< 19 October	21 October >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Tune[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I'm just a political anorak but I am certainly aware of this book Francium12 15:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly enough reliable sources to pass GNG. Like this review in The Guardian and BBC News. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plenty of coverage, and WP:NOTNEWS says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia"...clearly all the coverage shows this isn't "routine" news coverage (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 United States tomato shortage[edit]

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

It's apparently too controversial an issue to do via PROD. I suggest merging to 2010 in the United States. Recognizance (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there has been significant and lasting coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. The article could be renamed tomato shortage and broadened (I've found that there is currently a shortage in Israel and Jordan). As a the most popular vegetable (see the WSJ source) a shortage of tomatoes is a relatively big deal. Smartse (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in Australia. Smartse (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tomato shortages perhaps would be better if it's going to turn into a list. —Soap— 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As shown by the selection of articles in this google news search, the topic of tomato shortages is very well covered and is clearly a notable event. Smartse (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Tomato Shortage. Marcus Qwertyus 12:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move since notability has been established. ~NerdyScienceDude 12:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move/merge to Tomato shortage, and broaden to include more the more widespread coverage indicated above. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Fluctuations in availability of a particular commodity are ubiquitous, especially in the short term. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
$30 for 11 kilos ... in winter! Lucky bastards! Keep as a showcase of The Evil Empire, or The Blessing of Free Enterprize, whichever side you choose. East of Borschov 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this AFD is a case study at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 (see Q11), so I'd recommend no speedy closing as long as this RFA goes on. East of Borschov 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~That's not a valid reason for a close, let alone a "speedy close."~~ Shadowjams (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you missed the no. Smartse (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apparently so. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to 2010 in the United States or (preferably) an article discussing worldwide tomato shortages. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I fail to see why this can't be an article on its own, it was an event that was obviously notable, per the numerous references. Tom my! 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is quite notable and was covered on many reliable sources. It meets WP:N --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Tommy and Alpha Quadrant. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. Jarkeld (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I'm dismayed at how this AfD seems to have been neglected because it plainly fails WP:N. It's basic WP:NOTNEWS and seasonal fluctuations in produce or any other crop do not make an encyclopedia article. Context matters a lot more than how many references you can quantify. This does not have any notability in the sense anyone really means that term. Shadowjams (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - Per Tommy and Alpha Quadrant. Meets WP:N. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N met. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is precisely the type of content to which WP:NOTNEWS was intended to apply. 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Runner[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sadads (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. passes WP:BK 1 with 2 current reviews and Washington Post review and John Hopkins University (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Place Like Home (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:BK. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clark is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay notable, Sadads (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mary Higgins Clark is one of the authors where I think it can be presumed every book is notable. And so it is, it has a NYTimes review DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Island (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best seller with numerous reviews. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I added some of the many references. The novel is clearly notable. Please practice some WP:BEFORE #9. Silver seren^C 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by numerous reliable sources. Lazy, weak WP:Not notable nomination. Vodello (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep: Leifting, wtf are you up to? Some of these prods and afds look like they may be legit, but others....--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy KeepSadads (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing You (Nicci French novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added some references, though more can easily be found from a simple search. The nominator needs to practice doing WP:BEFORE #9. Silver seren^C 16:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, have no clue for basis of nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seizure (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh come off it. I added sources as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear KeepSadads (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of now, there are four RS on the page, each of which appear to be a newspaper review of the novel, as well as documentation of the bestseller list placement. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added some references. A simple search clearly shows the notability of the book. The nominator should practice some WP:BEFORE #9. Silver seren^C 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSadads (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sole creator's request Scott Mac 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DisInformation (search engine)[edit]

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

Article about a long-defunct search engine. If this wasn't so poorly written and full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH it might be worth merging with the existing Disinfo, which covers the same material. I originally redirected it, but the creator seems strongly resistant to the idea of merging. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I am in Wikipedia COI territory here, but I have commented on pages like this before without being contested. To raise the first point of the search engine being defunct, to quote wikipedia word-for-word, "notability is not temporary" secondly to confront the idea that the article contains OR, the in-line citations provide information in their wording, such as that this search engine is alarmist, such that it deals with pop culture, such that it deals with religious zealotry, and such that it deals wiht popular culture, a niche audience, that it is disruptive in it's nature, etc. I have not copied the quotes word-for-word, but I'm somewhat experienced in editing articles to do with the digitized media, and did not wnat to violate wikipedia:copyright. 85% of that article is precise, and, to quote wikipedia again, wikipedia deals "with factual precision". Just becuase an article requires a miniature clean-up, it does not mean throwing out 85% of the content, just my 2 cents there, although obviously I am not allowed voting powers.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Disinfo (and/or Richard Metzger). There are a few third-party references here that give some indication of notability, but not enough to clearly justify a separate article here; the subject would be better handled by being cut down and merged to Disinfo, which appears to be the larger organisation behind it, or Richard Metzger who created it, both of which are notable. If better sources can be found, I'll change my mind, but as it is I don't think independent notability has been established here. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind please have it deleted thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panic (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by numerous reliable sources. This is one of a series of lazy, weak, and disruptive WP:Not notable nominations. Please do not nominate articles for deletion en masse without research. It is a waste of many editors' time. Vodello (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it primarily a waste of my time since i'm the one working to improve all of them? :P Though I suppose it is sort of good time because of that, not that AfD should be used as an article-improvement center. Silver seren^C 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Run[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:BK. Nomination seems to be part of disruptive deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadads (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion's Game[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've added some references to the article, but the nominator should have really done some looking themself, per WP:BEFORE #9. I found a rather astonishing 333 results just from a simple search. Silver seren^C 04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Run for Your Life (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best seller with numerous reviews. Deletion spree contrary to deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Col. Sadads (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Justice (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best-selling book for which there are numerous reviews. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to be sufficiently notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per times best seller, notable author and reviews, Sadads (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persuader (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As I stated in another AfD on the Jack Reacher series started by the nominator, the books are clearly notable, per a simple search. I think some WP:BEFORE #9 needs to be practiced here. Silver seren^C 03:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD is merely one of a very large number of deletions flagged by a certain editor and looks (like 99% of the rest) pretty dubious. QuipQuotch (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Lee Child? Duh KeepSadads (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to Lose (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Numerous reviews from major news sources clearly shows the notability of this book (and the series, for that matter). A clear example of an utter lack of WP:BEFORE #9 by nominator. Silver seren^C 00:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD is merely one of a very large number of deletions flagged by a certain editor and looks (like 99% of the rest) pretty dubious. QuipQuotch (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepSadads (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting Fears[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contesting of a prod is a reason to discuss the matter at the article, not to bring it here. The topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in articleSadads (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion per CSD G11 (blatant advertising with no good version to return to) Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GORUCK[edit]

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

Very promotional article for a manufacturer of military-style backpacks and such. There are 9 references in the article currently (although one is a dead link), and none of them pass WP:RS. They are mostly advertisements or press releases for the products, or blogs, or facebook pages. Article created by WP:SPA. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confess 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, it reads like an advertisement IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. & salted DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thorpe-Apps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A conservative blogger with no real evidence of notability. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Thorpe-Apps related to a simple case of copy-and-paste vandalism. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Thorpe-Apps (2nd nomination) did relate to this guy - an article with ridiculous claims that he was editor of The Times. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any real trace of notability of this person beyond facebook and a couple of blogs. Given the history of this page I am assuming a vanity page. Travelbird (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: This is the ~~third~~ EIGHTH time this non-entity has had an article thrown up, and my, it gets fun. The creator of this version, User:Andrewthorpeapps, was indef blocked as a vandalism-only SPA the day this article was created, and somehow no one caught it. The buck promptly passed to User talk:Ldybagt2010, a SPA who removed PROD tags from the article without comment ... and still no one took this to AfD. Then the torch was passed to User:95.146.234.188 and User:95.146.231.61, two more SPAs. Now we have User talk:Abjk421, who likewise has removed PRODs and AfD tags without comment and likewise is an SPA except for edits on Alex O'Connell (fencer), something which the anon IPs also edited. Perhaps a checkuser is in order, given the likelihood that this is Andrewthorpeapps dodging his indef block. At the very least, this article ought to be salted. Ravenswing 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It gets thicker, by the bye. This purported blog is less than two weeks old (without a single comment on any entry, unusual for a supposedly well-known blog), and while the article claims that the subject is the "lead writer" for the Conservative Future movement's blog, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the subject's blog and the movement. He was referenced in the CF article ... an edit a few days ago by one of the anon IPs already under suspicion of sockpuppetry. Ravenswing 14:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable author with no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear that, whatever the previous history of the page, this particular article is very different in content. Each page must be considered on its individual merits. It also contains numerous references - and this could not be said of previous pages under the same name. Mssunshine1977 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC) :— Mssunshine1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: Just out of curiosity, Mssunshine, how could you possibly know what the previously deleted pages said? You've just joined Wikipedia, after all. That being said, there are only four references. Two of them didn't mention the subject at all, and the third was a self-submitted entry that didn't support the assertion being referenced; they've now been removed. The fourth is the subject's own blog, which of course doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Ravenswing 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable author. And I would second a call for a checkuser on all these SPAs.<edit> Which I have now requested here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO or WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of notability. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blogger, no indication of notability. Hey Mid (contributions) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Ravenswing. Given the ludicrous amount of times it's been deleted I'm surprised it isn't protected already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) - Nomination withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes. My misunderstanding about what constitutes a "major match" was compounded by the article's wording which seemed (to me, anyway) to point out all the reasons that this individual was not notable. SnottyWong ^express 00:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Canning[edit]

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

The text of the article itself seems to indicate that this individual is not notable. He was picked up by a pro cricket team, but was never a regular player. Then, he was released from his contract not long after. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS#Cricket. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – actually, he passes WP:NSPORTS#Cricket comfortably:

"A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she:

...

Has appeared in at least one major (i.e., first-class or List A) match as a player."

And his Cricinfo profile states he's played 62 first-class and 44 List A games. In fact, major cricket covers Twenty20 cricket too (I'm not sure why the sports notability page doesn't say as such) – another 11 games. A not unsubstantial amount. Article's certainly poor, though; I can take a stab at it later tonight/tomorrow, probably, but I think there's enough to work with.

Some sources worth considering: aforementioned Cricinfo profile, [1][2][3][4]. Not the best bunch, but I'm sure there's more out there. Just need to dig a little deeper as he's South African, and their coverage isn't quite as substantial as other major cricketing countries'. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - over 100 matches over 5 years, including one last week, at at a notable level isn't enough? I'm struggling to WP:AGF on this one - maybe you should stick to topics you are more familiar with.The-Pope (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine (Pinoy) Expats/OFW Blog Awards[edit]

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

Article appears to be promoting a non-notable award. Very spammy. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Note that the history section was copied from here. I've removed it as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No bias to merge with the series (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of Death (novel)[edit]

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

Delete Contwested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the problem with the reviews I managed to find? It appears that Publishers Weekly and Booklist have both reviewed this book. Edgepedia (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews, Sadads (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Does appear to meet WP:BK based on the reviews added by Edgepedia. I could see it being merged along with all the others into a larger article about the Pendergast series. (I'd be happy to put that together, if that's the consensus.) But I do think it is fine as a separate article as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article for the trilogy. (or keep--as I will explain, it makes relatively little difference). Reviews show notability for books, but the default for most series novels like this should be to merge into the series. The reviews talk of it as part of the series. This is not a question of notability but of arrangement. It's not a good idea to excessively splinter articles. I'd suggest the higher level needed for parts of a normal series should be "classic" or "famous". I am thinking primarily of the user--the presentation is clearer if the sequential books are together. In some fields, we in practice need separate articles to keep the material from gradually disappearing, but that's not the case here. I know this will seem like a change in position for me, but it really isn't--my emphasis always has been on keeping content not keeping articles, and I will support whatever is necessary to keep the content. For major characters in fiction, we've still needed separate articles or they get reduced to one line summaries. For episodes, unfortunately we still need separate articles or they get reduced to unencyclopedic plot teasers. I did not come here an inclusionist in fiction--I found myself forced to be one in order to counter the attitude that we should decrease the depth of fiction coverage. I think that view is now a small minority, and we have less to fear from it. We can now be mature enough to cover fiction comprehensively in full detail, in substantial articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearers of the Black Staff[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator has given no rationale for deletion per BK. The book was on the New York Times bestseller list and was written by Terry Brooks, a giant in the fantasy field who is credited with bringing back the entire genre in the late 70s. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the list does not make it notable. It has to actually win an award. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Actually no, being on the list does make the book notable, especially if it is by an author who has multiple awards and is extremely popular, Sadads (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best-selling novel. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear KeepSadads (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No bias to merge (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Clear[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the conclusion of a notable novel by a notable author that has already received a number of critical reviews. The article continues to be updated. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is actually the second part of a single novel that was split by the publisher, it might possibly be worth a merge with Blackout (novel) instead. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per having multiple independent RS, but if not kept, Merge into the first volume per Scjessey. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda 945 (novel)[edit]

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

Delete contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a cursory Google search indicates that this novel has been the subject of several reviews in mainstream media. Most are behind a paywall, but one can be read partially here. This makes the book meet WP:GNG. Sandstein 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sandstein. Reviews (good ones as well) all over the place. I might have to buy it, actually. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep Sadads (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Patrick Robinson is a well known author of airport-type books, and this seems notable. The book looks like rubbish, but it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep if the apparent notability is sourced a bit better than it currently is. Gosh, I had no idea that Shakira was a commando/action hero! ;P bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful Place[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources cited in the article not satisfy WP:BK criterion 1? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources cited in the article and many other reviews in major newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The novel has coverage in Salon, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and much, much more, all of which can be found on the first page results of a simple search. Please practice some WP:BEFORE #9 here, nominator. Silver seren^C 03:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article has recently been sourced and cleaned up, does meet WP:BK criterion 1. Original nomination rationale is no longer valid. An article that needs clean up (which this article clearly used to be) is not the same as an article that needs to be deletion.--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 major independent RS meets both the GNG and BK criterion 1. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough reliable sources to easily pass the general notability guideline. And there are others too: The Observer, The Washington Times and Time Out New York. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 23:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Detail[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD but non-notable per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. This is the latest in a notable series of books on The Culture by a notable author. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per scj. --John (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, indeed. htom (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, for all the stated reasons. TJIC (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple RS so far, but if not kept, Merge to The Culture as part of a clearly notable series. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nomination states no clear basis for deletion, its like the current U.S. foreclosure snafu -- you can't foreclose (delete) unless you can explain why it should be done.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - It's a notable book in an ongoing series by an award-winning author. What's the (supposed) thinking behind this proposal? I am baffled. Derekbd (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Luzr (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Green0eggs (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously obvious keep and a nomination suggesting unfortunately poor judgement on the part of the nominator (in the best good faith, of course) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other eight books in the series have pages. Sure, this one is short, but it'll expand in time to match the rest of them. 128.205.230.236 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Latest book by internationally famous author in acclaimed series. Well referenced even before prod added. Unsure why this was nominated at all. --Raerth (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Black[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:BK -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with these new edits it shows that it is a notable article. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been reviewed in multiple publications and meets the notability standards for books. Silver seren^C 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese Wall (album). Conesnsus to redirect...althought it (apparently) charted on Hot 100... (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photogenic Memory[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication of notability. noq (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Wall (album), the album on which this song appears, per WP:NSONG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Wall (album) per WP:NALBUM. There is not enough material for a decent (non-stub article]], but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 numbers are close to even in this debate, but the keep arguments have to be given significantly less weight because of their failure to make a case for the retention of the article by reference to relevant inclusion standards (eg notability guidelines). The delete !votes do reference such standards, therefore their case is significantly stronger, and there is a consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitrolling[edit]

