteable, but as the nominator point out, it seems to be a huge WP:Coatrack article. The creator of the article, Cirt, has written so many articles on the topic, it does raise the question "Why else would they create this big of an article over something that was legal non-event?" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment was canvassed for appearance to this AFD, by MLKLewis (talk · contribs), who already voted in a similar "delete" fashion, above. Please see diff link. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It seems like this should be merged into the Werner Erhard article. Alternatively, Griswaldo's idea about rewriting it from the ground up is also a good one. The subject passes notability, and at the same time, do we really need to know what Boing Boing says 20 years later, not even about the lawsuit, but about the transcript of the broadcast? I suspect this article was created to further a particular point of view, and anything about the broadcast or the lawsuit should be written carefully to make sure it's entirely fair - this is obviously critical when strong claims are presented about a living person. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has received a warning from an admin for disruptive behavior on this subject matter, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of what relevance is that? The AfD is for making arguments about the article not for casting aspersions. I find this comment completely improper and ask that you please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goes to a disturbing chronic history of

Confirmed socking and meatpuppeting that has gone on at this particular topic of Werner Erhard/Landmark Education for years, see checkuser-confirmed socking from numerous different accounts, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nwlaw63 socking here? Are they voting on the behalf of someone else? Unless you have proof of procedural wrongdoing these issues are not relevant to the AfD and you should be reminded to comment on content and not on editors.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it might well be reasonable to raise such issues here. Remembering that this is not a debate, or a vote, it may in at least some cases be reasonable to raise points regarding a history of disruptive edits regarding similar content, up to and including sockpuppetry. I acknowledge some people are more active in AfD than I am, but indicating to the person who will ultimately close the AfD and make the final decision that there have been concerns regarding the behavior of editors in related content might be appropriate. I might myself wish for a fewer of them in this particular instance, but this discussion does seem to be attracting a lot of the "regular ~~suspects~~ editors" of this topic, and if there have been concerns of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, collusion, or whatever, in related matters before regarding some of them, indicating that to the closer seems to me a reasonable thing to do. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved response to User talk:John Carter, so as not to do what I'm criticizing others of doing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a (presently) brief discussion of this article on Jimbo's talk page here. --JN 466 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Cirt has started making a series of improvements to the article that directly address the issues raised by others. There are also discussions ongoing about further improvements of this nature, proposed by Cirt. People may wish to reconsider the entry in its current state. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Griswaldo (talk · contribs), for the kind comments about my efforts to improve the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okefenokee Oar

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This new sports trophy for the winner of the Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic is not notable enough for its own article. Right now, the text includes only a short rehash of the series history plus a single paragraph about the trophy and its origin.

Delete. Following this discussion, info on the trophy was merged into the main article about the rivalry and expanded a bit. Accordingly, the stub article on the trophy itself should now be deleted, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note I'd forgotten about the deletion discussion last year, when the trophy was first introduced. There was no consensus to delete it, as several users sensibly suggested that it was new and may turn out to be notable and important. However, mentions of the trophy in just its second season were practically nil. A quick news search covering the past month (which includes a couple weeks before and after this year's FLA-UGA game) returned only 2 hits - one of which rehashed the introduction stories from the previous year and another which opined that the series needed a trophy for the winner and dismissed the Oar as inadequate. That's it. I couldn't find any mention of the trophy actually being displayed or presented in 2010. Zeng8r (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "Okefenokee Oar" article duplicates most of the content of the "Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic" article. Meaningful content and sources from the Oar article have already been merged into the Classic article. The Oar has no notoriety and serves no purpose outside the immediate context of the game, and does not merit a separate article that only leads to duplicate content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is actually more information on the Oar in the article on the rivalry. Most of the article in the Oar article is information on the rivalry for background. Borock (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and the main article now includes a photo of the actual thing. Still, all of the cite-able info on the trophy and its history is just a single paragraph long. I don't see how it could be reasonably expanded into a full article, especially considering the lack of any additional sources. Zeng8r (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Neutral. Florida-Georgia is one of the premier rivalries in college football. Trophies associated with college football's significant rivalries (most less signficant than Georgia-Florida) are acknowledged to be notable. See, e.g., Paul Bunyan Trophy, Paul Bunyan's Axe, Little Brown Jug (football), Old Oaken Bucket, Floyd of Rosedale, Florida Cup, Telephone Trophy, Iron Skillet, Slab of Bacon, Apple Cup, Peace Pipe, Platypus Trophy, Jeweled Shillelagh, Steel Tire, Land Grant Trophy, Old Brass Spittoon, Sweet Sioux Tomahawk and Fremont Cannon. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, we're not crusading deletionists. We're Florida Gators football fans and active CFB editors who are saying this thing doesn't merit its own page; it now has its own three-sentence paragraph and photo in the main rivalry article. That seems about right. There isn't much else to say about it, separate and apart from duplicating the rivalry information already provided in the main rivalry article. It was made from a 1,000-year-old cypress, it's been around for two years, and it's been awarded twice. We have to judge it on its own merits, not as part of the larger group of well-established and clearly notable trophies. BTW, of those awards you listed above, the Platypus Trophy sounds a little shaky, too. I mean it went missing for 40 years, and nobody missed it? LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my "Keep" vote in light of Dirtlawyer's comments. The Florida-UGA rivalry is clearly notable, and if the Gator-Bullodg fans are comfortable having the oar, the cocktail party, and the rivalry covered in one article, I don't oppose. I assume there would be a redirect set up so that anyone interested in the Oar would be directed to a subsection in the main rivalry article dealing with the trophy? Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Floyd of Rosedale is my personal favorite among the trophies ... although if they came up with a better design, the Slab of Bacon might even surpass Floyd. Cbl62 (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally off topic - The Slab of Bacon could have BEEN the original Floyd. You just think about that, lol... Zeng8r (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without question the game and the teams and the rivalry are all notable. However, the "oar" itself (i.e. the trophy) is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida vs. Georgia Football Classic. The Florida-Georgia article now contains more cited information than the "Okefenokee Oar" article, but it's a plausible search term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariza Ikonomi

[edit]

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

A non-noteworthy Eurovision competitor. Only made it to the final round for the country, but did not win. Losing country-level finalists for Eurovision usually do not have articles unless they are otherwise notable. Gigs (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:In my opinion she passes WP:ARTIST. She was the youngest ever interpreter in the Festival of Albania (only 12), earned first prize in a panBalkanic children festival, and has earned multiple other prizes according to the article in the Albanian wikipedia. --Sulmuesi (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above by Sulmuesi --Vinie007 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I too think that she passes WP:ARTIST. Cheers, — Kedaditalk 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the articles in every other language, and every one of them was completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should not base a Keep vote based on unsourced information in other language Wikipedias. If any of you have some reliable sources about her, then you should add some to the article, even if they are not English. Gigs (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UKGameshows.com

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article subject is merely about a non-notable game show fansite that is not affiliated with the production of any television program. Fails WP:GNG. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria states that a site is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and states that coverage must be more than "trivial coverage" (i.e., newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site all constitute "trivial coverage"). UKgameshows.com fails to meet these guidelines since the links from Yahoo and the Times in the Recognition section of the article that mention UKGameshows.com match the description for "trivial coverage." Sottolacqua (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I broadly agree with the outcome of the last AfD. Coverage from The Times, Yahoo's top five finds on the web, and the various mentions that show up in Google Books, combined with the longevity of the site, is enough for me. The fact that it is not affiliated with any television programme is neither here nor there, because notability is not inherited. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Yahoo link within the article is an anecdotal mention at best. News-specific search returns nothing. A simple Google search for the term ukgameshows.com results in only trivial mentions outside of the site itself. Longevity of a fansite is not criteria that should be used when voting for/against deletion. There are likely hundreds of fanpages for foo that have been around for 10 years that do not have articles here. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Yahoo mention is analogous to the long-standing precedent that awards from notable bodies count towards notability. In this case, this is one of five TV-related sites listed for an annual award from one of the leading companies that searches web content. Lack of hits on Google/GNews does not invalidate the evidence of notability from sites already referenced in the article. And yes, longevity alone is not evidence of notability, but combined with third-party coverage elsewhere this helps separate the notable pages from the WP:NOTNEWS pages. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One sentence fragment mention on a "finds of the year" page is not the same as "third-party coverage", nor does it match "Significant coverage" in WP:N. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why can't it? The 100m world record is only a one-sentence mention in the Guinness Book of Records, but no-one would call that trivial coverage. The point is that a reputable source that goes out of its way to shortlist a web page carries more weight (in my opinion) then a passing mention in a news story. People have different opinions on what counts as significant coverage, and the purpose of these discussions is to collect opinions on whether the coverage is sufficient to qualify as significant. My opinion is that it is (when you combine all the individual sources), your opinion is that it isn't, but neither of us have the right to invalidate the other's opinion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The 100m dash is a standard track & field event in thousands of meets as well as Olympic trials and events. An incredibly brief barely noticeable mention of ukgameshows.com is not at the same level of notability as appearing in the Guinness Book of World Records, and a record-holder appearing in such is already covered by WP:ATHLETE. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But that exactly proves my point. You have argued a case why brief coverage in a source can be considered notable depending on the circumstances. I am doing the same for the Yahoo picks coverage. Yes, it's not as strong a case as the Guiness Book of records, but neither is is a slight mention in paragraph 14 of a slightly notable weblog. We judge notability on the context of the coverage too, not just the number of words written about it. Also, category 2 of WP:WEB allows a website to be notable if it receives an award, and yes, it was only a shortlist of one a five websites, but combined with the other third-party coverage I think it's enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ATHLETE specifically confirms notability for inclusion if the subject "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria states that a site is notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and states that coverage must be more than "trivial coverage" (i.e., newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site all constitute "trivial coverage"). The links from Yahoo and the Times that mention ukgameshows.com match the description for "trivial coverage." Sottolacqua (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Except that you are citing I different criterion to the one I raised. Yahoo falls under criterion 2, which says "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Okay, the award isn't that well-known, but it is an independent award from a very major web organisation, and The Times article makes up for the shortcomings. My opinion is that The Times article goes beyond a brief summary of the content (indeed it describes the site as the most popular site of this genre) and that and the Yahoo award between them are enough. You are entitled to your opinion that it does count as trivial coverage, but that's exactly what it is: an opinion, however many words you bold and italicise. Dogmatic interpretation of notability guidelines to prove a point is not helpful. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Affiliation with any game show is unnecessary. It is a web site that covers game shows, and the accolades in the recognition section of the article show that the site is a notable website. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my comments, I'm focusing on this line in the article:

The website has been cited in UK newspapers including The Guardian [25] and The Times [26].

The piece in The Times is only three paragraphs; however, it was a stand-alone piece and not three paragraphs within a larger piece. The mention in The Guardian is a little trickier, because it's only one line within this context:

But who would that be? Who could possibly fill Richard's large and capable shoes? (If anyone could have capable shoes, it was Richard.) We were, frankly, on tenterhooks for the entire summer - until last weekend, when it was revealed exclusively in the Mirror that Des Lynam was being set up to don Whiteley's mantle. Des Lynam? We thought? Really? The reliable source of game show production gossip, ukgameshows.com, had a C4 source calling the article "complete speculation", but on Monday, the story seemed to be confirmed by the Yorkshire Post - and when have they ever been wrong?^{[emphasis added]}

Yes, quantitatively, that's a trivial mention in The Guardian. Qualitatively, however, it's showing that they (or at least that writer for The Guardian) hold the site in enough respect that they'd consult it as a source for gossip. Accordingly, I stand by my assessment that coverage showing the significance of the website has been presented in the article; I also stand by my assessment as being within the spirit of the notability guidelines and not in defiance of them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The Guardian link merely references UKGameshows's existence as a source of gossip and it's use of a message board as a reference for a story published there, and even calls into question the site's balking at a rumor that later turned out to be true. The Times article is akin to a human interest story and mentions that the webmaster provides a summary of some game show episodes. These do not validate the "Significant coverage" requirements wp:notability requires for inclusion. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sotto's analysis of the sources: they are clearly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOS Logistics

[edit]

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

NN airline - if indeed it ever existed. The only reliable sources I can find refer to it as a planned project. It is lists is a couple of lists, but there seems to be no coverage/sources to prove that this airline ever existed or if it ever did, whether or not it still does Travelbird (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as this airline fails WP:CORP (no significant, reliable third-party coverage). I've added a source that claims that FOS Logistics existed between 2004 and 2006, but there is nothing to be found concerning the extent of its flight operations, leaving the airline with a very low encyclopedic relevance. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kharkov Klezmer Band

[edit]

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

This is an article I originally created a good while ago, before I really had much experience of WP:RS, and it has been recently updated by someone else. However, looking at it again, I'm not convinced it satisfies the notability guidelines, so I thought I should bring it here to see what the consensus says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've edited the article again and filled out some information, I hope others agree it comes up to notaiblity standard now. I will add some more information tomorrow as well. Thanks, --Cata-girl (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Good faith nomination on behalf of IP 212.20.248.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who prodded the page even though it is ineligible due to previous AfD. Rationale is "most of these are made up records, largely unsourced, and does any one really care anyway?" —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that this subject may be notable, the article as it stands now is almost completely unreferenced, and it goes into a ridiculous amount of detail that easily violates WP:TRIVIA (for example, separate lines for receptions in a 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 season period). Additionally, I question the reliability of the one source cited in the article. Unless all the indiscriminate info is trimmed down and/or cited to a reliable source, I say delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazing records, but WP is not a sports database. I'm sure the most important are already given in his article. An external link could be provided there to some site which gives a complete list. Borock (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only notable ones to Jerry Rice per WP:NOT#STATS. Grsz¹¹ 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most seasons with 1,500 yards receiving and 30 yards rushing? Most seasons with 1,500 yards receiving and 60 yards rushing? What about most seasons with 1,500 yards receiving and 31 yards rushing!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The important records can be listed in the Rice article. Also, the sole source for the list is JerryRice.net. Is that even a reliable, independent source? Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notable records he holds are adequately covered at Jerry Rice#Legacy. The rest ("Games with 100+ yards from scrimmage after 40th birthday (7)" ? Srsly?) is just trivia, and should be tossed per WP:NOTSTATS. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who put these in? Records vs Falcons, saints and Rams - well DUH! he did play them twice a year. Severe Trivia, all completely unsourced - several probably OR - and most not actual records. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If these are actual records people keep track of it, then keep it. It would all fit in his main article, so its here. The sources are from any newspaper, sports encyclopedia, or book about this person ever published. The NFL might even have an official website listing all the stats. Does anyone sincerely doubt any of this information? Dream Focus 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Mostly a bunch of numbers specially selected in order for Jerry Rice to be the record-holder. That puts this entire article in dangerous waters regarding WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If you trim the indiscriminate invented numbers you get some credible personal records that are already covered in sufficient depth at the main article. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- "prodded the page even though it is ineligible due to previous AfD" - ooh, sorry - didn't realise that. Thanks for starting this instead then. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, this is an obsessive compilation of a few "official" records-- i.e., those that are published the NFL Record Manual -- and a lot of original synthesis in the form of using real facts for "made-up" categories. They're all true, but how many different superlatives can one think of for one person? It's a great accomplishment that he holds the record for "Most touchdowns, career" (208), "Most Pass Receptions, Career" (1,549) and "Most Yards Gained, Career" (22,895) and "Most Yards Gained, Season" (1848), among others. The NFL Record Manual doesn't have things like "Most touchdowns made in one state" or "Most go-ahead or tying touchdowns" or "Most seasons with at least 1 reception" or "Most games with 10+ receptions & 140+ receiving yards", etc. And the honor of "Only player with a 40+ yard touchdown pass, a 40+ yard touchdown run, & a 95+ yard touchdown reception, & a fumble recovery for a touchdown" is one of many odd inventions made by the article creators. Consider Barry Bonds, only MLB player to hit 762 home runs. Only MLB player to hit 761 home runs. Only MLB player to hit 760 home runs. Mandsford 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew A. Cucchiaro

[edit]

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

Notability not established a number of letters published in newspapers does not qualify as journalism! Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by secondary coverage. Borock (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. The template mentioning this discussion was removed recently in an act of vandalism by MattCucchiarro Barts1a (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no independent secondary sources. Writing letters to newspaper editors is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author of these letters seems to have narcissistic personality disorder and thinks writing letters to different papers makes him a journalist and well respected NY Times contributor. Writing letters to newspaper editors is not notable and neither is Matthew Cucchiaro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evidence1712 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Now that we have made up our minds, The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Adler (actor)

[edit]

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

Not notable JDDJS (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actor on an incredibly popular network TV series. Google news search on ("Max Adler" glee) shows many reliable sources, such as MTV, CNN, Huffington Post, and others. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Above. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information?

~~PsychClone (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked troll CTJF83 chat 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Max Adler's role on Glee just became very important to the dialog on adolescent bullying, particularly as it applies to LGBT youth. Yes, the article needs fleshing out, badly, but that will happen if given the chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.244.59 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he has a seminotable role in Glee doesn't make him notable. Can someone name other roles he had? JDDJS (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. While Adler's name pops up in 20+ Google News results, the majority are either Glee plot recaps or cast lists, not significant coverage of the actor himself. Notability isn't inherited from Glee, and his earlier appearances appear to have been very minor roles, eg. 'Guy #2' in Demons. I was initially undecided and went looking for sources which could be used to expand the article. All I turned up was an interview with Zap2it, and a one minute Fox video on the high school he went to. I don't believe this constitutes the significant depth of coverage required to meet the notability guidelines. Frickative 02:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this user is one of the most active Glee editors. So if they're biased to any side, it would be to keep. JDDJS (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per Frickative....~~if he starts getting more non-trivial coverage, and gains a more recurring, major role in Glee, then this can be recreated.~~ CTJF83 chat 22:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to more coverage from recent episode. CTJF83 chat 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why this is even up for debate is beyond me. This person is obviously notable and I believe you will find many people will make sure that he has a spot on Wikipedia. Is this censorship based on homophobia? I've got to wonder. If this page isn't kept, I will contact major media sources to inform them of Wikipedia’s homophobic censorship. Furthermore, if "Jonah Falcon" can have a Wikipage for his "Large penis", an actor in a hit show is under debate?! Simply disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webshaun (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples of how this actor is "obviously notable". What if someone has never seen the series? How would (s)he know? And sure, you can go right ahead and do that; I doubt anyone in "major media sources" will really care about the goings-on of one of three million articles on an online encyclopædia. Also, I am not sure how deletion of this article would be homophobic; playing the rôle of a character who has an on-screen gay kiss does not make the actor gay. I especially doubt that if it was the first gay kiss in his life, so I don't know what conclusions you're jumping to. And the article you've given is a moot point—a perfect example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Yves (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, and don't even claim homophobia, cause my initial !vote was delete. CTJF83 chat 23:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my stance to a tentative keep, with thanks to Bovineboy2008 for linking me to Adler's It Gets Better video. In the few days since my delete !vote, Adler has been touted as an anti-gay bullying advocate by The Wall Street Journal. He has been contacted by and recorded a video for the It Gets Better Project, and spoken at the Anti Defamation League Concert Against Hate. I've expanded the article to reflect this, and while it's still very much a stub, I think there's just about enough there to demonstrate the subject's fledgling notability. Frickative 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. Opinions are split beween merge and delete, so lacking a consensus to delete outright the outcome has to be to merge this article into the election article. It can be spun off per WP:SS again should the lawsuit progress signifcantly and attract more coverage that is not mainly about the election in whose context it was filed. Sandstein 07:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miller v. Campbell

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Miller v. Campbell

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

Reasons: Lack of event notability which is required for a separate article. Lack of lasting significance; there is no indication this case is anything other than a flash-in-the-pan. One or two more days of vote counting, and Miller is likely to give up the suit due to mathematical impossibility as well as pressure from the Republican party. He is also unlikely to prevail based on a case (Bush v. Gore) that the Supreme Court specifically said was not to be used as a precedent in further cases. So the odds are very good the case won't be going anywhere, and there will be not be the depth of coverage which also required for event notability. Finally there is currently insufficient depth of coverage because the State of Alaska has not formally answered the allegations in Miller's complaint. Thus the articles' detailing of the allegations and issues lacks the depth necessary for a stand alone article. --KeptSouth (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a silly nomination given the timing—like nominating an article on Bush v. Palm Beach County for deletion on Nov. 18, 2000 because nothing has happened yet. Nor can the subject matter simply be merged into another article, because it pertains to at least two other articles, Joe Miller and United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. Deleting the article now makes no sense if you consider the two possible ways this could play out: (1) The case could go nowhere, or (2) it could become groundbreaking and controversial. In a month, we will know which. If we delete the article now, and scenario (2) happens, we will have to create an article on the case, and so deleting it will waste everyone's time in creating, debating, deleting, and then recreating the article. Alternatively, if we leave the article in place and scenario (1) happens, we can delete the article at that point. There is no cost to leaving it, no benefit to deleting it, and it should stay until we see how this plays out. Think it through. Keep the article for now and let's revisit the question in a month. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Simon has unintentionally given more reasons why this topic is not ready to be a stand alone article. And that has made me think a little more about this. I now believe it should be merged into the United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010 article right now - that is really all it concerns . And if the case itself turns into a significant event, it can be forked off again. This case is in no way comparable to Bush v. Gore, and nothing will be lost by a merge at this time. -KeptSouth (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as merge and delete. We can either keep and merge, in which case no deletion may be performed per the terms of our copyright licence, or delete, in which case it is not possible to re-use any of this content or edit history. Having your cake or eating it. You get to pick only one. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that KeptSouth's real beef with the article is that he thinks Miller's lawsuit is silly and doomed to fail: In saying "[t]his case is in no way comparable to Bush v. Gore," he fails to recognize that two days after it was filed, Bush v. Gore was in no way comparable to Bush v. Gore, either. Just how long must Wikipedia wait before creating an article on potentially significant litigation? Must an appeals court rule? What if the District Court had ruled for Miller last night? What if it rules for him next week?

And by the way, as to Keptsouth's claim that Bush was a one-shot deal and so a case citing it must be frivolous and doomed, Bush is alive and well, cited as authority by judges in cases like Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d. 843 (6th Cir. 2006), and by litigants almost every election cycle, e.g. Coleman v. Franken, 762 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. 2009); Fruitlands v. Todd, 279 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2002). The court may reject the claim, but we may not do so a priori.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the election - nothing suggests that this case may attain independent legal notability outside of its relevance to the election, nor that the article would become so long as to require a fork. No reason to delete, as this makes a plausible redirect following the merger. Ray^Talk 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely support a merge—on the proviso that we wait a month and merge only if nothing comes of the case. Is that acceptable? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the opposite of how notability works. We follow the principle that not-notable things can become notable, notable things cannot become non-notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know if the court will make a significant decision or simply find some existing law to apply here. We don't know if this will become a Supreme Court case. We don't even know if any truly novel arguments will be advanced in the argument. Until one of these things (or something akin to them) happens, this is a WP:ONEEVENT and should be merged into the article about the election. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. There's plenty of room for this content there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pending appeals. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that this AfD be closed because there is a clear consensus for merge into the election article with the Miller v. Campbell article becoming a redirect. Would someone please close this AfD so that the merge can be done? Thanks. KeptSouth (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your hurry is a little unbecoming... Needless and counterproductive haste to delete the article, needless haste to close the AfD (it usually runs for seven days, WP:SNOW notwithstanding)… You know there's no deadline, right?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I think he was calling SNOW on this discussion. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really part of the election campaign and should be in that article. If the case sets a precedent then it could be resurrected. TFD (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To rehash a rather constant complaint of mine regarding Wikipedia, people spend way too much time following the corporate media looking for things to write about. Meanwhile, the state of Alaskan political articles in general tends to be rather desultory, with entire eras of its history largely or completely unrepresented. Haven't we all been bombarded lately with "personal appeals from Jimmy Wales" which state up front, "no agendas?" A year and two ago, it was filling as many Alaska-related pages as possible with mostly nonsensical references to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin ceased to be of concern to Alaska the moment she resigned as governor.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I have read on Alaskan newspaper sites, this lawsuit appears to be a complete non-starter. I cannot see that the lawsuit will lead to any interesting precedent in a higher court, or have any impact on the election's result. The entire lawsuit is far less notable than the lawsuit attached to the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, where a close vote count dragged out the election result for several months, and that lawsuit doesn't have an article either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the content so that it is more suitable for a merge because even though the suit is very likely to be dismissed, discussion of the suit will still be notable as an event involving the election of Alaska's senator in 2010. Of course, the content can and should be summarized when merged into the elections article. KeptSouth (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the election article. The lawsuit does not seem to be independently notable yet. If it somehow turns out otherwise, it can always be expanded back. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Munck

[edit]

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

One role does not determine notability. Also has a lack of references. Also Icarly website is not a very reliable site. Rusted AutoParts (talk)20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a child actor smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) — PsychClone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the whole article is only a description of what he did in the 4 episodes of ICarly that he appeared in. Second, it lacks references. ICarly's website doesn't count. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:30 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete that one role wasn't even very notable. JDDJS (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bit of a mess here, but a general consensus that PORNBIO is failed. Courcelles 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy San Dimas

[edit]

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

Delete. Pornographic actress does not meet notability criteria presented at WP:PORNBIO. Has not received (nor nominated for) any industry awards (in multiple years). Has not made unique contributions; has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; is not in an industry Hall of Fame. Refs limited to IMDb, AFDb, and iafd.com. Cindamuse (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clarification: Subject was nominated for AVN awards in 2010, just not in multiple years. Cindamuse (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My WP:Crystal ball says this article will be undeleted in about 2 weeks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Doubtful for two weeks. In January? Maybe, if she wins. Cindamuse (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 2011 nominations are coming out in 2 weeks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, duh. I got my years mixed up. I blame it on the migraine. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page

"Dear Wikipedia,

KEEP ANDY!