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

NN term [5] CTJF83 chat 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete Neologism intended solely to mock Meg Whitman. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Part Promotional and part inappropriate mocking of Meg Whitman. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:G10? CTJF83 chat 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Especially in the broader context, I'd agree that this is an unsourced disparagement of a living person (and her campaign) and thus qualifies as G10. Regardless of the "speedy" part, this is clearly not appropriate material for any number of reasons. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete New term made up for a mistake just made today. Unlikely to go anywhere. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It was created as a joke in references to this thread on slashdot: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/10/20/2147222. Please note that the post on slashdot was 2 minutes after the article was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.23.238 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article easily qualifies for a speedy delete, sure, but something tells me it'll be back. Think Streisand effect. Kethinov (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at such a time where it passes GNG, the article can be recreated CTJF83 chat 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Intended only to gain karma on slashdot: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1831456&cid=33968216. Not noteworthy. Afforess (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above - this event isn't going away in the hive mind. Besides, slant rime is on our side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.119.3 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was tempted to go for redirecting to the article on Whitman's campaign but it seems that this term isn't even being used that much on the internet. Only two of the first 10 Google searches even use this term and one of them is this article. If the situation changes we can consider it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfect example of public relations screw-ups paralleling reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.229.101 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see both this term and 'megrolled' on twitter, slashdot and facebook. Clearly it is a subtle variation of rickrolling, which has a lengthy wikipedia entry. It may be more appropriately hjfreakroll perhaps, but we must adhere to how it is used in the wild. For those who suggest delete, I have seen a lack of any solid reason for deletion. A political bias, one way or the other, is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Michaelok (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not a political one; rather, these sources do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources to establish notability. Serpent's Choice (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is no good argument to delete this. This term is more widely spread across the internet than most wikipedia articles. Deletionists are just lining up behind this one since they have nothing better to do in life. HebrewHammerTime (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reason for your lack of WP:AGF? CTJF83 chat 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's not even a meme yet -- just a single-shot trolling.KiloByte (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Even though this article is written as a response on a Slashdot article, that doesn't mean this article doesn't have any merit. The term "Whitrolling" and "Meg-rolling" are already used plenty out there. Besides "Rickrolling" is a deliberate act to get someone to watch that particular song, and "Whitrolling" is an accidental copy-paste faux-pas. Different intentions in posting. Xiph1980 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think further examples will be added to the entry now that there's a term to describe this phenomenon, and now that the Wikipedia article is becoming known. Whitrolling is also a substantially different phenomenon from the the kind described in the article into which this content would be merged. AmbassadorShras (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Almost all the Keep !votes are new our off long several month breaks for this !vote CTJF83 chat 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Slashdot troll. --BRIAN0918 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can we move it to a subheading under "Rickrolling"? We can redirect both "Whitrolling" and "Megrolling" to that entry. Wiki88V (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong bad keep All of the deletionists on this page have been whitrolled. Therefore it is notable. Well, unless you want ED to win, again. 132.206.3.157 (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure the article needs a little work, but give it a chance. 69.196.162.34 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Also, remember the difference between fame (or, in this case, un-fame) and notability. The event (but not necessarily the neologism for it) may have a place in the persons article, but the event per se should be typical for the fame in 15 minutes phenomena - and this is an encyclopedia. Not a red-top paper. Greswik (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw my nomination (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeopardy! contestants[edit]

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

Most of the contestants aren't going to be notable and if they are, and have their own page, Category:Jeopardy! contestants would be better. 8,800+ episodes equals 26,000 contestants, minus winners, so rough guess of 15-20,000 total contestants. CTJF83 chat 19:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. This was suggested by several users in various Jeopardy! contestant deletion discussions, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lowenthal, the closer suggested a merge to "create a list of important contensants that don't otherwise support a stand-alone article." Nearly all the contestants nominated were found to satisfy WP:GNG; the concerns involved were WP:BLP1E for some borderline contestants, and moving them to this article would make it no longer a biography of an individual person but rather a collection of events (noteworthy Jeopardy! appearances by various contestants). RJaguar3 | u | t 19:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the inclusion criteria on this page? Non-trivial coverage? So there could be thousands of people on here? CTJF83 chat 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG RJaguar3 | u | t 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean for you to include a contestant on this page...just passes GNG? So, like I said, there could be thousands listed here. CTJF83 chat 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would seem an equitable solution to the problem with individual contestant pages. I hardly think that the danger of "thousands" of entries is likely; very few Jeopardy! players have the sort of reliably sourced coverage that the current examples possess. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a rename to List of notable Jeopardy! contestants be warranted? I could live with that, and end the AfD... I was just concerned with how many people would be listed with this generic title. CTJF83 chat 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate merge target for other Jeopardy! contestants who've received coverage, but not to the level of meriting their own articles. No, we don't need to rename it to "notable", just make sure the content meets V and we'll be fine, per Wp:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would prefer to define the scope of the list. It is impossible to have a complete list with all the participants, but if this list were to be renamed List of notable Jeopardy! contestants or something like List of highest winning Jeopardy! contestants with a threshold set around 100k it would be better. Nergaal (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would've voted delete, except that this is now the only place sourced information on author/notable individual Mark Lowenthal is available on Wikipedia since Sotto's successful AfD of Mark Lowenthal. The closing admin of that AfD explicitly noted that the content here from that page might be merged to a page like this one. Robert K S (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful filing drawer that will come in handy as a merge target for the objects of the inevitable stream of challenges about the inevitable stream of articles about non-notable or barely notable gameshow contestants. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale practically invalidates itself. This article is a compromise so that we don't have hundreds of Jeopardy contestant articles. This is a completely appropriate list under the current guidelines Vodello (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Collectors (novel)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BK. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ condensed plot to David Baldacci, there is no sense in completely deleting the content on a highly popular author.Sadads (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep now that the sourcing is available, Sadads (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added some references and reviews. The novel is clearly notable, per a simple search. The nominator needs to practice WP:BEFORE #9 more often. Silver seren^C 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I really don't know what criteria the nominator applied to this mass of nominations, but even though I don't read a lot of popular fiction, even I recognize an author like this as quite popular with a string of "hits".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, it was No. 2 on the NYT best seller list as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wareham Rangers F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable club which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:FOOTYN. PROD was contested because this article was kept at a previous AfD, but looking at the discussion I think the notability bar has changed since. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the highest level this club is played at looks to be the Dorset Premier Football League, which is at Step 11 of the English football league system. WP:FOOTY holds that Step 10 is the lowest limit for notability. If I'm wrong in anything I've said then please feel free to correct me! Giant Snowman 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like that may have been an incorrect keep at the last AfD. Their FCHD entry confirms they have only played in the Dorset leagues and they haven't played in the FA Cup (the required bar for football club notability), and there's no indication they are notable in any other way. Bettia (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GiantSnowman. The club has never competed higher than Step 11. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Play in a notable league (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Barton F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable club which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:FOOTYN. PROD was contested because this article was kept at a previous AfD, but looking at the discussion I think the notability bar has changed since. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep club formerly played (until recently) in the Hellenic League, which is regarded as a notable level within the English pyramid (note: all current Hellenic Division 1 sides have articles). Eldumpo (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eldumpo. Sounds notable to me! Giant Snowman 14:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard is clear and reasonable --see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, and the team has met it. If it has ever been notable, it remains notable-- Wikipedia is not just s record of what things are in 2010, but , like all encyclopedias, a permanent record. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't WP:FOOTYN state that the notability bar is for all clubs that have played in the national cup (ie. the FA Cup)? If there is an unwritten consensus that all clubs that have played at a certain level or higher are notable then that's different, but this team doesn't meet the above policy. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) - WP:FOOTYN states that a club has to have played in the national cup (in this case the FA Cup) to be deemed notable, and I can't find any evidence of this team ever playing in this competition. There's no evidence of this team meeting general notability criteria neither. Bettia (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Sedation Research Fund[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Article borders on spam. DB declined based on two references in scientific journals, but neither reference mentions this group. The fact that the article was written by a user with the name "SEOB2D" leads me to believe that it is a "search engine optimization" technique to provide notability for this group. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few mentions of the fund in Google, but they simply mentioned that it existed. I found nothing that showed notability. For the two references listed in the article I have no idea why the first one is there and the second is simply an article written by someone awarded money from the fund. Once again this doesn't prove notability. Comprehensive information about the fund would have to be found. Also the last line does make the article sound quite spammy --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 22:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources. The current referencing in the article is suspect at best, and I can find no better. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asking Alexandria concert tours[edit]

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

Promotional list of a band's recent and upcoming concerts. This is not encyclopedic information. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This appears to be a collection of tours that, with the exception of Soundwave, all individually fail the criteria at WP:NMG#Concert tours. Most all of these are also being sourced by images of promotional posters, which are not the published third-party citations that Wikipedia is looking for. I'm not sure I completely agree that a historical reference of concert tours of a band isn't encyclopedic information, but the way it's being presented here clearly doesn't comply with many guidelines and policies, and it's certainly not enough information that it's deserving of its own article. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure if you noticed (because I didn't at first), but this isn't a list of Asking Alexandria concert tours, but it is a list of concert tours in which Asking Alexandria is one of many participants. There's a subtle difference, and that is the reason I'm claiming that this is not encyclopedic information. SnottyWong ^speak 20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I did notice that. What I was trying to get at with my comment was that it sounded like your nomination was half being based on the article being promotional, and half based on it's content not being encyclopedic. However, I don't agree with the latter part of that statement—or maybe I do agree with what you're driving at, just not the way it's worded. I believe a list of tours could in fact be encyclopedic information under certain conditions, but that this specific list is not presented in an encyclopedic manner. Regardless of whether Asking Alexandria was headlining or a participant, none of these tours are individually notable, and no sources exist on the band's "artistic approach, financial success or relationship to audience." (from WP:NMG) Fezmar9 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: With an obscure band whose sole claim to fame is a single studio release that peaked at #170 on Billboard's album chart, and an article sourced by Myspace, Flickr, Youtube, last.fm and various blogs, I'd say a good case could be made for deletion on the band itself. An article on its tour dates? Absurd. Fails WP:V. Ravenswing 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yogamatters[edit]

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

Yoga equipment store has questionable notability. Looking for community consensus on whether this passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^chat 18:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given are trivial mentions at best. 2 says you, says two 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 36 (U.S. series)[edit]

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

Unreleased compilation album fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are over 200 extant articles for albums in this series (counting all countries involved). That distinguishes this from a normal crystal ball album article. There's no reason to expect that it won't be released, that we won't reference it, and that we won't have an article for it just like all the others. And, further, the release date is less than two weeks after the scheduled close of this AFD. I do not see the gain to the project from at best 10 days of largely procedural deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL wasn't my main problem with the article (although I believe it certainly is relevant). The problem is that there is no significant coverage by independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. I think it would definitely be CRYSTAL if your rationale to keep the article is based on the notion that "it's going to chart" or that "it's going to get a lot of reviews". There is no reason (apart from promotion) to create an article on an album which hasn't been released, and which has no coverage in independent sources. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not trying to dispute that the article, as it stands, doesn't meet the coverage requirements. Rather, I guess I'm saying that given the timeframe involved, it's not worth worrying about. Let's say we delete this. Two weeks later, give or take a couple of days, someone will recreate exactly the same thing, plus a blurb from Allmusic and a Billboard ranking box, just as almost every article in this series has (whether that should be sufficient is a broader question for another place). Is it crystal balling to expect that? For a random upcoming album by a random band, certainly. For the ~200th of these series albums? It would seem not. Is having the page deleted for 10 or 12 days in compliance with the letter of the notability policy? Certainly. Is it constructive to do so? I can't see why it would be. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although an extension of the requirements of WP:NALBUMS, since this series is the most notable of all compilation albums, it should follow that individual albums within that series are notable. However, I am not against a redirect of many of the Now album articles for those that are nothing more than track lists. I'd prefer a redirect over delete here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per practice of having articles about every album in this extremely successful series of compilation albums. That being said, because they are compilation albums, they don't get a lot of reviews -- they just get a lot of sales. If, rather than having articles about each individual album, there was a single article with a table listing the release date and chart performance of each album in the U.S. series, I could understand redirecting the individual album articles to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good grief, its coming out in a couple weeks. What is the point of deleting an article that will be recreated in a couple of weeks? --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point in creating an article before there is substantial coverage of its subject? I fully understand your argument that it's probably going to receive coverage shortly, but I disagree that we should temporarily ignore policies for this reason. SnottyWong ^chat 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Job description[edit]

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

Long-unreferenced jargon-filled magnet for all sorts of useless edits. Doesn't seem likely to be a full article itself (just dictdef and pile of OR and blog links?), except as a fork or component of some other employment, hiring, or want-ad-related article. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fundamental principle in personnel management. The article needs references but is actually, in my opinion, a decent first draft of a useful article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note A couple minutes on Google Books shows at least five books solely devoted to job descriptions plus dozens of others that delve into the subject in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. I'm seeing quite a few sources that discuss this specific topic, in detail. Some cleanup may be necessary, but that is not a deletion function. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current state of the article borders on worthless, but there are volumes of information to build an article from. Entire books and journal articles targeted for human resources and management employees discuss job descriptions in various manners. This article even approaches job descriptions (and job markets) in mathematical terms. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the kernel of AFD is not "does this topic suffice for someone possibly to write something about it?" but "does this article meet guidelines and policies?". I hereby invite someone to rewrite, or even brutalize down to a stub, with a smattering of key cites (I know nothing about the topic, and my quick googling found lots of job-hunting blogs and lots of materials whose reliability in the field I cannot judge), and I would happily withdraw the nom. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do. I'm ref-hunting for some more obscure stuff, but this is an easy target that I should be able to rewrite well before the AFD window closes. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". It goes on to suggest various tags that could be used to encourage content improvement. I doubt that taking it to AfD is the most appropriate way to invite other users to improve an article. Nonetheless, I've done a little work and added a couple of refs... bobrayner (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't doubt that the current content is a bit flaky or that it may attract useless edits, but in principle I think "Job Description" is a significant concept which deserves exploration in an encyclopaedia. It can't be too hard to find content from reliable sources. As an example, the first book I found on my shelf is [6] and the index says that Job Description is on pages 47-8, 194, 205-208, 214, 223, and 519-520, so I doubt there's a shortage of material to work with..! Will try to make some updates... bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octo (guitar)[edit]

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

Non-notable invention. Fails WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced promotion of a non-notable new product. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mainly CopyVio Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystudio[edit]

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

Appears to be spam. One reference given, an article in an entity called "AZ Weekly", which appears to be a free giveaway publication out of Scottsdale. No indication of existence of articles in real publications or that sort of thing. Article is written like an ad and would need severe redacting.

On the other hand, the one ref given (and granted it looks a lot like a press release type thing) claims that they have "partnered up" with EMI Music, the GRAMMY Foundation, Mark Burnett Productions, Rodney Jerkins (claimed to be the producer of Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson, Beyonce, and Britney Spears), Simon Fuller, Perez Hilton, and Jamie King. If "partnered up" means "has entered into a formal business relationship with" rather than "we have sent them a brochure", and if it's actually true (I don't know how much one can trust the factcheckers at AZ Weekly), then maybe they are notable. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not, large portions of the article was lifted almost word for word from this. Speedy Delete 2 says you, says two 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Daughter The Play[edit]

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

Play with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Good faith google search turns up only this review and a review at helium.com which appears to have been written by the play's author.

Previously prodded without a reason given; prod removed by IP editor . Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a play mounted locally in Indiannapolis without significant coverage. There's a review here, and behind a paywall here, but it does appear to be a full review. But reviews from a couple of local papers does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant copyright infringement. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David wants to fly[edit]

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

Non-notable film, unclear if content is about the film or about the plot. BOVINEBOY2008 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has been accepted to one of the world's leading documentary film festivals, with David Lynch as its subject. Whatever the shortcomings of the article -- and there are many, I agree -- I do not agree that this film can be accurately described as "non-notable." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baddies (advertising award show)[edit]

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

No indication that this student-run award show is notable. VQuakr (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is teh best coverage I can find about these awards. That's well short of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Coate[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. ttonyb (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion per nom. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the absence of any reliable sources this artist appears non-notable per policy cited in nomination and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think there is sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHMA-FM[edit]

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

This article fails to meet notability guidelines. I initially prodded it in February 2010 and no improvement has been made on that front, despite quite a few significant (and unsourced) content additions during that time. A check of Google and news sources reveal no mention beyond their own marketing. Addionne (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP I might as well just withdraw. It is clear from the arguments below that radio articles are exempt from providing reliable sources or verifiable information. -Addionne (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote Just giving this that I found on news.google.com when searching for chma fm. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/salon/article/1254049 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.72.104 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The station is described in third party media as the "campus and community radio station" for Sackville, New Brunswick, and the Stereophonic Festival described in the article also receives independent media attention.[7][8][9] This 2007 CBC Radio 3 interview describes the station as being "in the national spotlight this week for its 4th annual Stereophonic musical festival."[10] Gets a bit of press in a 2006 Billboard article about a proposed fee's impact on Canadian college stations.[11] It's a small-town outfit, to be sure, but evidently notable in that context. The article could use a trim, but I think there's enough to justify the article under WP:BROADCAST.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Billboard article is a good find - and although it is not significant, it is more than a passing mention, as they do mention the online radio service the station provides and interview it's manager. That said - according to WP:ORG, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not help to build notability. As for the other sources, they talk exclusively about the Stereophonic festival, with only a mention of CHMA. That provides a convincing argument as to the notability of the concert, however I don't think it's enough to push notability on its organizer. -Addionne (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming, it satisfies the de facto guideline for broadcast station notability which has prevailed in AFDs for the past couple of years. In addition, per Arxiloxos, it appears to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Don't forget about WP:WAX. Also, original broadcasting is different from the unique broadcasting mentioned in WP:BROADCAST. -Addionne (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a government-licensed broadcaster with programming unique to that station, crossing the notability threshold for radio stations. Coverage in reliable third-party sources also point to the notability of this station. - Dravecky (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Edison, this is the way I understand we have treated radio stations for some time now.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Edison, Dravecky and Milowent. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether or not other articles exist, this article fails to verify through reliable sources either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. This is the requirement for radio stations in WP:BROADCAST. -Addionne (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Lesson: Per precedent set in previous AfDs and discussions, ALL radio and televisions that have or have had a license are notable. This includes FM, AM, MW (for the US's NWS stations) and LP stations in radio, along with TV, DT, LP, LD, CA, and CD stations in television. They are notable, the precedent has been set, notablilty has been established. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At present, Recnet.com, the site used for Canadian radio station coverage maps is down due to a move in Recnet facilities. This should be over in early November and the Recnet maps brought back up at that time. In the mean time, do not consider the lack of these maps to mean the station has no license or coverage area. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using Precedent over Guidelines I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I am interpreting the guidelines in this case rather than precedent - and I believe the article does not meet the guideline, even if other articles exist or prior AfDs have gone against these guidelines for whatever reasons. In my opinion, using only licensing as terms for notability means that all information in the article (except the call letters) can be sourced from the station's self-produced press and other sources which may or may not contain actually reliable information. (Because these sources are fine as secondary sources once notability has been established...) If we choose that precedent over the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST, it brings into question the accuracy of all radio-related articles on Wikipedia. This is why the guidelines exist? -Addionne (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine: But at present, this a snow Keep, so it is best to just withdraw and move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool We can have a who slew of articles, filled with unverifiable data, that fail to meet the WP:GNG to which all other articles are subject and are never even considered for deleted because they have a single listing in a database somewhere. -Addionne (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That "database somewhere" is the Federal Communications Commission (or FCC) in the US in the US and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (or CRTC) in Canada. These are notable federal government organizations, the highest of reliable sources. So yeah, they are to never be considered for deletion as they have reliable sources, meet the GNG, have precedent in previous discussions and AfDs and they all fall under WP:BROADCAST. So yeah, never to be considered. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mulberry Chemicals[edit]