I'd like to request that you go ahead and visit Google.com, type in "Andy San Dimas" and see what happens. Does your computer screen not immediately fill up with everything Andy related? So why is it that you feel she doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page? The girl came from Hicktown, USA and made herself a place in the spotlight in bigtime LA. And I, for one, am so proud of her. I checked my watch and 15 minutes passed a long time ago. Andy isn't going anywhere but up. Do some research before you so quickly excuse her. Spencer Pratt deserves a Wikipedia page, but Andy doesn't? Posted by Coribaltimore

End of copy Peridon (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nearly said 'nothing to show', but thought better of it. No indication of notability given. Bear in mind (sorry) that it's the article we are discussing, not a Google search. As to Pratt, he doesn't 'deserve' an article, but unfortunately there's enough coverage of him to support one. And one article's existence doesn't mean another should. I suppose it must be harder to establish notability in the porn world - one is rather unlikely to be profiled in The Telegraph. Look at WP:RS to see what sort of coverage is expected. Look at other porn performers' articles and see what they have to support notability. Peridon (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multible nominations are enough! --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nominations in multiple years are sufficient. Not just nominations in one year. Cindamuse (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Porno is pure trash. After all thats how Wikipedia got its start through Bomis. Hmmm. PsychClone (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Trolling struck per ANI consensus. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can you justify deleting this if you allow things like Bukkake, Dirty Sanchez to remain, if you delete this, delete those too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BradSabbathd (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tag them. But remember all articles are separate and the existence of one doesn't mean another should. Peridon (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and bring bomis back. That was a really nice site. Without porn, no wikipedia 78.55.156.192 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Cargo Air

[edit]

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

Proposed airline project, which never operated any flights. As the company website is down (which served as the only reference - which is breeching the WP:CORP need for reliable sources to establish notability), it seems like the airline will never become operational, so the whole article is just some speculation, which does not deserve an article on Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposed/in formation company that has not yet reached notability. Eclipsed (t) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Air Systems

[edit]

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

Failed airline project, which never operated any aircraft. It's more or less just a bunch of intentions, not notable per WP:CRYSTAL. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Airlines (and other companies) only become notable when they actually exist, except if there is a specific reason to make the project notable as such - which I can't see here. Travelbird (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tair Airways

[edit]

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

Failed airline project without any reliable, significant coverage in third-party sources (in fact, there aren't any sources at all - the website as vanished), thus at least failing notability per WP:CORP. To me, this looks just like a business plan, which was once proposed and never touched again. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete airlines generally become notable once they actually own airplanes or have flights as I recall. This company did not, and will not as it is now presumably defunct. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 15:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverlock (software)

[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:PRODUCT and a search for sources on Google reveals standard product reviews but nothing to suggest notable awards won or a firm rationale for significance. PROD recently removed by anon IP at Keene State College (the article was created by an account with the name of the software developer who happens to also be at Keene State College) so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable software. From the infobox: Initial release August 14, 2010 - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but continue to improve. (non-admin closure). Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Build.com

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above "Delete" !vote is redundant since it is from the AFD nominator. Edison (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do to keep this article from being deleted? I'm totally open to suggestions. I've tried to comply with the guidelines, but if there's something I'm overlooking, please let me know. Thank you. -- SeanMurphy27 —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Find as much third party non-nominal press as possible (I worry about how objective internetretailer.com is - it looks like it might be a PR site). Read WP:WEB if you haven't already. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepReferences show a number of articles about the company with significant coverage, appearing to satisfy notability. Are the refs not independent, or are the sources nonreliable? Edison (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more facts about us, including that we're a subsidiary of a company that deals with builders and contractors on a global scale. What else do you suggest I add?Seanmurphy27 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SeanMurphy27[reply]
I've also just added a link to two more references, including a New York Times article. Would you recommend that I omit a few of the references to Internet Retailer articles? Seanmurphy27 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business- related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magog: Thank you for your input. I've tracked down a couple of additional third-party references (including the NY Times article). And yes, I can see how Internet Retailer might seem like a PR site. It prints a monthly hard copy magazine and it's actually considered the definitive source for e-retailers (which is what Build.com is). Once again, thanks for your suggestions. I'm hoping to hear some more feedback on how this article can stay alive. Seanmurphy27 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]
Keep The article has been improved, and I encourage the author to continue the process. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to track down and add another article that mentioned Build.com, this time from The Wall Street Journal Seanmurphy27 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference about Build.com's relationship to Wolseley (builders' merchant). Seanmurphy27 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) SeanMurphy27[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the same reason as the last speedy deletion. This is a translation of copyrighted ("© Biografías y Vidas, 2004-10.") non-free content the copyrighted original of which is, for future reference,

Toledo, Nelson (2008). "Biografia de Jose Grimaldi". Biografías y Vidas (in Spanish).

Also for future reference:

Extraído de Biografias y Vidas
Este contenido ha sido recopilado por el equipo de Wikilearning. Todo el contenido recopilado se ha obtenido respetando y comunicando en nuestro site la licencia de cada fuente.
Wikilearning tiene permiso expreso por escrito de los autores para publicar los contenidos que ha extraído de otras webs, incluyendo su uso comercial.

Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Grimaldi Acotto

[edit]

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

Dead poet of unknown notability, the unreferenced article is a somewhat flowery translation of [27]. Is a translation a copyvio? WuhWuzDat 06:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of his work has been set to music by Luis Vidal http://cancionerodelapatagonia.cl/cancionero/L%20ARTISTAS/luis_vidal.html ; the Spanish WP article on Punta Arenas lists Acotto with other "notables escritores" born there (but no article has been created on him yet)(the English article doesn't list notable people) es:Punta Arenas ; as I read http://www.laprensaaustral.cl/lpa/noticia.asp?id=38994 , his house seems to have been turned into a museum to him (with the involvement of the Lions Club and the local alcalde). I think there is notability there, but I too am concerned about the status of the existing text. I can do a rewrite if he is found to be notable enough for an article (but won't until... Ah, now... The text is also found at http://www.wikilearning.com/monografia/jose_grimaldi-jose_grimaldi/9537-1 and it says in the conditions of use: "Las obras publicadas en Wikilearning pueden constituir creaciones intelectuales. Como creaciones intelectuales, pueden encontrarse protegidas por los derechos de autor o propiedad intelectual y se distribuyen bajo la http://gugs.sindominio.net/licencias/gfdl-1.2-es.html Licencia de documentación Libre GNU." Looks like it's OK to use. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Applied Biomedicine

[edit]

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

This young (2003) journal does not meet the General Notability Guideline, presently the only applicable guideline to achieve consensus. No secondary sources discuss this journal. Furthermore, its highest-cited article gets about 40 cites; I don't know what its impact factor is. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Open access journals are weird and some tend to catch up. I am guessing there are a lot of journals out there in the field so I doubt that this one will catch up. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:GNG isn't the only guideline; there is also Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) although it is an essay, not accepted policy. One of its criteria is what indexes list the journal, and on that criteria this is borderline. It is listed at Google Scholar, where its articles do get a few citations (41 in one case), although many get none. It is not indexed at PubMed, though its existence is acknowledged there [28]. It claims to be indexed at Web Of Science but I could not find it there. It claims to be listed at Scopus but I don't have access to that database. All in all, not very notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I don't think Google Scholar does not contribute anything to notability (to the point that I don't think this should even be listed in journal articles). GS tries to be all inclusive and while that is perhaps a laudable goal, it does mean that being "selected for inclusion" by GS is rather meaningless. Scopus is slowly becoming a bit like GS, too. PubMed is only important in my eyes if inclusion is because of inclusion in Medline. Many open-access journals are automatically included in PubmedCentral, meaning about as much as being included in GS... --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed in databases did not achieve consensus as a method of determining notability. Even so, there is a rough correlation between treatment in secondary sources and being indexed by selective databases. I have found that I can judge journals' notability best using a Google Books search. The Book search may reveal real secondary sources about the journal, and a large number of returns indicates academics read it more than a little. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Besides some trivial databases (GS, DOAJ, etc), the journal is also included in some more discriminating ones (Web of Science, Current Contents, BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO). --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 05:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Privateers football

[edit]

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

At first glance, this seems like a standard article for a college football team, but in reality the University of New Orleans does not field a NCAA football team.[29] They play in the National Club Football Association, as stated on the article. Article does not have any inherent notability and fails WP:GNG. TM 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as outlined at WP:CFBTEAM essay. Obviously not the highest level of the experession of the sport at the college level as most of the schools have higher-level NCAA teams. Looks like a fun thing to do in college, but certainly the team is not notable. There is a List of NCAA institutions with club football teams, Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CFBTEAM. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Underneath the Stars (album). Courcelles 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath the Stars

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Its sourced by fan sites and no reliable sources. It has not charted on any major chart (the R&B chart has no source) and does not even have a music video. The song was barely ever performed live and has absolutely no information of it. Xwomanizerx (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I asked Womanizer to nominate for me as I couldn't figure it out. The song also did not even have an official release. It was a promo single.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Daydream (Mariah Carey album). If better sourced than Mariah fansites can be added, I'll change to a "keep". Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article has no reliable sources and didn't chart anywhere notable. Therefore its not notable.--AlastorMoody (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Billboard R&B chart isn't notable? Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The R&B chart is not sourced. Its a dead-link. I think you'll see no Billboard source will tell you it charted anywhere. Trust me I've searched.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, then move Underneath the Stars (album) to this title, possibly with a hatnote pointing to Daydream (Mariah Carey album) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just remember not to confuse the 2. "Underneath the Stars" is a song by Mariah Carey. Because it looks like their was some confusion in the last AfD--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its here at no. 69. I cant say it didn't move anywhere in weeks after, but it did chart. The song does have some coverage in other books, primarily because Carey has a lot of coverage in general; whether or not you want to make an article out of it is up to you, but I believe it could be done. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I've never seen that, good work. But I'm not sure if its notable still.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article has not much information on it. It was just a promo single and did not chart well too. It's not notable. Delete. Novice7 Talk 14:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Underneath the Stars (album) here. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to album. No significant coverage, given charting position is incorrect, not on Billboard.com Hekerui (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loonette the Clown