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

The article on the parent company has been deleted as non-notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taj Pharmaceuticals) and this subsidiary is less notable. This article was created by a confirmed sock puppet as part of an organized effort to use Wikipedia for advertising (see User:Deli nk/Taj spam campaign). Deli nk (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination: spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IP who contested your prod is propably a sock as well btw, he then copy pasted part of a Taj document [12] into Egg powder (now a redirect again). Yoenit (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of a banned or blocked user. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranshenasi[edit]

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

Academic journal of unclear notability. Apparently not indexed anywhere. The only source available is an extremely (overly?) laudatory item in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. (There has been an inconclusive discussion about the reliability of this source here. There is also a reference to an article in the Times Literary Supplement, but according to its title that is a general article on Iranian studies and as I have no access to that source, I cannot verify that this journal is mentioned in more depth than just in passing. The editor apparently is notable, but notability is not inherited. The article lists a few "sample citations", but just a few citations here and there to material published in this journal rather underscores the general lack of notability, I think. Does not meet WP:GNG or even WP:Notability (academic journals). Crusio (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:RS (number of scholarly citations as well as reliability of authors who have referenced its)

A) The journal has plenty of citations in google books and google scholar. [13][14] . The journal is in Persian so we should not expect 1000s of citations. But hundreds of citations in English google books/google scholar in a field that is not very big is important. It is very notable in the Persian speaking world. I just kept citations to some major university professors such as:

John Walbrdige [15]
Abbas Milani [16]
Franklin Lewis
Ali Asghar Seyyed Gohrab [[17]]
Leonard Lewisohn [18]

and etc.

B)

The Encyclopaedia Iranica is kown as a reliable source which is published by Columbia University.[19]. Its citations are too many in the scholarly journals and books: [20] (browse after the first page) [21]. Over 20000+ combined in these.

Iranica has over 1200+ writers some of them include:[ http://www.iranica.com/pages/consulting]

Richard Frye [22] articles in Iranica [23]

Clifford Edmund Bosworth who is an Editor of Encyclopaedia of Islam and some of his articles in Iranica [24]

P. Oktor Skjærvø (Distinguished Professor of Harvard University) [25]

Some of his articles in Iranica: [26]

Victor Mair some of his articles in Iranica: [27]

Yuri_Bregel Some of his articles in Iranica: [28]]

and I can list many more, but the above is sufficient.

Nicholas Sims-Williams [29]

Some of his articles in Iranica: [30]

The above is a short list of 7 prominent scholars out of the many (authors who easily have more than 100+ publications in scholarly journals and books). It is meant to be a sample.

C) The article in Iranica is written by a Professor of Stanford [31] with an impressive resume: [32].

D)

The journal is indexed in most university libraries that have Near Eastern programs. I'll just give three examples (Harvard, University of Chicago, and University of Columbia): [33] (Columbia) [34] (University of Chicago) [35] (Harvard). So it is indexed in reliable libraries. Most Persian journals in or outside Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan are yet not online. Also a very reliable Middle Estern Studies index is OACIS for the Middle East and it has the journal in its index: [36]

E) The article in Iranica is written by a Stanford University Professor Abbas Milani [37] and Iranica is edited by Professor. Ehsan Yarshater of Columbia University. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F) As per Wikipedia:Notability. Considering that the journal is Persian and devoted to an area that is small(Iranian studies), it is cited mainly by Persian sources. However sufficient English sources. These two criterions are met: "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources" "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Frequently should be taken in terms of the field itself (which is a small field of Iranian studies with no more than 50-100 active scholars in the West). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: the article is just stub, like hundred thousands of other articles. The provided source is reliable, and nothing is mentioned in Wikipedia policies about the minimum number of needed references per article.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but Wikipedia's guidelines do mention notability... And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not the storngest argument at AfD. --Crusio (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you understood what AliWiki said as your misinterpreting what he states, since what you pointed in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not related at all to what he said. He said the provided source is reliable (Iranica) and there is no wikipedia policy on the "mininum number of reliable sources". However, the number of indepedent citations by university scholar for Iranshenasi journal is not a few. There are many in google books, google scholar and Iranica. Also the field of Iranian studies is not huge, so you should not expect thousands of English citations to a Persian journal (which few English speakers can read in the first place). WP:notability is established by Iranica and Stanford Professor: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. ". There are sufficient number of secondary sources (in Persian but also in English) referencing the journal from very notable professors of Iranian studies. As per Wikipedia:Notability. Considering that the journal is Persian and devoted to an area that is small(Iranian studies), it is cited mainly by Persian sources. However sufficient English sources reference it, despite being a Persian journal (only few scholars in the West know the language and work in Iranian studies). Also furthermore, these two criterions are met: "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." (Example is the books that have been cited and Iranica). "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." It is cited frequently in Persian sources, however in English sources even, frequently should be taken in terms of the field itself (which is a small field of Iranian studies with no more than 50-100 active scholars in the West). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment Here are approximately 30 more citations for the journal [38]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment The associate editors of the journal are professors of NYU and Chicago university. "Three members of Iran Nameh’s Advisory Board joined Iranshenasi: Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, and Zabihollah Safa. They were joined by three other distinguished scholars: Djalal Khaleghi Motlagh, Heshmat Moayyad, and Ehsan Yarshater." Note Chelkowski is an NYU Professor [39]. Heshmat Moayyad is a Professor of University of Chicago [40]. I am trying to assume good faith here, but the nominator basically is not following any guidelines. He thinks that he can find a Persian journal in English online indexes, when majority of Persian journals are not indexed online. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also a very reliable Middle Estern Studies index is OACIS and it has the journal in its index: [41]--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The E.Iranica article on the journal is fully sufficient as a RS, and even better documentation of notability than we are usually able to find for academic journals. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; per WP:RS and the reliability of both Iranshenasi and Iranica. Armaiti (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust to add to your comment. Most members of Wiki Project Iran know Persian and can do a search for the Iranshenasi magazine. The scholars who write it for it are very elite, many of them have Wesern university positions. Of course, it has sufficient English citations as well, so that is why I did not yet bother in mentioning the Persian citations. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the journal is notable, the sources talking of it are full of puffery and other self-congratulatory material. I mean the Iranica article talks about how remarkable it is that the editor actually does the job expected of an editor.
A remarkable aspect of Iranshenasi has always been the care that the editor, Jalal Matini, gives to ensuring that articles are free from errors of fact or of typesetting. He also regularly consults with the journal’s advisors, as well as scholars who are not members of the advisory board, about the merits of articles that the magazine receives and that fall outside his own scholarly purview.
To find a passage like this in an encyclopedia pretty much tells you the encyclopedia is about as biased as it gets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the user Headbomb: the word "remarkable" does not mean exactly what one hears for example when entering a club. The word "Remarkable" is an encylopaedic word (check your OED) and can be used in scholarly publication. All reputable and specialized encyclopedias may use this word because they know what they mean. This may not help you to understand the point; but think of the word "remark". That said, the word "remarkable" and similar ones are not to be used in "wikipedia"; because 99.99% of users of wikipedia are non-scholars and due to un-signed feature of wikipedia. Iranica, being THE most reliable source on Iranic studies is a journal with signed articles, written and used by scholars. The feature "signature at the end of article" is another the key point here that you missed. Xashaiar (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I won't defend Iranica, but the academic publishing industry and information science sector in Iran has historically been a long way behind modern expectations. What would be a barely notable journal if it was in the US can be a well respected journal when it comes from parts of the world which have fewer well run journals. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: About the typesetting part, you have to remember the works were actually published it via a type-writer not a modern word processor. Also a Persian word processor with spell check did not exist until recently. Usually what happens in this case is: a) Authors have to type/word process their work and send to the editor as a hardcopy. B) The editor has to type it or get someone else to retype it (potential for mistake). Furthermore, imagine writing 400 pages of a journal article without a wordprocessor.

@John Vandberg: Actually it is well known journal among oriental Iranologist. I would say the materials are actually of higher quality/more indepth and the scholars that write for it (both Oriental Iranologist who know Persian and also Iranian/Afghan/Tajik scholars associated mainly with Western Universities), are well known. The fact is that the journal is in Persian and just has English summaries. So that is why information on it cannot be found as readily considering the limited number of English speakers who speak Persian and work in Iranology (for example one should not compare it to the IEEE or something). The editor is over 80+ years old and he is not internet savy person (One of my friend called for his email and he does not use the internet). However, the journal is in every major university library with a serious Near Eastern program. Also your comment is correct that historically, Persian journals have lacked behind Western journals, but journals like Iranshenasi have closed the grap. So in a way, it is somewhat a pioneer in the type of scholarship that is (or should be( accepted. And your comment is right that the number of running journals in Iran for example would be at best 1% of say the USA, so it becomes somewhat more noticeable. -Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful stub, helpful for checking reliability and potential bias of references. Notability is established Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One should be careful; Iranshenasi means Iranian studies, and the sources are in conflict about such things as founding dates. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yes, but as a journal between 1989 to today, there is only one journal with such a title. You can check the volume numbers also if you have doubt.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would like more sources, but I have also found plenty of sources that referance this work.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some Further Comments' I think some background is necessary here so the Iranica article is read in its context. The context:
A) On spell checks: The journal is not typed via a wordprocessor but with a typewriter (at least as far as I know till recently). Word Processors for Persian language with a spell check is a fairly recent phenomenon (much after the journal came about). Before the era of modern word processors, one can expect many typos in journals, specially ones that the material had to be retyped via a typewriter. This has always been a problem with Persian journals which were typed (not by the editor usually) via type-writer.. So that is why it is pointed out.
B) Despite the fact that the journal is in Persian, it is somewhat a pioneer in terms of the quality of the material it publishes and also its editorial staff. So it is in this context that the Iranica articles might at first seem "self-applauding" for the journal. It calls it a reliable journal, since it is cited by scholars around the world. The number of journals in Persian for example would not be 1% of the number of journals in the USA in English. So the journal stands out in this context. If it was an English journal, it would not standout as it would just be another journal.
C) We should not expect thousands of English sources referencing the journal, since it is in Persian language covering a small field Iranian studies. However, the number of citations by well known authors and writers makes it reliable. Example:
John Walbridge, "The leaven of the ancients: Suhrawardī and the heritage of the Greeks", SUNY Press, 2000. pg 232.
Leonard Lewisohn, David Morgan, "The Heritage of Sufism: Late classical Persianate Sufism (1501-1750)" (Vol.3), Oneworld, 1999. pg 122
Franklin Lewis, Rumi Past and Present, East and West, Oneworld Publications, 2000
Heshmat Moayyad, Franklin Lewis, "The Colossal Elephant and his spiritual feats: Shaykh Ahmad-e Jâm : the life and legend of a popular Sufi saint of 12th century Iran",Mazda Publishers, 2004.
Francois De Blois, "Persian Literature - A Biobibliographical Survey: Volume V Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period", RoutledgeCurzon, 2004.
Reza Pourjavady, Sabine Schmidtke, "A Jewish philosopher of Baghdad: 'Izz al-Dawla Ibn Kammūna (d. 683/1284) and his writings", BRILL, 2006. pg 7.
Shafique N. Virani, "The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: a history of survival, a search for salvation", Oxford University Press US, 2007. pg 204.
Joyce Moss , "Middle Eastern literatures and their times", Thomson Gale, 2004. pg 274
Charles Peter Melville, "Safavid Persia: the history and politics of an Islamic society", I.B. Tauris, 1996. pg 76.
Meir Litvak, "Shi'i Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The 'Ulama' of Najaf and Karbala", Cambridge University Press, 2002. pg 242.
Ali Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, "Layli and Majnun: Love, Madness and Mystic Longing",Brill Studies in Middle Eastern literature, Jun 2003.
Robert Hillenbrand, "Shahnama: the visual language of the Persian book of kings",Volume 2 of Visual Arts Research Institute Edinburgh,Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004. pg 18.
Franklin Lewis, Farzin Yazdanfar, "In a voice of their own: a collection of stories by Iranian women written since the Revolution of 1979", Mazda Publishers, 1996. pg xxx, xxxi, xlviii
Abbas Milani, "Eminent Persians: the men and women who made modern Iran, 1941-1979: in two volumes", Syracuse University Press, 2008.
Wilferd Madelung, Farhad Daftary, Josef W. Meri, "Wilferd Madelung, Farhad Daftary, Josef W. Meri", I.B.Tauris, 2003. pg 25.
Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, "Culture and learning in Islam", UNESCO, 2003.
Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, "Birth of the Persian Empire", I.B.Tauris, 2005. pg 141.

One can use google books and scholar to find more citation by checking for "Iran Shenasi"/"Iranshenasi"/"Iran Shinasi"/"IranShinasi" and noting the volume number (from 1989).--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the number of libraries carrying this journal: according to WorldCat, Iranshenazi is in 30 (thirty) libraries in the US. Concerning the "publishing industry and information science sector in Iran", this journal is published by the Keyan Foundation, located in Bethesda, MD. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if World Cat is exhaustive, but the libraries that carry it usually have a Persian studies program. Even 30 or so in the USA is a large number considering the journal is in the Persian language. It makes no sense for universities that do not have an Iranian studies program to subscribe to it. The major universities: Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, NYU, Stanford, Yale, Ohio, Chicago, UCLA and etc. that have a reputable Middle Eastern programs, and more specifically a Persian studies program, do carry it. Again it makes no sense for a University that does not have a Persian program to subscribe to a Persian language journal. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Khodabandeh14. Clearly a notable journal. Offliner (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for obvious reasons. Xashaiar (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) keep appears to be just notable enough, especially with an Encyclopedia Iranica article. —innotata 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - article already deleted by User:Orangemike. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clicky Media[edit]

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

Apparent non-notable company CSD contested with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS defence on talk, however the ranking/award gives me pause and I err on the side of caution by opening this AfD. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero GNEWS hits, sole assertion of notability is an unreferenced claim that it was "was ranked the 6th best Social Media Optimisation Company by TOPSEO's 2010". I can find no online coverage of this ranking apart from press releases from Clicky Media and from the organisation that awarded it: topseos.co.uk, a company whose notability is also not asserted and for which I can find no evidence of notability online. I was the editor who originally tagged it for speedy deletion, but per nomination I can see that AFD would have been the better choice: sorry for the error. Top Jim (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently not notable. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and spammy -- Alexf^(talk) 13:07, 20 October 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, another one of them: digital marketing agency that specialises in web design, pay-per-click advertising, search engine optimisation, email marketing, mobile advertising, social media optimisation, affiliate marketing and online display advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in Google News, Books, or Scholar to establish notability. Everything in a general web search seems to be straightforwardly promotional or comprised of listings sites. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as not asserting notability per A7. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 or G3 (as a blatant hoax per the complete lack of available sources). I've marked the page as such. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope and nuclide[edit]

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

We have articles on both isotope and nuclide. If there is any sort of confusion about the use of these terms, this should be discussed in those articles, possibly with some hat notes for users that ended up at the wrong article by mistake. There is no reason an article that has both names in the title to exist.

If the articles are to be merged, then one of those articles should be used as the base (to preserve at least some of the edit history.)

Simply put there is no reason for this current article to exist, and if there is then it should be created by deleting the current page and moving either Isotope or nuclide here.