[edit]

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

Are individual characters from The Big Comfy Couch really that notable. I can sense it is pretty doughtful this article won't ever be more than a stub. This is further notified by the strange text right below the one external link on this article (the text reads "[links to Trojans--set off 'Avast!' virus scan]").trainfan01 talk 20:15, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't much to say about the character (it's not exactly a show deep in character development), and Loonette already redirects to the series article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opm (restaurant)

[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant, advertising. I had originally put a db-ad tag on the article, but it's been here for almost a year. No reliable sources in the article, and I could find none in Google search (though admittedly looking for just "opm" is difficult). Only one hit in Google news. Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The articles only claim to notability is being designed by a particular architect who is non-notable. The age of the article really shouldn't make a difference. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also did a little searching, and while there are many listing-type mentions in food sites, I couldn't find anything to denote notability of the restaurant. Closest was a case study from the firm that did some work with the restaurant. Eclipsed (t) 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article fails WP:N. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMSGlobal

[edit]

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

Seems like a self-promoting page created by the company. I see little significance with the company that merits notability. Jab843 (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a global thought leader in outsourced and managed soultions for mobile messaging. What is this, "global thought leader"? Someone trying to lead the thoughts of the entire world? That sounds like something a supervillain would try, like Simon Bar Sinister, or maybe Skeletor. Unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This is clearly an advertisement for the company, such articles do not belong here.

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

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

The result was already A1'ed Jclemens-public (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaige cossitt

[edit]

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

The only reference I could find for "Gaige cossitt" was a facebook page for the person in question. I believe this falls under xfd. Jab843 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedily deleted under CSD A1: "a very short article providing little or no context." Edison (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, technically. There are two camps here: a majority would like to keep the material, but there is a very well-argued suggestion that this page should be converted to a redirect. That outcome is not precluded. I suggest that further discussion about whether to redirect should take place on the talk page until consensus is reached. What this AfD has found is that Ice Queen (JAG) should not be a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ice Queen (JAG)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, no sources. Unsourced for 3 years. Inexplicably kept at last AFD simply because it was also the NCIS pilot — which means not a damn thing since THERE ARE NO SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWhile most TV episodes have no real world notability, this one is notable as hell. "Inexplicably kept at last AfD simply because it was also the NCIS pilot"? I guess inexplicable is a matter of opinion, but it's a pretty good explanation. Guest stars Mark Harmon, Michael Weatherly, David McCallum, Pauley Perrette. I'm sure it will be inexplicably kept again. Mandsford 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a cursory search shows that there are indeed sources extant... just not in the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All I see is the user-submitted TV.com (not reliable) and two false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that discusses the episode as significant within both JAG (as the conclusion of a story arc) and NCIS (as the pilot). One doesn't have to go far, however, to find sources that show that the characters, of one of the most popular shows on television, were introduced on JAG. A book about either of those two series would have that bit of information. Mandsford 14:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but upon consideration, I think this is akin to WP:BAND criterion 6. Since it's verifiable that this exists as part of two notable series, it should be kept rather than redirected or merged to either one. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I think #6 is stupid, myself. So anything that gets no third party coverage gets exepmtion from WP:GNG just because there are two equally feasible targets for a merge? Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of JAG episodes#Season 8: 2002-2003. I believe that being the pilot episode for NCIS confers enough notability to keep, but I can't find sources for the episode itself or for the re-aired version that fell into NCIS' first season. Lacking sources, a redirect makes the most sense. The key point is that this pilot was actually a two-part episode, ending with Meltdown (JAG). You'll note that Meltdown is already a redirect - and this one should be as well, unfortunately. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect doesn't reflect the consensus of more than one person. Seems one of the users took it upon himself or herself to redirect it [30]. Though I disagree with him, kudos to Ten Pound for putting this one to a discussion, instead of that type of "I-know-what's-best" approach. Mandsford 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the episode list page noted above. If all that can be said abut a tv episode is a plot summary, then it does not need a standalone article. It appears that none of the other JAG episodes have a separate article; no pilot, no finale, no thrilling end-of-season cliffhangers. I'm wondering if Clemens actually looked to see what his "cursory search" turned up, as I'd hope someone would not try to pass off hits to tv.com's user forums, trivia, and episode listings (i.e. user-driven content like IMDB) as indicators of notability. The google book hit is to a section of a novel about the tv series itself, briefly noting the circumstances of this episode (but not by name) as an example of the overall unreality of the show as compared to the actual Judge Advocate General's Corps. We have no case for notability here; just a vain stretching out into the internet aether to make something out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources avaliable and this is important to the build of one of the highest rated TV shows in the US. - Juno2007 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Mendonca

[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable video game artist. Tagged since December 2009 for notability, no references, just a list of external links. The sole link that looks like it might work as a reference is dead, and searching through that site for an updated url turns up nothing. Most Google hits appear to be for someone else. His own webpage has no press coverage and is dated 2005. Hairhorn (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)here is a live link http://www.imgic.com/view-29560.html[reply]

His website was designed in 2005 and it was updated several times including last year. Google searches will display someone else only if you don't type his name correctly (Gustavo H. Mendonca) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.206.174 (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Creative Uncut from Japan even has a whole page dedicated to the artwork he created for the amazing Dead Rising 2 from Capcom. http://www.creativeuncut.com/art_dead-rising-2_a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.206.174 (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the "H" gets me more relevant links, but none that establish notability. The link you gave is a gallery of artwork for a game, the artwork is credited to Mendonca, but his name is simply listed, this isn't an interview or any sort of press coverage. Hairhorn (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realized he is from Brazil so I tried to dust off my spanish and Portuguese and found two very interesting video interviews with him on youtube. One is from "Globo" broadcast channel (the biggest one in south america) and in his interview he speaks about his professional history. In the interview you will also learn he was just recently hired by the Star Wars creator George Lucas. Here is the first link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAxeLGD4mKw The second link is another interview for the "Record" broadcast channel in Brazil here is the second link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rv78tCMo3Y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.206.174 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Since these two videos very clearly establish his notability I have entered them into the list of links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.206.174 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC) We studied Gustavo’s work in Art School and while going thru some of my research material I found an article on the British Magazine "Advanced Photoshop" with Gustavo and other top Concept Artists around the world. Another fantastic find was a 10 pages article in the Japanese magazine "Design 360". This article talks about Gustavo's life journey from poor Brazilian kid to becoming a very successful Concept Designer in North America. The article is also filled with amazing images.[reply]

I will take photos of these magazines and post them somewhere as soon as I have some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.206.174 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 69.181.206.174 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources found by the above user. Marasmusine (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing so far indicates he is any more notable than thousands of other video game artists. Hairhorn (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the interviews on "TV TEM" and "Record", and the articles in "Advance Photoshop" and "Design 360", are at least an indication of notability. I admit I'm assuming good faith on the weight of these published articles and I await full citations from 69.181.206.174. Marasmusine (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per coverage found by Marasmusine --Teancum (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see them in the entry, at the moment it has zero refs and a pile of external links of varying relevance. Hairhorn (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, technically. Various possible outcomes are mooted in this discussion, and none of them are precluded. Further discussion about those can continue on the article's talk page. What this AfD has found is that Boita should not be a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Boita

[edit]

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

Cannot find any reference to "Boita" through web searches. It may just be an Indian word for "boat". The festival may well be valid though it may not be notable enough. References are deadlinks and the page is generally unrefd throughout. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Boita-Bandana (a.k.a. Boita-Vandana) is quite valid, and gets the same treatment in most sources that I can find as it does here: a paragraph or so in an entry for Orissa. (There are plenty of guidebooks and two encyclopaedias that mention it this way.) There's also a three-item disambiguation in the headnote of this page, so even if the article body content were unverifiable, this could be turned into a disambiguation article by simple editing, no deletion tool use required. However, this article is really about the maritime history of Orissa, and is at least a stub, although perhaps not a very good one (in part because, yes, it is under a title that means, essentially, "ship"), that can be expanded from sources that have that subject as their very titles:
- Panda, Bhagaban (1997). "Maritime Activities of Orissa". In Nihar Ranjan Patnaik (ed.). Economic history of Orissa. Indus Publishing. ISBN 9788173870750.
- Behera, K. S. (1999). "Maritime Activities of Orissa". In Karuna Sagar Behera (ed.). Maritime heritage of India. Aryan Books International. ISBN 9788173051654.
- Bhatta, B. B. (c. 1952). "Maritime Activies of Orissa in the 19th Century, A Brief Study". The Orissa historical research journal. 39–40. Superintendent of Museum.
- Ray, B. C. "Shipping and Maritime Activities of Orissa during the Muslim Rule". Proceeding of the Indian History Congress, 14th session, Jajpur. pp. 172–176.
Executive summary: Wherever one goes with this, one doesn't need the deletion tool to get there. Uncle G (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source is Economic history of Orissa. Certainly Kalinga had extensive sea trade using boitas, which does not seem to be covered elsewhere and seems to be around the time Bhuddism was introduced to SE Asia. The content is a weak start to what could be an interesting article - but the name is wrong. I may expand this one, but with the intent to move it to something like Kalinga seafaring and then turn this title into a disambig leading to the new article and to Bali Jatra. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested maritime history of Orissa because it fits the pattern. Have a look at maritime history of India and consider a possible relationship between that and maritime history of Orissa as between maritime history of the United States and maritime history of Florida. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made a rough start on Maritime history of Orissa, and quickly realized that the subject of trade and colonization is different from the subject of the ships that were used. Sort of like the difference between Viking and Viking ship. I have added a bit of content, and will expand both articles in parallel. Maybe the name is not great - it could be moved to Orissa ships or something. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Encyclopedic and verifiable. Would also support a move to Ships of Orissa.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Milionis