(Note that the current content of this article simply reproduces that of Isotope and nuclide.TimothyRias (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See discussions at Talk:Isotope#Proposal for speedy deletion of the merger article Isotope and nuclide and Talk:Isotope and nuclide#Speedy from users with more knowledge in the field. Nergaal (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two separate articles are more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecraft: World at War[edit]

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

Article asserts no notability, reliable sources search turns up zero hits, and a regular Google search turns up a total of six hits - four are Wikipedia, one is a spam link, one is a forum. Contested PROD, so bringing to AfD. Teancum (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure game, dubious that it even exists. As mentioned a search turns up barely anything, which is especially rare for any game.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you searching "infiminer"?
Delete. No sources - not even a developer website to promote their own products - makes this a clearly non-notable game by a non-notable developer (who also seem to not exist). Also, when looking for sources, make sure you do not confuse this with Battlecraft 1942, the official level editor for Battlefield 1942 by Electronic Arts. -Addionne (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either a hoax or a solo project from a 10 year old. Absolutely nothing on google for the game or the developer. Yoenit (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infiniminer[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Before you ask, yes, I did look for sources. However, the only thing I found was forums, blogs, and passing-mentions in articles that are actually about Minecraft. I haven't found any articles about this game itself(the one this AfD is on). — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Infiniminer was a relatively obscure game until it inspired the creation of Markus Persson's wonderfully addictive Minecraft. However, a redirect to Minecraft#Development is much more appropriate that just straight-out deleting it.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with the above. There's no indication that this article is worth keeping, and it would be better off in the Minecraft page, especially since the article is only one sentence long.Eldamorie (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I didn't make it clear in my last comment... Delete.--Eldamorie (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable sources that reference this game are passing mentions that it is the inspiration for Minecraft - and it is already mentioned as such in that article. There are no sources that provide significant coverage of this game itself, so unfortunately, it fails to meet notability requirements. -Addionne (talk) 15:09, 20 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) 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. No significant independent, reliable coverage. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hongkongresident. There is no need to delete when a reasonable target exists.Hobit (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's worth keeping as a redirect unless it is something people are likely to search for? -Addionne (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's history wrt minecraft, I think it's likely a few folks will each month... Hobit (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minecraft#Development. Plausible search term in regards to the history of the game (Minecraft). --Teancum (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Tiller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Football player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE having never played a first team match in the fully professional Australian Football League. He has now been cut from the Carlton list so it is unlikely now that ever will. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mattinbgn (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and seems that he never will. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and stick to only having articles for players who have made their debut. St Anselm (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, WP:ATHLETE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not in first team. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "not in first team" mean? Jenks24 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GNG not met. Pick 80 is unlikely to have much written about him, but unlike St Anselm I would argue that most first round picks, and some lower picks, would satisfy GNG, regardless of ATHLETE. Also plenty of players get redrafted, so future undeletion is possible. The-Pope (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys O'Keeffe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Football player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE having never played a first team match in the fully professional Australian Football League. He has now been cut from the Carlton list so it is unlikely now that ever will. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

The previous AfD is quite interesting reading as a example of how arguments for keeping an article based on the subject surely becoming notable in the future quite often turn out to be wrong. Mattinbgn (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and seems that he never will. It will be interesting if this has any affect on the new articles that will surely be created in the wake of the upoming 2010 AFL Draft. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG not met in that significant coverage does not exist in reliable sources. If a list of Carlton draftees exists, then it could be redirected there. This SHOULD have no bearing on the upcoming draft - evaluation of those articles should be done based on [WP:GNG]] principles, not WP:ATHLETE as it is obviously impossible for a new draftee to satisfy ATHLETE before the season starts. The-Pope (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He did play four games in the semi-professional SANFL & may well head back there and add to his tally but I would argue that atm, he's non-notable. --Roisterer (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. St Anselm (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Deletion rationale no longer holds, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Induk University[edit]

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

Article is completely empty except for an external link. Speedy declined for unknown reason as this is a clear case of A3. Travelbird (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I declined the speedy. The "unknown reason" was specified in my edit summary: "Decline speedy: it *is* empty, but it's about a university. Subject is notable, and article should exist". The solution to articles like this is to improve them, as I am now doing, not to delete them. TFOWR 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but I do not see this happenng. As of now, the article is of no real value, even after you added "Induk University is a university in Seoul, South Korea." If and when someone adds substantive content, the article should exist. But until that time, I see no value in having an article just because theoretically one could have one in the future. Travelbird (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A stub is better than no article if the subject is agreed to be notable. This debate has caused significant expansion of the article, Travelbird. Cullen328 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —TFOWR 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The administrator who declined the speedy delete has cleaned up the article considerably. The nominator's original concerns on the article lacking content have been completely addressed. Great job with the clean-up, TFOWR. :) --Hongkongresident (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was renamed to "Induk University" in 2009; prior to that it was called the "Induk Institute of Design" (and prior to that "Berea in Korea" - the founder, Induk Pahk, had spent time at Berea College). Taking into account its various names there seems to be "significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail". Notability isn't inherited, but Shin Hyun-jun teaches there, as does the creator of Dooly the Little Dinosaur :-) Keep it for Dooly! TFOWR 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TFOWR's reasoning and improvements.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability has now been established in the improvements and expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda[edit]

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

No third-party coverage, not a notable film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor the IMDb entry reveal any press or other coverage in reliable sources, and I couldn't find anything to speak of. Can be restored if it becomes notable hereafter. (Based on the title, I thought this was going to be a biography of Jim E. Mora.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - as far as I can tell some filming occurred but there's absolutely no indication outside of a short lived publicity campaign (which seems to have included creating this article) that the film is ever going to be released. Currently it's got little or no notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate as a film due for release in the next 2 months. While current coverage is lacking, and the film this does not qualify as an exception to WP:NFF, we can incubate this and consider return to mainspace when it is released and if it then gets coverage. Incubation takes it out of mainspace, and if it is not released or does not get coverage, it will be deleted. Incubation is a win-win for the project in either instance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre[edit]

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

This unsourced article does not make clear how this component of the Canadian military bureaucracy is individually notable, or even how many people it comprises. It might perhaps rate a mention in the article about its apparent parent organization, Canadian Forces Air Command. Found during cleanup of old orphan articles. Sandstein 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: normally, I'd AGF and believe there is notability, but this article doesn't really assert much of anything. Is this a headquarters, a command and control organ, an umbrella command, a warfighting lab, or a proving ground? This centre probably is notable, but the article hasn't really done much to establish that; I would easily change my vote if the article was expanded and sourced. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bahamut0013. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Games Village 2010[edit]

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

A merger was previously proposed, although no actions were taken. I reviewed the two articles involved in the merger, and the AfD's contents are about the same as the one in the other article. Hence the proposed deletion now.

The inherent problem with the nominated article is that it does not appear to meet notability guidelines, and no articles dealing only with an event's accomodation venue has ever been created prior to this. As mentioned in the above paragraph, Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games takes care of the Commonwealth Games Village already. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve here. I don't see anything major wrong with the article. It's better structured and better written than most of the other Commonwealth Games articles (although it needs a few tiny fixes, but that would be easy). I was never comfortable with the proposal to merge it with the "Venues" article. In my version of English, the village isn't a venue. I appreciate that it might be for others, but I'm giving you my perspective. As for it being a first, it's a good model, and Games cities always make a fuss about their wonderful village. It's the one part of any Games that is guaranteed to have some sort of productive, ongoing use. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds of notability. Please see this, this and this and tell me if the article meets the guidelines there. Actually the article structure is almost identical to the one followed in the official site. I've yet to check for actual copyvio. HiLo48, I've already given you the dictionary definitions; I appreciate your personal definition, but I'd rather follow the official one here. Sometimes, I get my intuitions about language ands stuff wrong as well. IMHO, I will be hardpressed getting these articles to GA or even FA. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to meet those subject notability guidelines if it meets the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the requested move indicated at Talk:Commonwealth Games Village 2010 is still open. It is somewhat premature to expect a merge while a poll, where the merge suggestion was broached, is still open. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's closed now. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I don't believe this is notable enough at present, particularly as we don't have articles for any of the various Olympic villages over the years. However, as pointed out above we should await the closure of the move request, which may result in a merge anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is not true to say that we do not have articles for the Olympic Villages. Please see Category:Olympic Villages.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't see any problems right now. And it is an important current event article --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
- This nomination does not meet any of the speedy keep guidelines. What's the point you're trying to make? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge. I still think merging is best here. However as it stands it's little more than a poorly-written fork. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a worthless travesty that would have more value as an honest redlink. This article lists a few unimportant facts about the village, then fails to address the elephant in the room: the concerns before the games about completion on time and sanitation. If an article this bad and this mealy-mouthed about addressing the real issue is the best we can do, then it's time we wound up the project and went home. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and fix it! This is not a reason to delete. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World media is given lots of attention/coverage to this village due to lots of reason. I think which is sufficient to establish notability and keep the article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:EVENT suggests this probably passes; consider the bbc articles on the page and [42], [43], they are not hard to find. I suppose merging might be ok. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate at this point, if you don't mind, that Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games takes good care of the Commonwealth Games Village already; including its issues and concerns. I would think if Commonwealth Games Village were to reach GA or even FA, the article proper would mainly contain the concerns and controversies over the Village and not its actual functioning. Perhaps a merger can be considered. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but in this case, its actually the problems not the lay-out that is notable, and should be emphasized. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 18 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, -- Cirt (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems notable to me, and just requires better sourcing, which is clearly out there. Functioning and controversy should both be covered. No compelling reason to delete has been given. (I'm .a little surprised there aren't more games village articles). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - default to keep FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying some background and norms:

We do have articles on "multiple characters who share a name", whether related, in the same topic area, or unrelated. Minor characters in a series or closely-related series often share a "list of minor characters in X" article.
The main question is notability of the topic - while split/merge/disambiguate can rectify a non-notable article, if it's notable then how it's presented and whether it's split is a pure content issue not an AFD issue.
The first "Ransack" AFD closed as "no consensus" even after a relist, and this 2nd nomination just 3 weeks later needed a relist as well. But reopening the unclear AFD (provided it's not tendentious which this one isn't) is not inherently a problem though it might annoy some.

Most of the discussion is a repeat of the previous one, and the discussion doesn't seem to have provided any particularly strong consensus either way this time too. Poor structure is a content issue; the encyclopedia can and doews hold articles on connected and unconnected characters of the same name so that's not a real reason to delete. Future mentions aren't helpful (WP:CRYSTAL) and absence on Fox/CNN is not really good evidence that the article is unable to be sourced from other reliable sources. A tighter focus on availability/analysis/quality of sources would have helped clarify notability. Closing as "no consensus" on this one as well.

Discussion on splitting/merging/improving sources is encouraged, but relisting unless something significantly changes is probably going to annoy people.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ransack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability. Plus, this article is about multiple, entirely separate characters who just happen to share a name. I'm against the split-and-merge suggested in the previous AfD since all of these Ransacks are minor characters. The most important one being the Transformers: Cybertron character who was a minor recurring villain. He is already covered under List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. The other Ransacks are even less important. NotARealWord (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your rationale for bringing this up a second time a mere three weeks after the last closure is that you do not agree with the previous outcome? --Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous outcome was "no consensus". That's not very conclusive. NotARealWord (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split/merge/disambiguate - WP:NOTAGAIN. Per the editing policy, alternatives to deletion and Before nominating an article for deletion, I recommend splitting the article to different series character lists, merging each section there, and converting to a disambiguation page as in a recommendation in the previous AFD, which would preserve attribution. --Malkinann (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which character lists? The only Ransack who's slightly important is already covered.

NotARealWord (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And by the way, WP:NOTAGAIN links to a section of the page on Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "Per WP:NOTAGAIN" doesn't sound right. NotARealWord (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "per NOTAGAIN". I made my recommendation per the editing policy, alternatives to deletion and Before nominating an article for deletion, not per NOTAGAIN.--Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative close and send to DRV if the editor doesn't agree with the previous outcome. Not enough time has passed to justify a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This does seem to be just the same editor who nominated it before trying again because he didn't get his way. But to be fair I'll ask - Has anything major changed about this article in the three weeks since it didn't get deleted? The only difference I can see is that is now has more sources than it did last time. Mathewignash (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get my way? There was no consensus. NotARealWord (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Notability - I wanted to mention that Ransack is one of the villians in this years annual Botcon comic. I've read it at the convention already. This comic will be released to the general public in a few months, where I'm sure it will get some third party reviews online that we can add as yet more sources. I hope this article is still here to have those sources added. Mathewignash (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, you can't combine the notablities of each Ransack as if they were one topic. They are soooo not. If any one is notable, the article should be about that one. NotARealWord (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Split, merge, and disambiguate just as my previous comment in the first AfD. This is a WP:NOTAGAIN nomination because the previous nomination was just barely a month ago. —Farix (t | c) 20:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name." -- (User:TheFarix at previous AfD)

Yes, these characters are completely incidental and unimportant, as far as I can tell. I also reiterate how an article should not be structured like this, covering a bunch of unrelated characters that just happen to share a name. NotARealWord (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, Merging requires content to cut-and-paste and a destination page for that content to be on. It seems Revenge of the Fallen Ransack has did some stuff, but that was in a minor comic, (possibly not notable enough for it's own character list,) and said stuff wasn't mentioned in the article. As for the Ransack that had a role in the BotCon comic, I'm not even sure that Transformers: Timelines (the BotCon related media) is notable enough in itself. NotARealWord (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a good example on how not to structure a Transformers character article. Six entirely unrelated characters from different continuities, who just happen to share the same name. They should not be all in the same article. Notable ones should get their own articles, non-notable ones just a mention in the continuity's character list article. JIP | Talk 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is somethong like that. This article simply should not be here. It's not an "unfinished house", but more of an architectural mess. NotARealWord (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NotARealWord I usually agree with your nonimations for deletion this article was nominated recently and feel it will result in a stalemate again. I believe there are many much more deserving cases of deletion than this at the moment. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage on CNN, Fox News, etc.. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many other Transformers characters have had coverage on CNN or Fox News? Come to think of it, what amount of other Wikipedia article subjects at all have had such coverage? JIP | Talk 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fox and CNN? That's not the place to look for transformers characters. Try this search; there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources in there. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split, merge, and disambiguate - This isn't one subject but a random collection of information. I agree with what other people have said, it hasn't been long enough since the last AfD. Merges, splits, disambiguation don't require a trip to AfD. If you want to take care of it, then get a consensus and do the work yourself. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge to what? There's not even an article for the Titan Magazines comic. Which is the only TF media other than the Cybertron anime in which somebody named Ransack did anything close to important. The other Ransacks are pretty much nobody. NotARealWord (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, if you look above, I don't really want a merge, due to a lack of places to merge to. Nor do I want this article to still be around. NotARealWord (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say just merge. Some stuff needs to be merged, some stuff needs to be trimmed out, some could possibly be split. There's no reason why the totality of the information on this page needs to be preserved. However, this is way too soon for another nomination, and these actions don't require AfD. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which stuff needs merging? Seriously, the secion on the Cybertron Ransack doesn't look like they'd work in character lists. There is no list to merge Revenge of the Fallen Ransack to, and the others are really unimportant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split, merge, disambiguate It hasn't even been a month since the last nomination. Still, this is a mess, and something must be done here. --Divebomb (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The same editor send this to AFD on 6 September. You don't get to nominate something every month, until you get the outcome that you want. Dream Focus 08:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. If it doesn't have a list to belong in and it has almost zero notability. 04:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete DragonZero (talk · contribs) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's my point. Why are people suggesting to merge if there's no place to merge the content. Also, looking at the section on Cybertron Ransack, most of the stuff is plot summary and doesn't belong in a character list. NotARealWord (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more non-AFD discussion should take place on where such a place could be made, then, instead of this going back to AFD so soon. --Malkinann (talk) 22:47, 19 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, -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{At Malkinann) What place? As I've mentioned, most of these characters are nobodies. One Ransackhas done important stuff, but the media he did said stuff in might not be notable enough for it's own character list. Merging means that some content is directly cut-and-paste to another location. And,regarding "Armada" Ransack, I don't think there's a character list for him either. NotARealWord (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Armada (comics) has the start of a character list. --Malkinann (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merging still requires direct cut-and-paste of content. At most, Ransack would just be mentioned as part of his team instead of as an individual. NotARealWord (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe turning the article into a disambiguation could work. Even if there are no destinations for merging, the data would still exist in the page history, and the disambig could still mention the various media these characters appeared in. That way, information can be incorporated into character lists whenever somebody decides to do so. Plus, we wouldn't have such an awful article. I'm fine as long as we don't keep an article this terrible. NotARealWord (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good idea. If any of the characters are notable enough to get their own articles, the disambiguation page could link to them, otherwise to character list articles. If the list articles have sections, then the disambiguation page should link to as specific sections as possible. JIP | Talk 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thing is, some of the lists don't exist yet, so... it would be better to link to articles about the media these characters have appeared in, for the characters without lists. NotARealWord (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commen - the disambiguation should only menin ransacks that have actually done something, At least two of them are absolute nobodies. NotARealWord (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in the Family (song)[edit]

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

The song is not notable. WP:NSONGS says "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Also, it has several MOS issues like referencing, and sections that have way to many quotes. It hasn't surpassed stub yet, so even if it were notable, it would still not meet WP:NSONGS. CrowzRSA 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song is notable. It is one of the key Korn songs which generated considerable debates amongst critics. See the 8 or so references provided. Style issues can be fixed through the usual method of editing. Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion either, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. The solution is to expand, not delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NSONGS says articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Also, the Billboard reference only talks about remixes, The Boston Globe reference talks about structure, the Los Angeles Times reference only says it was a controversial song, but really nothing else. The CMJ reference talks about its structure. The second CMJ reference has some information on the article, but nothing that makes it notable or anything. CrowzRSA 01:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure what basis there is for asserting that the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. It is currently pretty long for stub, if not start-class length already (regardless of whether anyone updated its class on the talk page), and even if the class is now borderline, I am not sure what basis there is to think that no sources will emerge in the future to expand the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the fact that it isn't a stub does not make it notable, and since it doesn't meet any of the song notability guidelines, it should be deleted, regardless of Headbomb's (who's opinion probably won't change) comment. The only way it could be notable, again, is if it has ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. The rest of WP:NSONGS only goes for songs that are notable, which this one isn't. CrowzRSA 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see that this song charted anywhere, nor does it appear to have won awards of the type contemplated by WP:NSONGS. I see some sources that discuss the song itself, but many of those listed do not. Not sure what to do with this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:NSONGS, yes, but that is only a fallback to support articles that otherwise fail the WP:GNG. This passes the general notability guidelines IMO, given the coverage that the controversial lyrics have received. And it's certainly not a stub any longer, I'm upgrading that to start. Tarc (talk)

Where have you gotten the idea that NSONGS is a fallback? And also:
"'Significant coverage" - I have learned nothing from this that can be verified except that it is a rhyme duel thing, but unless this is defined in some reference, it cannot be verified either.
"Reliable" - Lacks reliability
"Sources" - Lacks sources
"Independent of the subject" - It meets this, but I think this is more in the deletion category.
"Presumed" - I don't think it meets this because only the structure section can be verified.

With this in mind, I propose the structure section be merged and the article redirected. CrowzRSA 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first of all, a song charting is not the end-all be-all factor in a songs "notability". The song has been discussed by multiple sources for multiple reasons, that makes it notable. Secondly, it is far beyond a stub, and that is not a reason to delete, maybe next time see if you can expand it instead, or bring it to the attention of those most familiar with the subject. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you obviously do not understand either. If the song has charted or has caused a significant amount of controversy to the band, it is notable. If it is notable and it does not surpass a stub, it is should not have its own article. If the song is not notable but its article surpasses a stub, IT SHOULD STILL BE DELETED. And see my comment above posted on 01:25, 8 October 2010 for what the references refer to. CrowzRSA 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please place this under AfD. Actually, this may be more similar, although All in the Family is better referenced. Then be sure to go through this extensive list, they've even listed if the track charted on the page. Be sure to use WP:INHERITED - Sarcastically yours :), Theornamentalist (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a little off topic? And just because "other stuff exists", is not a valid argument. CrowzRSA 23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just showing that a strict interpretation doesn't always work. I understand your point, which is valid, but understand mine. This song has had a fairly large amount of coverage; you work on and write GA articles relating to Korn, you are certainly capable of researching and improving it. A quick G Books search shows me that it appears in many publications, many are listings, but some have a large amount of information, like this author, this magazine has a an article on it, and more. That was just some quick looks, there appears to be more. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

I'm aware of its minor popularity, but many songs on that album alone will get several results. "Dead Bodies Everywhere": [44][45][46][47][48], "Reclaim My Place": [49], "Justin": [50], "Cameltosis" :[51][52]. I didn't bother looking any others up but still, just because a song has some books that have published information on them does not make it notable. CrowzRSA 00:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of those, Dead Bodies Everywhere most likely deserves it's own article, and Justin as well [unless memory fails me, this was written after a make-a-wish meet up between a dying kid and Jonathan Davis, so I'm pretty sure it got significant coverage in the news and elsewhere] (unsure about Reclaim my Place and Cameltosis). The sources are also reliable (Billboard, LA Times, CMJ New Music Report, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, The Advocate, ...) and claiming they somehow aren't without any justification doesn't make them magically unreliable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose that any song article with a few reliable sources that talk about the song make it notable? That is absurd, and goes against notability guidlines. Someone stated above that the NSONGS is a fallback from general notability guidlines. This is a false statement; general guidlines are not specific guidlines for articles. Each topic has its own criteria of notability it must meet. In this case, you say that "Justin" and the dead bodies song deserve their own article. IT GOES AGAINST NSONGS. How wouldn't it? Just because it has some information on structure available and some critics felt it stirred up contreversy (which I really don't think it did, but examples would be "Jihad (song)" and "Angel of Death (song)" which put the band into a serious situation) and therefore does not meet NSONGS. And when I said it lacks reliable sources I meant it lacked information reliability, which it definitly does. CrowzRSA 02:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment For the record, the only verifiable information on here is a little bit of the song's structure. The rest is quoted in unreliable sources or deadlinks. I don't see why this shouldn't be Merged to the Follow the Leader (Korn album) article's Composition section.
Nominator comment So… why has no one commented in three days?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal_F.C._supporters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is specific to supporters of one football club who are not notable above others. Not sure why there needs to be a page for this topic. It also has few references backing up notability. Notability notice has been in place since March 2010 without any corresponding change to the article. Perhaps this should be merged into the club article Arsenal F.C. as with other clubs. Crimperman (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history it appears that this was split out from Arsenal F.C. per WP:SS, so merging back in would likely unbalance the parent article. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that does seem to be what has happened. So the question now becomes is this topic of sufficient notability to be on WP whether as part of the parent article or on its own? Crimperman (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think that as a cultural phenomena, it certainly has potential to have been recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources- however, I am not convinced that the current sourcing shows that. (nor am I interested enough to do any searching myself) Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are 81 sources currently in the article, but by my reckoning only three of those at most are both reliable and give significant coverage to the topic ([53], [54], [55]). Together with the less significant coverage, that should probably be just enough to pass WP:GNG, but I am surprised there isn't more. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Alzarian16 says, this just about passes WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sourcing comment made by Alzarian Eldumpo (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article, it passes WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arsenal has 27 million fanbase globally (this article must be notable) and the sources seem to be ok.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi classical music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi classical music

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

There is no such thing as a Bangladeshi classical music tradition which is independent of Indian classical music (Indian here including the whole subcontinent mroe or less) or ghazal. The only place which mentions this phrase on wikipedia which didn't get it information from is this book: [56] which admits "The instruments most commonly used in Bangladeshi classical music are Indian in origin".

I have not notified the creator and sole editor, whose userpage goes "I resigned from contributing for Wikipedia due to Dirty politics here. So, feel free to delete all the articles I contributed or started as Stubs.

Good luck!" Munci (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and for lack of sources indicating that the topic is notable. There isn't really any content to merge over, nor any obvious merge target, but the title should probably be redirected to something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be redirected, the most likely target I think is Music of Bangladesh which I shall try to improve anyway post-afd. Munci (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of Bangladesh for the moment. I'm surely not closed to the fact that someone is going to some day be able to step forward and venture a claim that the classical music of Bangladesh is indeed different from the classical music of Bengal generally, or that it has developed in a new direction since the partition and independence. This article does not make any such case in its current form, but there's no burning need to remove these contributions from history either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such thing as Bangladeshi classical music. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as specified. Since it is a particular region, the music might be different to an extent worth discussion, but that would depend on he references. I'm not going to judge otherwise on a mere assertion. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Caleb[edit]

Brandon Caleb is now on the Oklahoma Sooners bench. He is a senior and will likely not play much the rest of the season or make a pro team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9 eh (talk • contribs) 2010/10/17 18:52:16

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one's a close call. Caleb was a highly-touted wide receiver, basketball player and track star coming out of Fork Union Military Academy, but multiple injuries have limited his playing time with the Sooners. Playing for the No. 1 college football team in the country, he has 31 catches for 466 yards and 2 touchdowns. Based on the stats, this doesn't make him look too notable, but he has been the subject of fairly extensive, non-trivial media coverage which tips me toward a "Keep" vote. Examples of media coverage focusing on Caleb includes: (1) MARCHING ... THROUGH THE AIR ; BRANDON CALEB FINDS FUMA'S A NICE FIT ON SEVERAL FRONTS, Richmond Times - Dispatch, May 26, 2004; (2) Caleb makes VIS finale one to remember: Fork Union senior sets record in triple jump, Richmond Times - Dispatch, May 21, 2006; (3) UNION BENEFITS; THREE-SPORT STAR CALEB BLOSSOMS WHILE TAKING ROAD LESS TRAVELED, Richmond Times - Dispatch, Oct 6, 2005; (4) CALEB ON THE FLY TO TRACK AAU STAR SHINES IN HOOPS, RUNNING, Richmond Times - Dispatch, Sep 1, 1999; (5) Sooners' Caleb could play vs. Washington, The Seattle Times, September 8, 2008; (6) OU's Stoops today: Simmons, Caleb expected to play at Tech, Tulsa World, November 17, 2009; (7) OU receiver Brandon Caleb starting to add new wrinkle to offense, The Oklahoman, September 20, 2009; (8) Caleb responds, fills need, Tulsa World, September 20, 2009; (9) Caleb Gets Hardship Ruling, SoonerSports.com, February 12, 2008; (10) OU receiver Brandon Caleb determined to catch on, The Oklahoman, September 21, 2009; (11) Notebook: Caleb questionable, The Norman Transcript, November 3, 2009. Cbl62 (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like good coverage to me. "Not starting now" does not negate the achievements of the previous year, and it looks like he was notable then. And remember that notability cannot be lost, so he's in--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic–Federer rivalry[edit]

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

There's nothing here that warrants a separate article, it's merely a repository for their head to head meetings results. Fixer23 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is just an extensive listing of statistics and it is completely unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. In reality a user essay and in theory infringes on SYNTH & NOT. Fæ (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the one useful statement ("Djokovic is the only player other than Rafael Nadal to have defeated Federer more than once in Grand Slam tournaments.") into Novak Djokovic and delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 English football on television. As the merge has happened, I'll close this as a redirect to allow the script to do its magic Ged UK 11:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League satellite decoder case[edit]

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

Not notable – this comes under WP:NOT#NEWS. —Half Price 14:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Half Price 14:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator - this is not encyclopedic content. Giant Snowman 15:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as below - probably worth a mention, but does not merit a seperate article. Giant Snowman 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been substantial coverage of the case over the last few years.[57][58][59][60][61][62] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Superseded by comment below This article needs a lot of work, and I'm not entirely convinced it meets WP:EVENT's requirement of lasting impact, but with the length and depth of coverage found by Jmorrison it's close to falling under the realms of "historical significance" required by the guidline. Could we merge it somewhere and retain the history so it could be recreated if it has lasting impact? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge? seems to be significant notability via the sources, but not sure if a stand-alone article is necessary. Would it work if moved to a relevant section at English football on television or an equivalent page? Eldumpo (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with your merge idea. —Half Price 11:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge to English football on television. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Support merge. It is a documented legal case and has merit. It shouldn't be lost.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like as good as destination as any. As I said above, we can always recreate if it becomes more notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Merge to English football on television. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have gone ahead with merge so that this discussion can hopefully be closed. —Half Price 15:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. according to consensus DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federer–Hewitt rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's nothing here that warrants a separate article, it's merely a repository for their head to head meetings results. Fixer23 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that this article has been nominated for deletion before and the result was to delete (after a long and protracted discussion). Not sure why it was created again. Also, one of the comments cited four other articles of "rivalries" (namely Connors–Lendl rivalry, Connors–McEnroe rivalry, Evert–Navratilova rivalry, Lendl–McEnroe rivalry) as reasons for keep, however, I think they just highlighted the fact that those articles should be deleted as well as they too only consist of head to head results with no attempt at expanding or explaining the rivalries ala Federer–Nadal rivalry or even the Williams Sisters rivalry article (which is very inferior, but attempts to explain rather than just list meetings). Head to head stats can easily be obtained over the internet, that isn't s reason for keep either. Fixer23 (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems like a more appropriate solution for Connors–Lendl rivalry, Connors–McEnroe rivalry, Evert–Navratilova rivalry and Lendl–McEnroe rivalry would be to expand them, not delete them, based on the abundance of sources available. Rlendog (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not expressing an opinion on deleting or keeping, but just noting that this article (particularly the lead paragraph) seems to be more extensive than the deleted version, and thus this does not appear to be eligible for speedy deletion. Rlendog (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't speedy deletion though. Fixer23 (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is mostly an extensive listing of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Armbrust, if there is extensive articles written about this rivalry, that would make an article. but no. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Vered[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Earlier AfDs related to article:

Articles for deletion/Dan Blonsky

Articles for deletion/Joe Trela

Articles for deletion/Bob House

Articles for deletion/Kim Hunt (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Bernie Cullen

Articles for deletion/Ed Toutant

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

"Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
"It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
"Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
"Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; notable game show figure whose record stood for well over a decade and who had a number of outside media references. As an aside, I also don't think honest of you to take a set of quotations from some other AfD(s) and re-paste them into a new set of AfDs, out of context, without saying how they're applicable in the instant individual cases, without attribution, and without linking back to where they came from. You're essentially making an "appeal to authority" of the opinions of anonymous individuals, opinions that may not have been intended to apply to this AfD. It's falsely giving the impression of bolstering your deletion nominations, and it's just unethical. Robert K S (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article contains original research speculating that the subject's original winnings would/should be exactly doubled if he were to have appeared after an increase to the dollar values used in the game. The article also states that the record "would have stood for 12 years" because of this, which presents a false and inaccurate case for notability. The subject is not even in the top 10 American game show winnings records.

The subject is simply a non-notable game show contestant who–at one time–held the record for highest single-day score on the syndicated version of a game show. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misrepresenting the game and the rule change. If tomorrow the NBA made a rule change that all 2-point shots were to be revalued at 4 points, all 3-point shots at 6, etc., would that invalidate all of the old records? Of course not. This is not "original research" or "speculation" and you are again misusing arguments in order to "win". It's not right, Sotto. Robert K S (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a record prior to 2001 should be invalidated. I'm noting that simply doubling records prior to 2001 so they equate to values that "could be achieved" after 2001 is original research (because risk/reward factors are not the same and one cannot assume that a wager of $x,000 prior to 2001 would be double $x,000 simply because clue values are doubled). I'm also making the point that using this type of logic to state that a record "would have stood for 12 years" and thus make the topic notable is not accurate, is speculative and is original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your introduction of "risk/reward factors" is the unevidenced presumption here, not the clue value doubling, which is indisputable. This is not the space for a debate, but you're wrong there, too. The clue value doubling had no statistically significant affect on wagering behavior. (To continue my example, you're essentially arguing that a doubling of NBA point values might have some effect on players' willingness to risk going after 3-pointers.) Robert K S (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not essentially arguing anything related to NBA point values. Making an assumption that a Jeopardy! scoring record "would have stood for 12 years" is exactly that—an assumption. Assumption = speculation = original research. The assumption is in the article to inflate the subject to a level of notability that is not accurate or appropriate. I don't dispute that he once held a record/records with regards to appearances on a game show. Being a game show contestant who once scored the highest on a single episode is not criteria that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "would have stood" is the wording currently used, then I would agree, it could be better worded so as not to present so much what sounds like retroactive forecasting (not "original research" as there is no actual research involved here); the fact remains, however, that Jered's adjusted record stood for 12 years. Robert K S (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting a record to a future date that had already been beaten multiple times in those 12 years still does not add any notability to the original achievement. It also still assumes that someone who wagered "$5,235" in 1992 would have wagered exactly "$10,470" post 2001, which is still speculation and original research. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I beg to differ regarding the notability of the length of the adjusted record's standing, the measure isn't what I think or what you think on these pages. Notability should be judged objectively from outside sources. Your seeking to discount it based on your reasoning is no more valid than my seeking to count it based on mine. Robert K S (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
- If someone won the biggest lottery ever and received press coverage for it, wouldn't that be an indication of notability? Robert K S (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in terms of this theoretical, if it were the BIGGEST LOTTERY EVER it would be encyclopedia-worthy, but if it was just another lottery winner, it would not be, no matter how many so-called "Reliable Sources" (sic.) could be mustered covering the win. This is not a good line of argument to advance for any Jeopardy winner other than the BIGGEST EVER, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Jerome Vered's Jeopardy! appearance (per WP:BLP1E, where policy tells us to cover the event, not the person) or merge to List of Jeopardy! champions (where notability is presumed to be necessary for inclusion). Article clearly satisfies WP:GNG, as demonstrated by refs in article already. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vered has received sufficient attention to warrant an article. (I added a couple of sources during an earlier AFD.) A move to Jerome Vered's Jeopardy! appearance seems unnecessary to me. Vered made multiple (non-consecutive) appearances on Jeopardy, and was in the news at several points throughout that run. He also got some attention for his success on Win Ben Stein's Money. There's no single "event" to speak of. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sottolacqua's multiple Afd's on this topic are (1) borderline bad faith editing, as per Robert KS points out above, and (2) all based on the poorly-reasoned BLP1E policy. Many clearly encyclopedia-worthy individuals in history are only famous for "one event", such as virtually all assassins and record-breakers. If Nicolas Mahut merits a Wikipedia article, so does Vered. More importantly, Vered set a long-lasting record that achieved published notability, and over a decade later competed in a separate event that also received published notability. That's more than one event, so Sottolacqua's argument fails on its own terms. 271828182 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE validates Nicolas Mahut's notability and WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid when reasoning to keep/delete articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahut qualifies, as far as I can tell, from participating in a major and holding a record. Vered has far exceeded the analogous accomplishments in Jeopardy gameplay. You haven't addressed my main point, though: Vered's record and his Ultimate Tournament performance are two events separated by 13 years, and both achieved independent notability, which pretty clearly refutes your BLP1E argument. 271828182 (talk) 03:41, 13 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, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)2010 October 20[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I have to agree with the borderline bad faith edits unfortunately, at least as they apply to Vered for the reasons below. The nominator cites a) Wikipedia:Recentism; b) WP:BLP1E; and c) other comments by other editors in past nominations. In my opinion, none of these three provide grounds for deletion. As to Recentism, I can't see how this applies to Vered. The Recentism page advocates the 10-year test (i.e. Will this seem important in 10 years?). This article was created 13 years after Vered appeared on Jeopardy!...I can't imagine stretching recentism that far. As to the second point, I quote from WP:BLP1E: "Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." The very policy you are using doesn't support deletion; instead, it supports merge and redirecting. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but if you wanted to create List of Notable Jeopardy! Champions and merge all the information, that'd be fine, but I fail to see how that policy provides independent grounds for deletion. Finally, as to the other editors, it's been said already: you can't use past AfD nominations like that. Apparently the nominator tried to post a mass AfD nomination in the past and was told to nominate them individually. Clearly, the nominator misses the point of posting individually. If it was okay to post the exact same thing for every single individual article nominated, then it would have been okay to leave it as a mass nomination in the first place. I haven't really weighed in on the earlier contestants nominated because those were more borderline cases, but the way you phrased this nomination is ridiculous; using Recentism to support your contention that the article was created based on one event 13 years ago? Ridiculous. Bds69 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Upon further review, while I pretty much hate the Jeopardy Fanboy pages, this guy's achievement of setting a one day record plus appearances on other quiz shows would seem to separate him from the pack. Article passed notability muster a year ago, so I'll strike my previous DELETE recommendation in the name of Peace, Love, and Understanding. (What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?) Carrite (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it is not at present noted in the article, Vered was also subsequently a researcher for Win Ben Stein's Money. Robert K S (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected and Merged Since this is really a noncontroversial merge request, not an AfD, I've been bold and done the redirect and merge. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaas de Vries (PvdA)[edit]