[edit]

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

Possibly notable actor, BLP appears inoffensive at the moment, but not adequately or reliable source. I restored a previously-deleted PROD per request, but do not believe that this article meets inclusion criteria as it stands. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His credits are way too weak, and the "award-winning short film Lost Promises" is so lost, I can't find it in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. (I don't know how to do this). Milionis is a public figure in the acting world in Sydney. His school is regarded as one of the best independent schools in Sydney. Mummy actor Luke Ford directly credits Milionis as his mentor, Underbelly star Dan Mor does the same, etc. Milionis has been a staple for over a decade in this area. To delete because of poor filmmaking credits is to ignore the real public interest value of his work -- which is as an acting teacher/guru. See South Sydney Herald page 13: http://www.southsydneyherald.com.au/pdf/SSH_AUG10.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.28.57 (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it right, although by convention we say "keep" rather than "retain" (and remember to sign your posts using ~~~~). This is a borderline case. Only one of your sources is reliable, and barely at that. Biographies of living persons generally require high quality sources only. If you can provide more sources like the community newspaper, or preferably a major mass-media newspaper, that would help in determining notability or not. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited and Milionis lacks coverage outside that one local interest piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism

[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK. hardly any coverage [31]. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Canadian book about economics, I suspect it wouldn't get many GHits - however, I found a review at Quill and Quire - read here and one at The Globe and Mail, here. There is also some video coverage on TVOntario, where the author appears on Allan Gregg in conversation with.... here. -Addionne (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heath's other books have their own pages, as well as the books he co-wrote with Andrew Potter. This book garnered enough press to warrant its keeping, plus the author is sufficiently notable. - Slugmaster (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The information seems inconsistent. Only 92 Worldcat libraries for the Canadian ed, + 50 for an Australian ed. , which is surprisingly low, considering it coversCanada fairly well. But there are translations into several languages, [32] Spanish, Lucro sucio : economía para los que odian el capitalismo, French Sale argent : petit traité d'économie à l'intention des détracteurs du capitalisme , Chinese 脏钱 : 乡民拼经济必GET的学经济指南 , Korean 자본주의를의심하는이들을위한경제학 : '우파는부도덕하고좌파는무능하다??' / Such are usually considered indications though not proofs of notability. But @Slugmaster, he is nowhere near the very high level of notability (amounting to "famous" where any book published is automatically notable. And I have not checked checked whether his other books are in fact notable , DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking in Java

[edit]

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

There's a lot of books about computer programming, and I don't see why this one is significant D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:BOOK~~ WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Nothing to merge in addition to info already on author's page. Ipsign (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book has over 900 citations, (over 1,000 if you add the Chinese? version) [33] and at least 4 editions. Reviews surely exist. A few quick finds [34] [35] [36] etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, number of citations is not a valid criteria under WP:NBOOK. As for these reviews, I'm not sure if they satisfy nontrivial requirement (especially this one is IMHO outright trivial: [37]). I like this book myself, but still doubt if it merits its own page in Wikipedia. Ipsign (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that trivial? Its a complete review. Dream Focus 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial in a sense that I can write this kind of so-called review on any book without actually reading it; I think this alone is bad enough to disqualify this one as a credible review (not to mention that it probably doesn't qualify as WP:RS because of rather clear ad-like bias too). Ipsign (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minded to keep. I'm not well-qualified to establish if the available reviews are RS, but if they are, then this is a keeper. Even if they're not technically RS, this looks like it's "more notable than the average cookbook" judging from its impact. TheGrappler (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn Hugely important book, well worthy of an article. —But this isn't an article. At least a redlink would be honest. Whilst I'm usually accused of being a rabid inclusionist, just what's the point of articles this terse? It doesn't even serve as a stub. WP:CSD#A7 for sure: it fails to indicate why its subject is significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue Several people have commented on the importance of this book. I'll tag it for rescue and see what the rescue squad can do for it. Fixing is always better than deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That'll work. A pack of editors who care about saving articles at all cost, and who know how to handle prose, but nothing about Java. Just look at the trite ref that has recently been added. "This book is the best thing evahh! Squueee!!" is one thing, but it still doesn't say why the book is important. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't the quote I put in the article. You are being rather rude and immature. I found one of the notable places that reviewed the book, and quoted the review for the reception section, as is proper. Details about the book itself of course belong there also, but someone who is more familiar with this sort of thing will have to do it. AFD is not cleanup. AFD exist to determine if an article's subject is notable, there references providing that this one is. Dream Focus 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have to agree with Andy Dingley... not worth the article, completely fails WP:N and does NOT make an impact. - Pmedema (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources Tijfo098 found are quite convincing. Three links to complete reviews from reliable sources. Dream Focus 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a single review in a minor computer trade mag does not add up to notability. Nor does number of citations, unless and until it can be demonstrated that some of the works citing this book actually discuss it in detail (there's a good chance that most of them are just boilerplate). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews were found. I only bothered to add one into the article. The one in tech republic and the other one count also. And whether or not you consider the magazine minor isn't relevant. Its a reliable source, so it counts. Dream Focus 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One from an explicitly "reader-supported news site" (i.e. a WP:SPS, of no value to notability). Tech Republic "is an online trade publication", so slightly better. But two reviews in minor trade mags is only slightly better than one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every book has reviews. A review is a source, but it's far from establishing notability. BTW, "reader-supported" doesn't necessarily mean that it's like a wiki, it could refer to financial support (like viewer-supported PBS D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every book does not get reviews. And this meets WP:GNG by having at least two reviews about the subject in reliable sources. I added those two to the article. Dream Focus 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, this book fails WP:NBOOK criteria: (i) none of the reviews are in "works serving a general audience"; (ii) the book has not "won a major literary award"; (iii) no RS has stated that thr book "made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement"; (iv) no indication whatsoever that "the book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country" (my emphasis -- though I dare say it may be a tool of instruction somewhere); (v) the book's author is not "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the rescue squad has found so little of significance shows this book gets almost zero coverage outside of book reviewers (who review everything) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Important - new evidence for WP:NBOOK found. I've found that this book has won several (!) independent awards, will add info to the page in a few minutes. Based on it, I've changed my stance from previous 'Delete' to 'Strong Keep'. Hope nobody will really object to keeping it with this additional information present. Ipsign (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I claim that it qualifies at least by WP:NBOOK criteria #1 and #3 (#2 is also possible but more debatable), applied "by analogy" as it is specified in WP:NBOOK#Coverage notes. I further claim that it also qualifies under WP:GNG as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been clearly demonstrated. Ipsign (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As promised above, I've added Awards section. Now (with seven(!) awards) I hope it should be clear that the book indeed satisfies WP:NBOOK criteria. Ipsign (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NBOOK criteria is in fact "The book has won a major literary award." (my emphasis) -- I don't think "Java Developers Journal Editors Choice Award for Best Book", etc, meets this criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I could argue that when applying this section to a technical book, it should be interpreted as relevant award, even this is not really necessary. Such an award is clearly a "non-trivial published work appearing in source that is independent of the book itself", and seven such awards should certainly qualify it under criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. Ipsign (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I would argue (fairly convincingly, I think) that "Java Developers Journal Editors Choice Award for Best Book" is hardly equivalent of the Man Booker Prize. (ii) The statement that 'book a won award x' is in fact "trivial" coverage of it. Non-trivial coverage requires some substantive discussion of the book, not simply giving it an award. (iii) For that matter an award isn't a "published work" at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can counter-argue on each and every of your points (and then you'll probably counter each and every of my points), so we can continue this argument back and forth for ages. To avoid going in circles, I suggest to cut it here and see what the others will say. For me, it is convincing, for you - it is not, fine, let's see other opinions. Ipsign (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be realistic, Hrafn, a book like Thinking in Java is never gonna win any of the big literary awards. Almost all of those are for novels, and almost none of them are given to howto books. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BTW, IMHO it is possible to argue that Jolt Award by Dr Dobb's Journal is the best possible award for the book in this field (computer programming), which makes it an important pro-notability argument. Is it convincing enough for you to change your opinion on keeping book? (now IMHO it became clear why this book is special compared to the other books on computer programming). Ipsign (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the obvious corollary of that is that an ordinary-award-winning technical book most probably won't be as inherently notable as a top-award-winning novel. For such non-stellar literature, they have to prove their notability the more pedestrian way, by the other four criteria of WP:NBOOK (or WP:GNG) -- none of which this book appears to meet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Allison