Double article Klaas de Vries (Labour Party) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-Kerkhoven (talk • contribs) 2010/10/13 21:32:16

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge the link and any relevant categories to the first article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge the link and any relevant categories to the first article. (Sorry, nothing else to add.) Location (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Chappell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and at a push redirect to Celtic League (political organisation) and mention him there. Michael Chappell's media coverage is solely restricted minor references relating to statements and attention-seeking on behalf of this organisation. If this article stays, the link the reference to the border between Cornwall and England needs changing - like it or not, the rest of the world considers Cornwall to be part of England. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celtic League seems to be a minor political movement (though described as a NGO. As such the subject should be judeged against WP:POLITICIAN and clearly fails. No dount he hopes that his fast (now allegedly 10 days old) will make him notorious. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Del Conte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable Canyouhearmenow 05:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you judge someone who has been used interviewed on every major USA television network from CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC NBC as a technology expert as "Non-Notable". The standard to be notable is so high that 90%+ of all Wikipedia pages relating to a person or product should also be removed. —BitStop (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: simply for being senior editor for CNET.com warrants adequate notability. The article could use some work to remove CV aspects and make it more of a biography. —EncMstr (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: work at CNET as an editor and multiple appearances on national level tv shows make her notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Tri-State[edit]

See the discussions of the main page. This article is based on coverage regions of federal agencies, which does not call for these extrapolations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domanator (talk • contribs) 2010/10/08 14:52:44

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pittsburgh metropolitan area - This information can be mentioned there in a section of the article. Dough 48 72 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Original research at its worst. From what I can tell by the sources cited, the idea that the entire State of West Virginia is South Pittsburgh was inferred from the fact that FBI's "Pittsburgh Division" has jurisdiction over WV. [63]. Pittsburgh is in the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, but that doesn't make it part of Greater Cleveland. No redirect, because there's no indication that anyone uses the phrase "Pittsburgh Tri-State" to refer to the metro area. Mandsford 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This site refers to the Pittsburgh tri-state consisting of PA, OH, and WV. Dough 48 72 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't see in that link where the business used the phrase "Pittsburgh Tri-State" (and I didn't see that supposedly notable phrase in any of the links in the article either, other than the title of the page, which is the author's creation). Lots of businesses refer to themselves as "tri-state" if they happen to be located near two other states and like to sound as if they're serving the entire population of three states. It ranges from places like Cincinnati, Chicago, Memphis, etc. to smaller locations like Middlesboro, Kentucky and Belle Fourche, South Dakota. Mandsford 01:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the link :"Tri-State Horse Business Directory". A Google Search turned up results that seem to be mostly from businesses. This sense of using the term "tri-state area" is similar to what is seen in other cities such as Philadelphia and New York City. I know the latter has an article, Tri-State Region, that mentions the concept and seems redundant to New York metropolitan area. Dough 48 72 02:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point on the phrase being more common that I had thought, since I see from a similar search that "Pittsburgh Tri-State" in quotes gets a lot of mention [64] and might, arguably, be a search term, but the central premise of the article-- that the tri-state includes all of West Virginia-- is silly. I'll withdraw my delete, but as Catalyst points out, the definition of the metro area isn't a Tri-State at all. I'm more concerned about New Yorkers asserting priority over the use of "tri-state". Mandsford 15:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, this is original research, and putting all of West Virginia and Akron, Ohio (which is greater Cleveland if anything) in the Pittsburgh area is silly. The various "Pittsburgh divisions" mentioned in the article are intentionally broad; looking at these divisions in other cities, the FBI's Salt Lake City Division covers three whole states, and Denver TV stations (like FSN Rocky Mountain) cover up to eight. No redirect, since the actual Pittsburgh metropolitan area is entirely within one state. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research / pn. Admrboltz (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Chaney[edit]

This page should be deleted. It is a very poor article and Quentin Chaney did not make it to a NFL roster anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9 eh (talk • contribs) 2010/10/17 18:46:43

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATH, WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although subject may be notable outside WP:ATH, there are no sources cited and it's been a while. I'm not particularly enthusiastic myself about fixing it and researching for sources, so I say just delete the article. Sources come up, it can always be re-created but until then: no sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Simmons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only notable in terms of Gene Simmons Family Jewels. I'm not sure if this warrants a redirect, as it seems too obscure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gene Simmons#Personal life (my preference) or Gene Simmons Family Jewels (result of first Afd). May need to place some sort of lock until independent notability is established. Location (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Schwalb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobiography of non-significant person without any secondary sources- Amy od (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — Amy od (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Without any secondary sources"?? I count 28 sources in the Reference list. What's going on here, a personal vendetta?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the nominator's edit history, it's difficult to conceive that they are operating in good faith... they've also nominated Martin Boykan's article. Boykan was described in the American Record Guide as one of the most accomplished composers of his generation. He just happens to be married to Schwalb. Maybe this one ought to go to Speedy Keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know these people from Adam. Happened to find an unknown artist (sorry--she is part of a 50-woman museum show right now, but other than that appears to be a smalltime gallery artist) listed prominently under silverpoint, to the ommission of many other, better known artists, (e.g., Hans Holbein). When I looked to her page, I found the whole thing written by one person--the same person who added the note on the silverpoint page, and who also built the whole page for her husband. Put them under the musicians and visual artists groups, and let them decide. Looks suspicious to me, and I am an art major. amy_od (talk) 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Her work is represented in major public collections, including the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the National Gallery, Washington D.C., The British Museum, London, The Brooklyn Museum, NY, The Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Kupferstichkabinett - Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Germany, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, England, The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX, The Achenbach Foundation of Graphic Arts, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, CA, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC, The Rose Art Museum, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, CT, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum of Art, Providence, RI and the Arkansas Arts Center, Little Rock, AK.

Small time? Or do you suspect that these are fraudulent claims? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: The article on her husband, Martin Boykan, was created on 2 February 2007 by unregistered editor User:Eli n. It was subsequently edited by a number of people, including User:Badagnani, User:Jubileeclipman, and myself. Another unregistered editor, signing as User:Bluehoon began editing Boykan's article on 4 February 2010, and on the same day created Susan Schwalb. It is therefore manifestly not the case that both articles are the sole creations of the same person.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I noticed that. But most of the entries on both pages were by Bluehoon. The four sources at the bottom of her article are all first-person. They read almost verbatim from her website. I do question her credentials. The National Gallery in DC displays only dead artists in the permanent collection. Most of her other listings were group shows or self-submitted artwork to databases, etcetera. I have no dog in this fight, and didn't go further than googling her name and visiting a few links she provided. I just saw a page on Wiki that doesn't meet the standards of significance for bios (no important pieces on display anywhere, no news articles I can find, and certainly no second-person source material). The page on her husband is another matter, but the periodical mentioned above boasts over 500 reviews each issue. If it's been publishing since 1932, I'm not surprised he was mentioned at least once. How many classical composers are there? He may be a fine professor, but does he really meet the standards Wiki looks for in a significant bio? That is all. Again, I am happy to leave this to the Wiki experts in these fields. —Amy _OD (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy od (talk • contribs) [reply]

It sounds to me like a quick review of Wikipedia:Notability might be in order. You seem to think that the bar is set much higher than it really is under current guidelines. It really will not do to go around nominating any biographical article for deletion if the subject is not in the Top Ten of his or her field.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I checked those guidelines before I submitted these pages for review. The criteria I felt she did not meet were:

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.

Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

If the community feels that she is notable enough, so be it. But I would ask you to consider her three or four (unsourced) references to herself on the "silverpoint" page, including a plug for her book. Even Durer has fewer mentions of his name! —[[User:amy_od|amy_od] (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.184.224 (talk) [reply]

Just counted--Make that six mentions of Susan Schwalb, and one for Albrecht Durer in the "silverpoint" article.—amy_od (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kohl--All due respect, I had to check out your bio--very impressive in the music field. You have 10 years on me, but I am no ingénue, and I am very familiar with the art community and its ways of promotion. This was not a vendetta against a person, but a small attempt to keep Wikipedia from becoming a vanity press. You deserve a Wiki page more than either of these people for you contributions to the community, but I see you haven't gone and built your own page. I do wish you editors (catfish included) would consider your comments to me. The first thing you did was attack the person (me) questioning the source of, rather than the substance of my inquiry. I didn't mess with any of the pages, just submitted them for "cleanup" and possible deletion. It was the silverpoint page that really stuck out. This is the last time I will ever attempt to call a fraud or an error on Wiki, given the response (plus the interface is exhausting my brain). Wiki says they welcome community input, but I feel I received a pretty heavy-handed attack response from the get-go, w/o regard for the questions I was asking. It reminded me of the Wizard of Oz, "Who dares to question the authority of the Great Wizard of Oz?!!!" —amy_od (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly a possibility to compile a well referenced and informative article, see Google Books and Google News search results. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article easily passes WP:ARTIST. She is part of the collections of dozens of museums world-wide. All of this is be verified with google books and news. freshacconci talktalk 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per criterion G12 (deleted by Alexf). (Non-admin closure) ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wuds[edit]

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

A7 declined because the article says they are among "the most influential" punk rock bands. Based on Google Searches, I highly doubt this. Seems like an unremarkable band, with no WP:RS and barely any in indication that the band even exists. The band does exist, but it's hard to find any evidence that they are influential. There are some YouTube video hits, but really hard to find any significant third-party coverage. Editor has only made this edit. Note: for Google searches, it seems like the band name is The Wuds, not just Wuds. There are a number of discography hits and such, but I'm not having luck with reviews or coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a couple of refs for their appearance in the 'Arrest Gloria Concert' - one in NME and another I've forgotten - which could be reliable sources. Unfortunately, they only establish playing at this concert. How important you had to be for that, I've not managed to work out. There's a heck of a lot of unreliable sources, which may be masking something better. Peridon (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Too much digging required; lots of junk hits. There might be something out there, but if that's the case you'd hope the author would have included something! — Timneu22 · talk 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article is badly written, but the band's level of influence is indicated by at least one other article, The Youth (band). There must be some reliable sources out there... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE AS COPYVIO - Claim is to be "among the most influential" punk bands IN THE PHILIPPINES. I can't say that I have any particular knowledge about Filipino punk. I've never heard of the Wuds. A quick Google search for WUDS + PUNK generates THIS DISCOGRAPHY, which summarily ends things as a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wangan Midnight. Am closing as redirect. There may be an argument for merging the content, and if an editor wants to do that, the content will be in the history. Ged UK 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wangan Midnight Maximum Tune[edit]

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

The article appears to fail the WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT guidelines. A reasonable search on Google, GNews and GBooks finds nothing that would indicate suitable independent reliable sources to demonstrate significant impact justifying a stand-alone article. Previous PROD removed and potential improvement discussed locally, now raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm pretty sure that there's an entry at gamefaqs.com (keyword: Wangan Midnight Maximum Tune). While the user-written walkthroughs are not of our interest, it nonetheless demonstrates there is such an arcade game exists. Following this I'd say keep this article, provided that we cut out the trivia sections afterwards. As for the cars and tracks listing, I think mentioning them without going into too much details would suffice. All other listings should go. --Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Pretty sure? I would think you'd know... -Addionne (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep: Agreed. Too much trivial information contributed to irrelevant information being added as well. I'm still working on the trivial section as most of it is based on observations.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime4international (talk • contribs) 10:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I retract my first decision on keeping the article. Secondary sources for the article are slim, in fact none. In my opinion, due to the fact that trivial information does not follow standards, it would be best to keep the article's information straightforward in Wangan Midnight. Until reliable sources are found, deleting the article would be the best option. Anime4international (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a section at gamefaqs, however at that site anyone can write content. Beyond that, the question is not whether or not the game exists or the article has content, it is whether the game has signficant coverage in reliable sources. In this case, and in my opinion, the official website and a single user-generated listing at gamefaqs simply isn't enough. It's possible more sources exist, but I have been unable to find them in my quick search... -Addionne (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that maybe this article can be rewritten into a style like Initial D Arcade Stage 4, plus the points that I've said earlier. It's still not too good, but it's better than what it is currently. As for the "proper" sources, I've yet to see IGN or similar sites to review this sort of arcade games, so it may be a bit of pain. (BTW I never thought that the stuff that I left to rot was dug up again, as practically there are no cabinets with the original WMT nowadays; plus I quitted playing it long ago) --Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've only seen user reviews on the game, but nothing major from possible reliable sources. Most of the information I've seen on the article are based on observations during gameplay, and where they were sourced, does not meet standards. Though the official website is a step forward, it is still not enough to make the article notable. I have a PDF manual of the game's cabinet system, but likely it does not state any gameplay whatsoever. Anime4international (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps a merge or redirect should've been considered, as suggested by WP:PRODUCT. Wangan Midnight and List of Namco Bandai games are possible targets. In the meantime I'll check through the Japanese language google hits. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification of nomination - The nomination was for deletion discussion, not just Keep or Delete. As per WP:DELPRO possible outcomes of this discussion include merge, userfy or redirect. Fæ (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm referring to WP:BEFORE #4. Marasmusine (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may have missed some of the history here. There was an earlier PROD and article talk page and user page discussion. A good deal of care was taken to follow the guidelines of BEFORE. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe I missed it, but I can't see any discussion of redirection/merger, or any rationale of why a viable search term should be deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You appear to be suggesting that I failed to follow WP:BEFORE by not explicitly suggesting a merge as one of the possible options in my advance discussions on the article talk page and on the user page of the primary contributor where we did discuss the reasons for PROD and its removal, and went on to go through the reasons why we would go to AFD for wider discussion. Should you feel there is a case here, please use any recognized dispute resolution process to complain about my behaviour (rather than taking this AFD off-topic) and consider applying the deletion review process if this AFD does result in a deletion. I am comfortable that my efforts to meet the BEFORE guidelines are well documented, would stand up to scrutiny and were consistently friendly and open to keeping the article if improvement to meet the notability guidelines seemed possible. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:46, 22 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) Marasmusine (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found some related sources based on Maximum Tune, specifically the third installment. A simple summary on the gameplay, as well as a PDF brochure attached. Link. Another one is the announcement of releasing NBGI's first game globally, which happens to be Maximum Tune 3. Link. Though the second link leads to a blog, I trying to locate the original source of the news. Anime4international (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wangan Midnight and briefly cover there. Anime4international, the source of both those links is Namco Bandai itself. We can't base an article on press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. I realized press releases are not suitable after reviewing the policies. Sorry about that. Anime4international (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wangan Midnight per Marasmusine's rationale. --Teancum (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raza dexter[edit]

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

Likely autobiography uploaded by User:Raza Dexter on a Pakistani musician. Claims several awards but Google does not seem to come up with any pertinent hits. Travelbird (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am turning up so little from Google for "Raza Dexter" (or for "Mohammad Raza" along with any of the other proper names from the article - "Aakash" or "Milestones" or "Ziyyad Gulzar", etc.) - that I am quite dubious about the article's claims. Certainly not enough to verify the article's contents, let alone to establish notability. (NB I BLPPROD'd the article from new page patrol; I see now that the author later removed the tag. May as well debate now we're here though.) Gonzonoir (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of suggestions in the article that the subject is notable, but no supporting references provided and a Google search doesn't yield any. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Tapia[edit]

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

The person in question was a soldier in a war - which is his only claim to fame. He did nothing particularly notable, did not receive any medal nor even are his years of birth and death known. Travelbird (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability. Fails WP:MILPEOPLE, and is missing even the absolute basics of a biography. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not satisify WP:N in my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hokushin-ron[edit]

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

The whole article is a paraphrase of an alternate history novel from a book "Rising Sun Victorious". There is absolutely no proof in the article that Hokushin-ron existed in reality. I suggest the article would be deleted unless some reliable sources are provided. Elmor (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an alternate history novel is not a reliable source. Most of this sounds plausible enough that I wouldn't want to call it a hoax, but without any good sources, it's all guesses, crystal ball reading, and OR. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar film references[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 12. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can only be considered original research. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous third-party references. Argument is spurious at best.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yeah, unfortunately it is still a big amalgamation of original research. Reyk _YO! 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are numerous third-party references, even with citations from the primary sources. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not exactly clear how it can be OR when so many RSes exist. Is the claim somehow that grouping them together is OR? I suppose we could create an article for each sourced film reference, but generally we use lists to stick together things that A) fit together and B) shouldn't be their own article for one reason or another. That's standard editorial discretion. [65], [66], [67], and [68]all look like very reasonable sources that cover the topic in detail. There are a number of others in the article. I personally don't care for the format of the article, but that's not really a reason to delete. Can one of the two of you above explain what you mean by OR? Hobit (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the five sources I listed at the second DRV:

While there are plenty of primary source references, there are multiple, independent reliable sources which deal with the specific topic of references in Pixar films to other Pixar films in a non-trivial manner, meeting WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this article OR? This article has more references than many other articles. Please someone explain why this is considered OR. JDDJS (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and merge to the main Pixar article, and possibly also the individual film articles. I disagree with the suggestion that this is original research, as sources have been provided that list many references in the films. However, just because sources can be found for a long list of references doesn't mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a complete list of them. I would consider this article similar to having an article List of plays in Super Bowl XLIV, with a complete list of every play. Such a list would be easily sourced, but I think almost everyone would agree that it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. In this case, I think there is sufficient coverage of how Pixar puts references of this sort into their films that the concept of them doing so should be mentioned somewhere. However, such coverage should be done in prose, giving examples of the most significant references, not as a list of all the references that can be found in any reliable source. I think a long list of references like this is the sort of thing that WP:IINFO says is inappropriate for Wikipedia (even if it doesn't exactly fit with any of the examples given there). I think that if this was rewritten as prose describing the concept of references in Pixar films and only giving the most significant examples, it would easily fit in the main Pixar article. Very prominent references in individual films could also possibly be mentioned in the articles for those films. Calathan (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many to include in separate pages. It will overload the other pages. And about your Super Bowl reference I disagree because you won't normally include every play in the article, but you would normally include film references in articles. The problem is that they will start to become overloaded. JDDJS (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <ec>I agree in part but I think that adding it to Pixar would be a huge UNDUE problem unless it was a paragraph at most. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are way too many references across multiple films to be listed in each individual film page. References were originally on each movie when there were only a few films. With Pixar's subsequent output, along with the projected increase in theatrical releases following the Disney acquisition, it would unnecessarily bulk up the articles for each film. Also, how would this be handled? Films reference other films and then are referenced themselves. Do we then start including non-Pixar references? Pop-culture references within each film? Etc. Etc. Additionally, there are too many references to add to the lone Pixar page, as this would drastically increase the size of this page. This idea simply is not feasible. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the kind of article that can easily attract OR, but there are also some good sources that are cited. They are enough to support an article and the rest is simply clean-up. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Pixar. The fact that Pixar references itself deserves a section in the main article with some examples, as it is covered in reliable sources. A list of every single reference in a separate article is however unnecessary, This belongs in the trivia sections of IMDB, not on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar does not reference itself. Pixar films reference each other, and these increase with each subsequent film. See the response to Calathan for a more expanded rebuttal as this idea is simply not feasible. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ANY article can atract OR, but that is why interested editors keep a watch on pages... to correct such through regular editing. The deletion discussion of February/March 2010 resulted in a keep due to numerous sources being offered at that time... and was most compelling. Its return to AFD by the same nominator 6 months later simply attracted fewer editors. It is far better sourced than many lists and would overburden the Pixar article... unless the list is reduced to a trivial paragraph... but such reduction does not serve the readers. Note: It was spun out of the Pixar article orginally as becoming too burdensome there. No need to put it back and confound the original issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article keeps references in a single location. Instead of spreading out references within each film's article, each short film's article, etc., this article presents a cogent list that is easily navigable. This topic (Pixar's self-referential nature) has been mentioned in print media, movie news websites, and other sources. This is notable and meets Wikipedia criteria. The fact that people occasionally do OR and post it invites editing. It does not invite outright deletion of the entire article. This has been discussed before (and presumably will be again). So the article has a purpose, describes a notable topic in the public domain, and is extremely useful.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately agree, there are those numerous 3rd party sources within this article and it is certainly notable.trainfan01 talk 19:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Regarding the nominator's criteria of this article being WP:OR, I present the following WP-approved 3rd party sources that have covered Pixar's purposeful inclusion of self-referential items in their films:

http://www.nola.com/movies/index.ssf/2010/06/toy_story_3_cookies.html
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/06/10-things-parents-should-know-about-toy-story-3/ (mentions to look for easter eggs)
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/12/09/a-special-where-s-wall-e-edition-of-why-for.aspx##
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/27/wall-e-easter-eggs/
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/
http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/06/01/check-this-out-all-the-hidden-easter-eggs-in-pixars-up/
http://www.theanimationblog.com/2007/12/09/list-of-easter-eggs-in-pixar-movies/
http://www.themovieblog.com/2010/02/easter-eggs-found-in-toy-story-3-trailer
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/01/25/pixar-easter-eggs-and-self-referential-inside-jokes/
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21776
http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEr09tuzsIQEuz
http://www.notcoming.com/features/inpraiseofpixar/
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/22405
On page 297 of the Disney-Pixar published book, ISBN 978-0756654320 Pixarpedia, the introductory text for that section says Learn the significance of "A-113" and how it appears in every Disney-Pixar feature. Take a closer look at each film and spot all the secret cross references....
Interview with Pixar's John Lassetter by MTV. John specifically addressing putting references into Pixar films: We do little homages in our films... is direct confirmation in mainstream press from Pixar staff
Among other 3rd-party sources in the current article: An interview by 'Creative Screenwriting Magazine' with Pixar staff, a direct quote from Lee Unkrich of Pixar, and Collider.

SpikeJones (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than sufficient secondary sourcing. Even if the use of pinpoint primary source cites to expand on the secondary sources is considered impermissible original research, the remedywould be ordinary editing, not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no OR, just appropriate summary of referenced material. Descriptive information on films is best taken from primary sources, interpretation from secondary. Both are available. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bourne_(film_series)#Possible_fourth_film. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourne Legacy (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMS, has not yet started principal filming. Also, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bourne (film series)#Possible fourth film per notability guidelines for future films. Merely news reports at this point, and no indication that the topical film, if never produced, is of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to restore the redirect made here by Cirt: crystal ballery, but possibly a legitimate search term. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broccoli wad[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:DICTIONARY. ttonyb (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a list of slang dictionary definitions, and the only source is a film where the terms are used. JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic and unwikified amalgam of non-notable slang. A series of Urban Dictionary definitions, at best. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not-at-all notable term. According to the source cited [69], the roll of cash held together by a broccoli rubber band is called a "knot". No Google books returns for "broccoli wad", but a disturbing number for "broccoli rubber bands" [70]. Who knew? I certainly did knot. Mandsford 20:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as seconder of original prod. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adobe Flash. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash intro[edit]

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

This article is not notable; doesn't even have a single source, let alone reliable secondary sources. It is also obviously an original research. It's more like blog post than an encyclopedia entry. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skip intro, merge to Adobe Flash. Sourceable concept but much better for unsourced content to be "skipped" from article creation and face the music at a main article. Then we can wait until the main page is done loading .... JJB 03:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
merge to Adobe Flash DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, be sure to source everything you merge, guys. Materials lacking source are often challenged or deleted, remember? Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adobe Flash. This article is original research and does not deserve its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree with JJB. Skip intro. --Nat682 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and per CSD A9 as I just rang up the band's article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming debut album (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. (Declined PROD) Some of this information could moved to the band's page if it's not there already but there is no need for it to exist under this title. D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future album of a band with questionable notability, won;t be enough coverage to support an article. Hammer time or whatever. Rehevkor ✉ 13:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete As per WP:BALL. Article is entirely speculative, regardless of whether band passes WP:MUS Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI another editor has has nominated the band's article for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Romantic Tragedy. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an unreleased album without title, tracklist and precise release date. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better be gone before I finish typing this. But I had to peek at the source just because of the abysmal title. Did the editor actually expect us to believe the tentative name was "Upcoming Debut Album" as the infobox and text (but not the source) imply? If so, how can we disambiguate it from the same album name used by 100 other garages? JJB 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Not a rumor - notable (non-admin closure) THEMONO™ 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X Lion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rumours again. Since 2008. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. E Wing (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speculative press release fodder, doesn't add any meaningful information to the stew. BTW: I have a new laptop on order, which means that Apple will launch a new OS in about two weeks, judging by my previous track record, ha ha. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Apple just announced Mac OS X Lion at a Keynote event "Back to the Mac," there's no speculation in the article. Althepal (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is no longer speculation. ~NerdyScienceDude 23:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a rumor. Was announced today by Apple, incl. tentative release date, features, etc. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - obviously not a rumor, plenty of RSes to back up notability. THEMONO™ 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Van Horne[edit]

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

I am proposing this to AfD as the next step following a possibly questionable removal of a PROD. The PROD rationale was "concern = Article lacks NPOV - fails WP:BLP must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The reason for the PROD removal was "I do not see the same issues as the nominator, I do not see it as anything other than the summary of events" without any further explanation or reference to Wikipedia policy. The PROD proposal is accurate, and to say that the article is not NPOV is putting it mildly. This article is not a biography - even broadly construed - it is an attack page. My first reaction was to consider removing all but the first two paragraphs of it. Of 9 sourced references, the majority are from the Post-Gazette, including pure opinion pieces and articles that are not even about the subject; two sources are merely copies of election results, one is a contact page from the House of Representatives, and another is a copy of the Pennsyvania Constitution. This Wkipedia article appears to be muck-raking and defamation in a gutter-press style practiced by some newspapers that achieve their sales from sensationalism. I advocate speedy deletion G10. This AfD however, will permit the community to decide. Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN members of state assemblies such as the Pennsylvania House of Representatives are deemed to be notable. If there are issues such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE then those should be fixed within the article. For what it's worth I don't see these. Van Horne's rebuttal is included in the article and it does look on the surface that the controversy may have cost him a subsequent election so it's notable in the context of his political career. That however is something to discuss on the article's talk page. Deletion review isn't the place for fixing articles. Valenciano (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod rationale that Kudpung has quoted above, Shift to Keep as Ray has done a nice repair job. ~~though without prejudice to creation of a more balanced bio as the subject is notable.~~ NB I previously prodded the article. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs to be balanced out, but just as Wikipedia should not be a venue for attack pages, neither should it be a venue for hagiography and the sweeping of unsavory tidbits under the rug. Resolve this problem through normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issues raised by the nominator can be fixed by editing, without requiring deletion, with, if necessary, oversight or revision deletion or whatever it's called these days. The nominator's first reaction in this case was the correct one, rather than the call for deletion of an article on a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup was not particularly difficult. Severe NPOV issues on articles about notable subjects should only be a cause for deletion when they cross the WP:ATP threshold. This was not the case here. Ray^Talk 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Kudos to Ray for fixing-up this one. Location (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no items so bad as to require wholesale deletion of an article about a clearly notable subject. Would suggest restoring the Veon bit; as someone who lived in Beaver County while Veon's time in office was ending and time in trouble was starting, I can testify that this is an important element in regional politics that shouldn't be left out, and the fact that Van Horne hasn't had any legal trouble about it means that it's not problematic from the NPOV angle. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. POV problems are a reason for clean up, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of spreadsheet software[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for Wikipedia. This may fall in the scope of Wikipedia is not a guide. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, there's an entire category (Category:Software comparisons) of very similar articles, with 182 entries in total.--Hongkongresident (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator gives no valid reason for deletion & doesn't say that he even wants this deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I have to say I want this deleted? That has nothing to do with the merits of the article. Why should my opinion by more important than everyone else's just because I nominated something? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BEFORE. If you do not want something deleted, do not nominate it for deletion. It appears to me that you can withdraw your nomination & we can close this. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to elaborate your concerns about the article. --Karnesky (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was unsure about this article's appropriateness in Wikipedia, and felt it deserved discussion. I still think it does. I consider a good discussion of the article's merits more important than "winning" a debate. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm all for discussion! But what specific points are worth discussing? If you want to discus whether software comparisons are encyclopedic, this isn't the best venue to do that. If you want to discuss specific points about this article in particular, I haven't really seen you raise them. --Karnesky (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Respectfully, "I'm not sure if this [comparison article] is appropriate for Wikipedia" (especially when there are so many comparisons in WP) is a policy issue. It shouldn't be discussed for each comparison article separately. I request you leave these articles alone until the policy is clarified. In general, a comparison is not a guidebook, IMO, so "Wikipedia is not a guidebook" may not apply here. An example of a guidebook in the above policy is a travel guide to Paris. This is a completely different concept than a comparison. — HowardBGolden (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no problems with a comparision of technical information like this, as long as it is not used to draw any conclusions. Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought that this was going to be a slam-dunk DELETE based on the title, but I can see the utility of the article. I'm not sure whether it belongs in an encyclopedia. Are we supposed to be Consumer Reports now, comparing stereos and apple peelers? That said, I don't have a firm opinion about this article's inclusion-worthiness, one way or another. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to look at past deletion discussion on the other comparison articles, most of which are kept. Consumer Reports performs their own research. The comparisons in Wikipedia should not do that. The information should be verifiable. Comparisons here often merely summarize the content of the articles for the notable items that are compared. As such, comparisons provide a way to organize and navigate through multiple related subjects. Our policies encourage this. --Karnesky (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's kept up to date: keep. --Dan-yell (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly appropriate comparison article, as for other products. It's not a guide: a guide gives recommendations. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks fine to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, extremely useful; I depend on wikipedia for articles of the 'list of X software' format - unregistered lurker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.220.46 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No One (hip-hop band)[edit]

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

Note to closing admin: The article has been moved to No One (hip hop), so if the result is "delete" please make sure you delete that, and not just the redirect at No One (hip-hop band). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Although the article possibly meets the notability criteria in WP:BAND, I am not sure this article is notable. AfD'd for further comment. ttonyb (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only suggestions of them being notable is the unsourced claim of "receiving incredible reviews" and two bluelinked members. Neither of the members show any independent notability so no pass there. The claim of reviews is unsourced so no pass there. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The majority of the "references" in the article are links to pages which don't even mention "No One", and most of the others are the band's own site, blog posts, promotional material, pages which barely mention them, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Strong (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No news, no notability, no nuthin'. Bye-bye now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actor does seem to have a far better chance at showing notability if his stage work can be sourced. Reviews of his work in theater? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kemal Öztürk[edit]

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

Not notable. Takabeg (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - founder of the modern security forces and a college - sounds to be very notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only source of this article is website of his own family. And site says Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanligi Guvenlik Sube Muduru gorevlerinde bulundu. He served for the security department of the Air Force and doesn't mention to "founder". Takabeg (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per nom and WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above...--Sabri76'^message 08:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syclo[edit]

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

Article is a recreation of a page name of a previously Speedy Deleted under A7, and appears to be a vehicle for promoting the company's product(s) or service(s). Kudpung (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly crap, (one requires payment to see, and the PDF is poorly encoded and crashes Firefox when I try to load it.) and I don't see notability on news or general searches. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jgranda what would you differently because they are one of the top two enterprise mobile software providers and it looks like most corporate listings. It doesn't do any blatant advertising of events, etc but rather gives a background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.44.66 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added to show credibility. Due to the relative newness of its field, you won't find a overwhelming number of general news sources to draw from here, admittedly - but more importantly this is a recognized leader in mobile enterprise applications, a large (and growing) technology category deserving of increased public awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nholman7 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 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) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Chicago Tribune ref seems reasonable (go to page 2 of the article to actually see Syclo mentioned). The other refs seem tenuous, but others may be found. Article seems tolerably encyclopedic and non-commercial. I encourage interested editors to keep working on this article, and especially to find a few more good refs. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Raceway[edit]

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

Delete. Not notable. Single ref is local newspaper being "friendly." Appears to be WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps send it through a WP:PR, since the nominator seems to love using that as a reason for deletion ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Would you like to cite any policy grounds upon which to advocate keeping the article? As far as I can see, launching a personal attack on the nom is not generally considered a valid one. That aside, there are zero sources and zero hits on G-News to anything beyond race results in the local newspaper. Ravenswing 15:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A look for sources results in lots of adverts for the track in the paper... no reliable sources that discuss the track in any detail. Notability not established. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above comment was made here as a result of blatant canvassing Jeni ^(talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 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) 00:08, 13 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) 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Though consensus at this point slightly leans to the "delete" side, I'm concerned that one of the !votes may have been canvassed so I'm relisting for further input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for anything other than Delete. Jeni fails to state a ground to retain beyond a personal attack on the nom. Ravenswing 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Bender[edit]

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

OTRS confirmation now provided for info which previously had copyright concerns, so removed the speedy tag. Procedural nomination, no personal opinion on notability of the page itself. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 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) 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per references. establishing notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 15 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) 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search for "joyce bender disabled" produces many newspaper articles over many years. Though most are in the Pittsburgh area where she's based, I also find references in Chicago and Colorado, as well as at CNN. A lot of these are paid sites (though of reliable newspaper sources) and in those cases I couldn't read the full reference but enough are fully visible to confirm notability, in my mind, without a doubt. Simply adding the word "disabled" in the search separated the wheat from the chaff, and gave a picture from reliable sources of this person's notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James McCormick (Ecologist)[edit]