[edit]

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

He did write some books, tho I'm not convinced of the books significance. And associate professor doesn't seem like the kind of academia that grants notability. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Personally tend to agree, but would appreciate input from other people familiar with h-index. Ipsign (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. h index = 4 from scholar so nowhere near notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kye Allums

[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this individual fails WP:ATHLETE Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I feel like this passes WP:GNG because Allums has received widespread media coverage in spite of failing WP:ATHLETE. However, I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm falling into the WP:RECENT trap; although I think the first openly transgender NCAA player will be important well into the future, I'm certainly no scholar in the area, so if someone disagrees, I'd be open to changing my opinion. Bds69 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His notability doesn't stem from his athletic accomplishments (so WP: ATHLETE doesn't apply); rather, it stems from him being the first openly transgender person in his field. The article should be expanded, though. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lolita. until an article can be written that, per the comments below, introduces material that does not duplicate that elsewhere. History preserved in redirect. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Quilty

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unreferenced non-notable character bio. In the Novel section is simply a rehash of the plot and the two sections detailing "differences" in the film versions are original research. Nothing new is introduced in this article that isn't already included in Lolita, Lolita (1962 film) or Lolita (1997 film). Sottolacqua (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided- but probably delete. Agree that little new is introduced. Disagree somewhat about differences in film version. The existing material both could be easily sourced and can be expanded. Could be expanded further to include other "incarnations" of Lolita, the unused Nabokov screenplay, Albee's play, the Brit play that omits Quilty, the two rewrites of Lolita from L's point of view, the Russian opera of Lolita. etc. Material on Q in novel needs to be proportionately shrunk while material on Q in other media is expanded.

Agree it is unreferenced. Disagree it is non-notable. Humbert, Lolita, and Quilty are the three major characters, though Q is neglected. Of course, raises question why we don't have articles on Humbert & Lolita. (For that matter why regarding the film Chinatown did we for a while have an article on Noah Cross, but none on Jake Gittes. The Cross one was eventually deleted.) Such articles could be good if the characters were tracked across various media, but no one is doing that.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons articulated by multiple editors in the prior AfD, I think an article could be written about Quilty, and I do think he's a notable character. However, I don't see much of anything in the current article other than extremely detailed plot summary. The edit history might be useful to someone down the road in preparing a valid article. So, on balance, I do not favor deletion, but I would not be opposed to blanking and redirecting to Lolita until a better start is made on this subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mahor character in famous novel from very famous author. The comparison of the plots of the different versions is what make it necessary and appropriate to have the separate article. The rule against plot-only applies to the overall coverage of the fiction, not each individual portion of the coverage--otherwise we could never have articles for characters or plot elements, even the most famous characters or important elements--I am aware that a few people want just that, but famous novels aren;t the place to start. I don;t get bothered when a deletion is proposed for a character is a notable but not famous work of fiction--the famous ones are different. This is an encyclopedia , & encyclopedias give more detailed coverage to what is more important. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The entire article is either unreferenced original research comparing the two works or regurgitation of plot details included in the parent articles. There is nothing within this article proposed for deletion that is not already part of a larger, main article. With regard to your comment about notability, the work of fiction is clearly more notable than the character/subject of this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To be clear, the discussion is flawed insofar as it argues that "Dalmatians are not an ethnic group". That is not for us to decide; Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If people call themselves Dalmatians and this is sufficiently documented in reliable sources, we can have an article about it. But as the discussion also points out, these sources are lacking here. Sandstein 07:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatians (ethnic group)

[edit]

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

To put it simply: "Dalmatians" are not an ethnic group. It's just a peculiar way to declare one's ethnicity e.g. in the official census, like Ličanin, Slavonac, Zagorac - in effect, nothing more than declaring oneself as being an inhabitant of a particular region in Croatia without explicitly saying anything about your ethnic background. I don't believe there is a reliable source which would state otherwise, therefore the article is fundamentally flawed in terms of factual correctness and is thus not salvageable. GregorB (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, there is no such modern-day ethnicity, it's just what a few local-patriots tell census workers :) There was the idea of Dalmatians at the time of romantic nationalism, so delete and possibly merge scant amounts of content into Dalmatia or History of Dalmatia. Also, page history indicates that newbie Dalmatiaforce (talk · contribs) created this in late 2009 with a tag "possible cut and paste move or recreation", probably because it had a cleanup tag from 2008 on it, so I'm tempted to ditch this ASAP as a plain procedural violation. There was also this and Dalmatian grammar by the same user. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Croatians, who are their descendants. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm reluctant to say this, because it may be true that some people say that they are of Dalmation ethnicity, and ethnicity is, to a certain point, a mental construct. However. First, while it may be true that some people self-identify as being of Dalmation ethnicity, it may also not be true, as the article doesn't prove it with any refs and for all I know the author just made it up. Second, while we give some leeway to self-identification as a valid marker of an ethnicity, we don't give complete leeway, and if Dalmation (as an ethnicity) is not generally accepted as a valid ethnic category by anyone except a few outlier people, it's not valid. (If some people at Bob's Happy Hour Bar in Utica decided to start describing themselves as being ethnic Uticans, we wouldn't allow that.) If there's more to the Dalmation ethnicity than that, let the article author prove it with refs. Until then, delete the article with no prejudice against re-creation if proper refs are provided. (The bulk of the article has nothing to do with with ethnicity, it is about history, and could be merged into Dalmatia or whatever, if desired.) Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agency Republic

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with my previous nomination in March 2010, the only articles that provide significant coverage here are from one news source (Brand Republic) with several different names (Campaign Magazine, Marketing Magazine, etc). The articles are exactly the same, despite being sourced separately. In my opinion, this means the article fails to assert notability - as it does not have significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Also, the Campaign Big and Campaign Media awards this company won are sponsored by the same corporation (Again, Brand Republic). While their body of work is impressive, I still do not think this marketing firm meets notability requirements. Addionne (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Notability is just not an issue when an article is couched in floridly non-neutral and deliberately evasive advertising copy like this one is:

...an interactive communications agency...

...Creatively-driven, with a focus on Research & Development..

And, at any rate, the only claim made to minimal importance is a client list and a list of petty trade awards that do not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:. A significant and award-winning firm with plenty of references from reliable sources and not unduly promotional. It is clearly notable. - Ret.Prof (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards, though relatively minor, provide the necessary 3rd party sources, and market share is one factor in notability , so the client list is relevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The book exists, but does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria SilkTork *^YES! 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Bullet for Fidel (Killmaster novel)

[edit]

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

Book fails WP:NBOOKS, no reliable reviews or sources available. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diasgree with suggestion to delete on notability grounds - the article should be allowed. 1)The book is listed in US Library of Congress and this is referenced in the article, 2) it forms part of the 250+ canon of Killmaster novels published over a 30-year period that is itself notable for its longevity, 3) many earlier and later novels in the series have their own dedicated articles that have not been tagged for deletion, 4) as an early work in the canon it sets the template for later novels, especially as the author Moolman is attributed as the major author of the earlier works, which is a fruitful area for discussion/reference and comparison with later novels in the series, 5) the book makes reference to events and characters in previous novels in the series; without this article discussion and consideration of the historical context of the series would be adversely affected, 6) the book has been reprinted numerous times in both US and UK editions since its original publication in 1965, for which there continues to be a healthy secondhand market on Amzaon/EBay, 7) notability criteria is not fixed and may be subject to exception, per the WP:NBooks definition

Do not delete - forms part of cold war spy fiction genre with clear reference to historical figure Fidel CastroDrpig39 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge articles and volumes in book series of this sort are a problem. The current wording of notability for books will permit an article on every volume of this series--this is one of 8 that have so far been written in the same manner. They will all have been reviewed--it's just a matter of digging out the reviews. For this series, they have all been translated, most into multiple languages -- there seems to be a current scandinavian fad for them, so perhaps they're now more not There will always be something to say in addition to the plot--publishing history, receptions, translations. So we can justify an article about every one of them under our current rules.