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

This person is a teacher at a High School (Middlesex County Academy), and does not have any reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG. I know that there are slightly different criteria for academics, but I do not think that this person qualifies as an academic although the page claims that he has written some scientific journal articles. At the moment this is an unsourced BLP. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication given of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Given the absence of references could have been BLP-prodded; also in the current state might qualify for CSD A7. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, no legit claim to notability, uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I declined the speedy so it can be properly discussed here, & a claim to published work might be considered a credible assertion of significance. . But I can find no evidence of such a body of work in Scopus or even Google Scholar. Just possibly some information will be forthcoming, but I doubt it. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Milstein[edit]

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

resume/hagiography Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although "hagiography" is an excellent word to describe this article in its current form, this person is clearly notable, and the article should be kept, pruned, and rewritten to Wikipedia standards. The references are abundant. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and referenced. Needs to be cut by more than half but no need to delete. --Lockley (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terraine Jones[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. I find no significant matches in Google Books or Google News. The awards listed do not demonstrate the significant impact needed for the general notability guidelines. It seems unlikely that notability can be addressed with independent verifiable sources in the near future. PROD removed by creator (and various improvement tags deleted based on poor quality citations), so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utterly non-notable vanity piece suffering from NPOV, tone, and probable COI issues. Certainly fails WP:MILPEOPLE and has nothing distinguishing for his military service (most of the so-called achievements are fairly routine and puffery). His poetry work doesn't seem significant either, but I can't speak too intelligently there. bahamut0013^words _deeds 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per Bahamut... this is really bad.Anotherclown (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bahamut - no evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hampi Airport[edit]

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

Just a single sentence cannot make an article complete Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The principal of a Wikipedia stub is that while short, it could be expanded in the future. Bob talk 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not exactly sure what the nom means by "cannot make an article complete." As Bob said, it's a valid stub. It can be expanded. When was the airport built? What's the history of the airport? What's the traffic stats? What are the airlines and destinations? Are there plans to expand it? --Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep per above. Nothing wrong with stubs, and the topic is valid. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It's a currently-open airport, therefore it deserves an article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRPORTS notified. Mjroots (talk)

Keep - Paved airports with international codes are likely all notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A careful reading of the source that I added shows that it is actually about Bellary Airport, which serves Hampi (see under "Hampi Basics" near the bottom). Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. There is no deadline to expand it from its stub status, and under no circumstances should this be deleted just because it remains a stub for a long time. Sebwite (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Oakshade and TheCatalyst31 Admrboltz (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could any of those calling for "keep" or "speedy keep" provide any evidence that a "Hampi Airport" exists, other than as an occasionally used name for Bellary Airport, about which we already have an article? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, we can always merge it, even without an AfD. Sebwite (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but now that we're at AfD with more eyes on the subject than are ever likely to appear at the article talk page we might as well make that decision here. I would point out I am the editor who added the only substantive content to the article, but have since noticed that the source that I was using is about Bellary Airport rather than Hampi Airport. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, IATA and ICAO code would help establish whether or not we are talking about one or two airports. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried searching these databases and found nothing for Hampi. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request relist this AFD so that it runs another seven days, to allow time for resolving the issue of whether on not Hampi Airport is the same as Bellary Airport. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 15 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) 00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. There seems to be some doubt as to which airport we're talking about here so let's give this a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be an entirely valid stub about an airport in India. JIP | Talk 07:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just. Being a stub article is fine as long the subject is notable. An airport is notable - however there are concerns as to whether this is actually Bellary Airport. I looked into it - google gave up little, but on this website, both airports are listed. It seems to be an airport that nobody knows about and that only a two-bit budget operator flies to. Maybe Ryanair should check it out. The article could benefit from someone at at an appropriate Wikiproject looking at it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source says that both Bellary and Hampi are served by Air Deccan, but the site that the airline itself redirects to for bookings doesn't list Hampi as a destination.[71] (click on the drop-down menu for departure city). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I added a chart to the Airlines/Dest making it look better. It is an airport, come on. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it an airport? I still haven't seen a reliable source saying that it is, and I have linked to two comprehensive databases above that don't list it as an airport. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bellary Airport. As Phil mentions both references in the article are referring to Bellary Airport, which serves Hampi. I went hunting for evidence that a separate Hampi airport exists and came up empty. I did find Vidyanagar Airport which is closer to Hampi than Bellary Airport is, but it's a much smaller airport. Kmusser (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Night (Goosebumps)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this book does not exist. Neelix (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Move to Halloween Night (Point Horror). Popular children's book. This is one in a series.[72][73][74] Cindamuse (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hrm, I looked on Amazon.com myself [75]. It took me, oh, about five seconds to find. Perhaps the nom might enlighten us as to the methodology used for "As far as I can tell." Ravenswing 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - This article is not about the book identified by Gene93k and Ravenswing above. This article states in its title, main text, and categorization, that it discusses a Goosebumps book. The book identified by the previous two editors is a Point Horror book. This article should not be moved to Halloween Night (Point Horror) because "Halloween Night (Goosebumps)" is a false descriptor of the book and would be an inappropriate redirect. Furthermore, the book in the Point Horror series is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. Neelix (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, you're right. It is a Point Horror book. Checking out the synopsis, while poorly written, it is summarily an accurate description of the Point Horror book. And it appears quite notable as one in the Point Horror series. As such, I recommend moving (rather than redirecting) to Halloween Night (Point Horror). Cindamuse (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books, a book must be notable in the real world and not just within a series. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; it is therefore not sufficiently notable for an article on Wikipedia, whether at the current title or any other. Neelix (talk) 14:05, 15 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) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have individual articles for R.L. Stine's more well-known series of books (List of Goosebumps books), I don't see why we should have one for a much lesser known series. However, there should be an ((About)) template, linking the article at Halloween Night to Point Horror.--Hongkongresident (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for two reasons. Firstly, there does not appear to be any reliable, independent coverage. This is not surprising given R. L. Stine's uncanny ability to churn out huge amounts of terrible books in rapid succession. Secondly, even if this book is somehow determined to be notable, the current article is irredeemably bad. There is nothing, literally nothing, in it that is suitable for an encyclopedia and the best thing would be to nuke it and start over. Reyk _YO! 02:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loser (novel)[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable for an article; does not meet WP:NBOOK. Blurpeace 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 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) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a major work by Jerry Spinelli, a Newbery Award winning author and one of the most popular children's authors currently working. More sources are out there and need to be added. Leoniceno (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A google search [76] has given me a list of websites about the book [77] published by the University of Missouri, including an interview with the author, a guide for teachers [78] and a lesson plan [79] for $9.95. Seems notable to me. Edgepedia (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Valiant Arms[edit]

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

This online game has 5 sources; 2 are press-releases, one is the game's homepage, and the last 2 are just lists of specifications required to play the game. I can't find any independent discussions of the game, except a few reviews, but not in what appear to me to be reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 13 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) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no reliable sources that satisfy WP:RS, nor evidence this passes WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Ravenswing 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might be worth checking Korean sources although I'm afraid I can't tell what is and isn't a press release. [80][81][82][83]? Marasmusine (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note at WP:Wikiproject Korea to ask if anyone has time/inclination to check. It may be worth re-listing once this when it expires just to give the project time to help if they think this should be saved. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 16 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) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried messing about with web translation services.
- Gameshot.net seems reliable, but I think this might be a publisher's description. Nothing critical.
- Gamespot.co.kr has something about AVA ending with "Republic of Korea in 2007 was awarded the grand prize game."
- xportsnews has something about a 2010 national AVA competition. And here's the "Republic of Korea team", so the gamespot article was probably about the team winning in 2007, then.

This is about the best I can find: no reviews or anything. Based on this, I'm leaning towards delete. Marasmusine (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sourcing found. --Teancum (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech Alumni Association[edit]

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

Has not been the subject of multiple independent sources. Every college has an alumni association. There is no demonstration here that Texas Tech's is notable. The organization has not spearheaded any major changes, either nationally or at the university. GrapedApe (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with you, and also note that most of the content of this article seems to be a duplication of material at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University traditions. However, the short section about Facilities contains three sentences of worthwhile content about the association and its (apparently historical) building that could fit appropriately in the main article (probably as part of the discussion of the alumni association at Texas Tech University#Notable people), so: Merge to Texas Tech University. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Texas Tech University/Announcements. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:05, 14 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) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The TTAA is one of the largest alumni associations in the United States. More information should be added about the organization's history as it was responsible for the university's name change to Texas Tech University instead of Texas State University. An issue that took over a decade to settle with opposition from the Texas Governor, legislature, Board of Directors, faculty and students. RedRaider04 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Pit Bull Terrier. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier[edit]

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

None of the linked websites listed in this article mention this breed. Article is completely unsourced. Searches of AKC and UKC breed listings turn up nothing. Only mentions I can find in a google search are personal and sales sites. Does not appear to be a recognized breed based on this evidence. Changing to redirect/merge per discussion below between Silver seren and me. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: user:Silver seren has now stubbed the article and provided sources stating that the breed is simply an alternate name for pit bull terriers, used by owners to avoid laws that ban pit bulls. Given that new information...
~~Redirect~~ to ~~Pit bull~~ American Pit Bull Terrier first link wasn't specific breed, Silver had the right one in his vote. "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is an alternate name for "Pit bull"; it may merit a mention in the main article that alternate names are being used to avoid "bully breed" laws, but the alternate name doesn't merit its own article. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should point out that, as the nominator of this AfD, you're supposed to put your argument for Deletion/Merge/Redirect/ect. in the nomination part, and not also vote. Because of that, i've struck through the Redirect word, so the closing admin doesn't get confused. Silver seren^C 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Struck out old nom up top, added my new !vote there. Sorry for the mess, closing admin! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Pit Bull Terrier Considering that the specific name itself is one of the "species" on the banned list for the Dangerous Dogs Act in Britain (of which there are only four), I think the information should be kept somewhere. It should be put in its own section in the American Pit Bull Terrier article. Silver seren^C 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to ask questions of other voters? I'm not a regular AFD-er, so if this is considered rude please forgive! Silver, I think either I'm not understanding what you mean or you may have misread the sources - I can't find anything in the sources that says that "Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is on the list of the four banned breeds, only that "American pit bull terrier" is. Or did you mean just that the APBT article should have a section on its being banned in the UK? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to ask questions, no worries. :) And I think I was wrong in what I stated before. Looking at the sources again, "pit bull terriers" in general are the species listed on the Act. In light of this, i've changed my vote to just merge. And I meant that I think there should be a section in the APBT article that discusses the separate name in the UK that was used in order to bypass the Dangerous Dogs Act and how these dogs were then used in dog fighting venues. Silver seren^C 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds eminently reasonable to me. It's certainly noteworthy that people are trying to get around the Act by renaming. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be put as a subsection under the Law section, with very little needing to be changed from the prose it has now. Silver seren^C 00:12, 14 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) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stuart Pennington[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BusStudent111 I believe this page is significant because the person in question, as stated in the article, is known and has worked across 2 continents for many major companies; has been an article of and contributed to literature, been a member of organizations and nominated to several boards related to the field; has been deeply involved in the process of creating products in the business; is still currently working for a major company and contributes to the subject and is well known throughout the tile industry. This industry may not be well known to Wikipedia itself but this page, linked with others such as the boards and companies can be a starting point to increase the knowledge that many people will come to use. Any information or suggestions as to what I could add or take away to improve the page will be greatly appreciated.
Comment: BusStudent111 I have also updated the sources a few days ago and can be read easier and are also cited in the text where relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusStudent111 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 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) 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources cited are internal or trade publications, it seems. Individual notability isn't established; perhaps some information on this individual could be included in the page for Porcelanosa, which in any case needs a lot of copy-editing and wikifying. Leoniceno (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DynaPel[edit]

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

Only external coverage seems to be reprints of press releases. Fails WP:CORP. —Chowbok ☠ 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: a leading innovator of smart video surveillance software. Named after the unsleeping guardians of Buddhist Temples, Nio’s unique and patented video surveillance technology provides ‘Watchful Intelligence’ to a worldwide customer base ranging from Fortune 500 companies and governments to small businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep massive coverage in the media, such as this search with Dagens Næringsliv which gave 28 hits. Clearly meets WP:CORP, and is inherently notable as a publicly listed company. I have rewritten the article to remove any advertisement-like prose. Plase move the article to Nio Security when the AfD closes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Which among those listings of snippets in Norwegian are you claiming establishes notability? I looked at them, and they looked like routine business page announcements of contracts, financing, profit and loss announcements, or personnel changes, and that kind of coverage usually does not confer notability on a business. Technically, I don't know Norwegian, but I can read Swedish, and get some sense out of it. Text like Nio Security fikk et underskudd på over én million dollar i tredje kvartal seems to be a routine announcement of a loss in a quarter. Har inngått OEM-avtale med Genie. Nio Security har inngått en OEM-avtale med Genie CCTV. is a press release announcing a contract. Kamerateknologiselskapet Nio Security, tidligere kjent som Idar Vollviks Dynapel , har inngått en refinansieringsavtale announces a refinancing contract. This kind of coverage would not amount for much towards notability if it were in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 13 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) 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 REAL Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Perlman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking references and GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to REAL Software - being the founder of a notable company does not itself confer notability. I can't find signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and evidently neither can the anonymous editor (with an IP address in the city where the company is based) who contested the prod. Top Jim (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 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) 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to REAL Software - agree with Top Jim. Eclipsed (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Source provided, and ghits and gscholar hits demonstrate its existence, but not its notability. Most of the scholarly sources refer to works published by people who work there, not necessarily by the org itself. Ged UK 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimSummit[edit]

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

No clear what this is or how it might meet notability guidelines. Lacks any references to 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article explain well enough what this is - a meeting and discussion structure for researchers into simulations. I had little difficulty adding a citation. The article should be retained for expansion per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:IMPERFECT doesn't give a pass on notability guidelines. Can you expand on how you see this as being notable?--RadioFan (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion process requires the nominator to familiarise himself with the topic and to search for relevant sources. I have added a citation and links to more sources. If you wish to know more, then please follow the links provided at the article, its talk page and above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news search on the topic brings up zero hits, a web search brings up largely primary sources. A book search brings up 3 hits but they appear to be passing mentions. This doesn't appear to meet our requirement of significant coverage. Looking at the official website, I see that it goes back to 2002 but hasn't garnered much attention judging from the lack of significant sources. Perhaps if the subject receives more attention in the future, an article might be appropriate, but not now.--RadioFan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of topic cannot be expected to attract news coverage. As it is a scholarly/academic matter, it is to Google Scholar that we should look and we see enough hits there to establish that the subject has been noticed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps, but with many of those results behind pay-walls, it's difficult to evaluate them as references. There are 19 hits there and many appear to be simple mentions of membership in the organization in attribution section of papers which really doesn't do much to establish notability here. Of those that are publicly available, the organization/conference is not the subject of the paper and is mentioned only in passing. The conference itself does not appear to have produced highly cited papers or conference proceedings. This subject does not meet notability guidelines for a dedicated article, it will be sufficent as a merger into a section in Modeling and simulation.--RadioFan (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 gnews hits [84], gscholar verifies its existence but lacks the indepth sources covering this in detail. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 18 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) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Customizing[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay. Would require reconstruction from the ground up to included reliable, secondary supporting information. Author is keen to include links to external sites in bare form, not as references. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly-written essay/howto, but after deletion redirect to Garage kit, a much more encyclopedic treatment of the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garage kit is a different topic — knockoffs. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being documented in numerous sources. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over three thousand Google results, showing it is a real thing. Lot of tutorials out there showing how its done. Google Book gets two results, it apparently mentioned in two different magazines. Juxtapoz, Issues 69-71‎ - Page 186, says "Toy customizing as an art form is finally beginning to grow legs in the US, but in Japan it's been a religion for years." Dream Focus 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amount of Google results is irrelevant. This is poorly written. No references. Spam/How-to. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced WP:DICTDEF. SnottyWong ^chatter 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains no lexical content and so WP:DICTDEF is quite irrelevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N? SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:23, 20 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) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more like a how-to guide than an article. The original state of the article even read like borderline spam. JIP | Talk 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided. I would guess that no source could be found that discusses the entire topic in depth. Without that the article is original research. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPlaton[edit]

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

A software development system with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -A software development (platform) system is notable because exist. Is like a piece of life into the wool ecosystem. Maybe this piece is not so important for the life in the planet but is notable if you want to construct a knowledge data base of what exist.

In my opinion Wikipedia is not a “Guinness catalogue” or a “list of famous things “ is a knowledge database also with things that exist in the real life.(f.ex. UniPaaS )

For jPlaton exist at least one academic paper (and ongoing 2), 2-3 software houses working with this platform and working products produced with this system.-- • Corfiot (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'll want to have a look at our notability policy for additional information, but - in short - something that exists is not necessarily notable. What we need is information about the software from independent sources - and I can find none. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "Gratuate Thesis ( in Greek Language), Author: Antigoni Tsuri, Supervisor: Prof. Ioannis G. Stamelos, ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI, Sep 2007" is a independent source.

Sorry if i am in wrong way and maybe i don’t understand the matter. But, for example, in the UniPaaS article I don’t see independent sources. There are 3 sources but all of them are articles published by the software house of the product. Corfiot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 19 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) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable piece of software; all Google News hits are typos. Referenced to a graduate thesis and to internal sites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proper evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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