However, it is clear that the fact that we can write a separate article does not necessarily mean that we must write a separate article. In some types of articles we do say that, for example , settlements. The question is primarily one of arrangement. Questions of merging properly come here when the situation is that the article can not be justified by notability or other considerations , and that therefore the material must be merged. In some cases there is no doubt that there should be, as for example Balzac--but where not even the frWP has attempted the immense job of writing the articles. We have previously I think concluded that for Barbara Cartland or Zane Grey, that a separate article for each novel would be possible. This case is no different. It comes to the question of how we want to handle these genres of literature. I

I suggest keeping them as articles for the same reason I support keeping episodes as articles--otherwise we will lose content. And for a series this large if we kept the content, the articles would disproportionately difficult to use because of their length.

fwiw, the arguments from Drpig are not really valid --being listed in the LC is what happens to most of what's published in the US, and only a small portion is notable ; being part of a long series is an argument for the article on the series, not each individual one; the other articles for vols. in the series have exactly the same problems; making reference back & forth is, if anything, an argument for combination articles; despite the new eds. there are not copies in libraries; and notability criteria are already in my opinion a little too lax for books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Delete. In principle, DGG is correct: if these books are all reviewed by reliable sources, they are notable and can haz article. But this specific article cites no sources and is therefore unverifiable. Per WP:V, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Sandstein 07:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Fram (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isla de sal

[edit]

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

Movie fails WP:MOVIE, with no reliable media coverage. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suspect this is a difficulty of accessing sources easily, not that sources don't exist: a Venezuelan film from 1964 is not exactly a hot-button English language internet topic. At any rate the film is significant enough to have been screened at a Venezuelan film festival last month [38]. And as part of the coverage of the screening El Nacional calls it a "classic of Venezuelan cinema". Rd232 ^talk 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry for this nomination, I would like to Withdraw this. Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just started a stub for the director, Clemente de la Cerda, a big name in Venezuelan movies. See the Spanish entry for this movie. Not great, but as his first movie it is almost certainly notable. I may expand it. His movie Soy un delincuente also needs an entry - it was a blockbuster. Coverage of non-English subjects is really poor in en.wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Soy un delincuente wasn't even in List of Venezuelan films - I added it yesterday. On a more positive note, the ability of Wikipedia to present things in English in an easily accessible form which otherwise don't have much English coverage online is a good thing - but it needs people to make it happen. WP:CSB exists, in case you're not aware. Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -notable debut film by a notable director. We are missing many very notable films and cinema people from Latin America. Actually if it wasn't for me we probably ouldn't even have articles on huge Latin stars like Hugo del Carril etc and even that is a poor article...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Secreto de los Yumbos

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS, no reliable reviews or other sources to show notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - found the article in the spanish Wikipedia and found one review mentioning it, see the link. I would want a more thorough look at Spanish Language sources, Sadads (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmira

[edit]

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

Assertions of fame, but not anything that would meet the bar for notability, no coverage I could find in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references provided. Google search fails to show any notability. It seems she is "famous" mostly for having an article in Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Seale

[edit]

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

Seems like an original-researched vanity piece. A thorough google search fails to reveal reliable sources that demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - for deletion. The only direct music references I could find was for 3rd prizes in two very minor competions (1) Rotary Club of Braids (a district within edinburgh) Young Musician of the Year 2005, (2) Glasgow Music Festival 2006 --Hywel Ashkenazy (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article claims Claire 'hit the headlines', there is no evidence for this to be found online. The article appears likely to be autobiographical, as it is maintained by a single person and is driven by personal websites rather than independent media. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This article is at best highly misleading, and at worst economical with the truth. One normally thinks of Young Musician of the Year winners as one of these people, and guess what - she's not there. If that's not trustworthy then I don't see how we can trust the rest, and GNews does not back up any of these claims. Might just reconsider if the "numerous" awards are listed, but I'm not holding my breath. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bowman

[edit]

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

Actor who has had many small roles, but nothing major. Doesn't seem to comply with WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a UK actor smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. I saw him on stage in London and thought he was a good actor. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This result only applies to Franz Alexius Courcelles 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Alexius

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:NFOOTY having never competed in a fully-professional league (the Bundesliga only being formed in the 1960s). Player also seems to fail WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles for deletion for similar reasons. EDIT: Nomination for Beck and Bars withdrawn. See below. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep all~~ - All three have played at the highest level of German football. Especially given the stipulations of WP:FOOTYN, I would say all three of these people are notable. Just because it was over 50 years ago, doesn't make them any less notable than people who do the same thing today. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN states that amateur era players must have played at a national level to be considered notable, which isn't the case here (though admittedly it's a bit of a grey area, since of course a national league structure didn't exist at all at the time). In any case, I don't agree that simply playing in any of the five regional Oberligas of that era is sufficient. By that logic there would be more footballers eligible for an article on wikipedia from the 1950s than in today's German league system, despite never playing at a fully professional level! J Mo 101 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, and I'll admit I was a little over hasty, so I'm changing my vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heinz Beck and Willi Bars - Beck played in the final of the DFB-Pokal, which is notable regardless of the era. Bars played in the endrunde (final, for the lack of a better translation) of the German championship, which at the time was the national league structure. I haven't found anything conclusive on Franz Alexius yet, so I'm voting Delete for now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fair compromise. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination for the two players you mention, so hopefully this AfD can be closed. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat (Until the Morning)

[edit]

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

Non-notable single --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one of the keep !votes makes any attempt to show how this book meets notability standards, the other vague waves have been disregarded. Courcelles 02:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger than Iron

[edit]

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

I do not believe the book is notable -- yet another memoir. Looking at Google for "stronger+than+iron"+Balberyszski gives 73 results. Handful of these are Wikipedia and its mirrors, library listings, and Internet shops where the book can be purchased. There are three reviews that I could find: San Diego Jewish World (used as a ref, but is not reliable - "Our entire staff is volunteer"); personal blog post; review on Associated Content which "enables anyone to publish their content on any topic" (the entire website is blacklisted by Wikipedia so I can't post the link). Current Amazon rank is #199,246. Renata (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, having read the article, did you by any chance look up the Yiddish name of the title? "Shtarker fun Ayzn", is the English transliteration, I am currently looking for the title in its original Hebrew based character. The Jewish museum in Frankfurt had a display for the book in question [pointer=7&cHash=bf11926bfb Frankfurt Museum]. See also about the book. I will write more later on today, but I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Jab843 (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC) After reading over sections of the book, I believe this book has unique qualities that makes it not as you say "--yet another memoir." Have you looked at the book? It is mostly viewable on google books. I will continue to investigate this matter. Incidentally, sometimes the unread and unsung hero's that which the books are more significant than a mass read book about the Holocaust. I will return later.Jab843 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not look for Hebrew sources -- I do not speak the language. I do feel bad about nominating a book on the Holocaust. However, inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on "unique qualities" of "unsung heroes" but on verifiable and reliable sources. Sadly, this book does not meet the criteria outlined in notability requirements. Renata (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Frankfurt, the Goethe Universität list it in their new acquisitions for September 2010. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BK is the relevant criteria here. Google search reveals a few commercial links, the publisher's page, and a single blog entry. There may be more past that first page, but the bottom of it doesn't refer to this book, as far as I can tell. There's nothing else suggesting this book has some outside coverage. Jab's suggestion about the book's significance is interesting, and perhaps indicates there could be other sources, but I didn't find them, and I think the argument's more of an appeal to sentiment than one based on the policy question. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tough one applying the usual criteria but a Google Books search turns up multiple references to this book (in English and/or Yiddish) in other literature[39][40]. That plus the apparent exhibit about the book in Frankfurt lead me to conclude that this book is a significant source about the Holocaust, and that the encyclopedia is better with this article than without it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first search returns 20 hits: 1 book itself, 2 unrelated, 4 no previews, the rest mentions in footnotes & bibliography. The second search is mostly duplicates. The exhibition was of ghetto posters and does not appear to be related to the book. I do not believe a book cited less than 20 times is notable. Renata (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book certainly seems to be worthy, but the main source is a review written by a free-lance author. Not enough reliable material for an article here. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable source of infomation on the Holocaust. Mako Addicted (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr. Joseph Kermish's (one of the eminent histoians at Yad VaShem) wrote an introduction to this book, as well in the introduction are endorsements from Professor Dov Levin and Professor Dina Porat, both leading Holocaust researchers at the Hebrew and Tel Aviv Universities as well as Dr. Laurence Weinbaum also a Holocaust Historian. All of them consider this book a most important and unique eyewitness source for researchers of the Holocaust in Lithuania. Most importantly it is the only source that comes from the official archives of a major Jewish council. 8digits (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the user is the author of the article. Renata (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please does that mean Renata3 that their is something wrong with what I wrote?
  - Here is what Dr. Joseph Kermish, the Dr. Joseph Kermish, the founder and first Director of the Yad Vashem Archives wrote about the book.
  - Mendel Balberyszski’s book is one of the most important sources for the history of destruction and resistance and a most impressive monument for the “Jerusalem of Lithuania” during the storm of carnage and barbarism that wiped out one of the most influential Jewish centers in the world – a center with seventy-five thousand Jews and priceless cultural treasures.
  - Dr. Joseph Kermish, z”l, Yad Vashem. 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs)
    - Don't take this the wrong way. It's just a somewhat standard disclosure. I am sure this book is a worthwhile read and is a valuable contribution to the history of The Holocaust. I am contemplating buying it myself. However, the house rules here on Wikipedia are different. Here we rely on third-party independent sources -- and they are sorely lacking in this case. (PS. I did some formatting to your post) Renata (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I have added some citations which I hope will impress you. Note it is a good read

8digits (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seams like a good book even if written by a free lancer.TucsonDavid (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. The only reference is dubious. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mendel Balberyszski.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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