< 31 August	2 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chandramukhi 2[edit]

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

Needless to say, its too early for this film to have an article. No official confirmation about anything, as stated in the article itself. EelamStyleZ (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Too soon.--Sodabottle (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest a redirect/merge to Chandramukhi since there is a short section about the sequel. EelamStyleZ (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and set a redirect to Chandramukhi#Sequel where this proposed film is covered far better than in the current and premature stub. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chandramukhi#Sequel as there is not enough information for a standalone article, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect of this likely search term to the parent article, where this topic is already treated in a more thorough manner, achieves your deletion and sends readers to the one place that makes sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (A7 Web content) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salt&Light Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable internet radio station. This article has been repeatedly recreated several times and was speedily deleted three times. Article has been reposted by a User:DjJosh sockpuppet. WayKurat (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons.:

Speedy delete web content without even so much as an attempt to show notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable. Non-notable internet radio station, non-notable dj, non-notable everything! If it was speedied on the Tagalog Wikipedia, what more here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just not notable. VirtualRevolution (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all, as above. Also, the creator of that article is a likely violator of WP:OWN, especially as he insists that the trademark symbol be included in the name and is identified as an internet station. -- azumanga (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Salt but not Light... No indication of notability. Probably promotional. I've just tried looking for sources. Why did I bother? The name does intrigue me. Just a little. Not enough to find out why. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author requested deletion Favonian (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niklas Lundström[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Has only played one game in a semi-professional league, and therefore fails WP:Athlete Tooga - BØRK! 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet to play professionally, can be recreated when/if he meets any of the requirements of WP:NHOCKEY such as playing in the Elitserien. -DJSasso (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears this player is currently on the roster of the AIK of the Elitserien league. Looking at the game recaps, it shows that this player has played in two games, albeit preseason games, which I know are not notable. The regular season starts in two weeks, maybe it would be prudent to hold this afd open until that time to see if the player does make the team and achieves notability before deleting it after 7-10 days and possibly needing to restore it 1 week after deleting. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I hadn't nominated it when I came across it. But now that its at AFD it might as well go to completion. And even if he does play a game, he does still have to pass WP:GNG. Passing NHOCKEY doesn't guarantee a page. -DJSasso (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My (the author's) understanding is that he is in fact on the elite roster, and I am absolutely sure he will play a game or two with the elite team this season. /Hey Mid (contributions) 12:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL would be what you need to read then. The fact that he may or may not play is not an acceptable keep reason. For all anyone knows he could have an accident before then and never play another game in his life. Secondly he still has to pass WP:GNG. So you need multiple references from reliable sources to keep the article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) All editors have accepted to keep the article after initial doubts on the veracity of the sources provided. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Greece)[edit]

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

Previously prod'd as a hoax. Recreated by editor who created the last version. I remain unconvinced. I don't read Greek, so I can't speak to sources, but I can look at whois data. You'd expect a Nickelodeon domain to be owned by Viacom (as nick.com and nick.co.uk are), but this one isn't. And http://www.nickelodeon.gr doesn't look like a Nickelodeon website. Could be genuine, but if it were there should be a press release from Viacom somewhere. I don't find one, but that could by my incompetence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Promoted on facebook but absent from the english-language press as far as I can tell. I did find a German source, however, so may not be a hoax (or its an even bigger one): [1]. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found the source given by Abby above and I also went in and added English translation links to the refs, so you can read them. This is legitimate, they are indeed making the channel and the sources seem to give notability. Silver seren^C 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: According to Google Translate the website says: "Coming to Nickelodeon! The new channel for children and with them are your favorite friends! On September 3 everyone, young and old, can see favorite animated series and youth every day, all day! Sponge Bob, Dora the Little Exerefnitria, Diego, the Penguins of Madagascar, iCarly, Drake & Josh are many many more find their home on Nickelodeon. The channel will broadcast from 3 / 9 to 35 UHF frequencies from 54 Hymettus and digitally from Aegina."
- Further Information: According to a WhoIs search, the domain is registered to an IP in San Antonio, Texas and operated there. Obviously, Texas is nowhere near Greece. The IP is licensed to Mosso, a company owned by Rackspace US, Inc. This is likely a well-done hoax and should be Deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so all of the sources are a hoax? Silver seren^C 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I was wrong on this one. Job well done by Greekboy on working on the sources and checking for others. The newspaper article he links below swayed me. Showing SpongeBob and Dora with the Mayor of Athens, that was the kicker. I don't think the channel is officially owned by Viacom (some are, some aren't, MTV (Canada) is owned not by Viacom, but CTVglobemedia), but it is a real network. Keep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment/Wait~~ - After discovering the page, I did a quick google search and added most of the sources that are present on the page. That being said, it might very well be a hoax. I too noticed it was strange that no main stream Greek media seems to have reported on it yet. But September 3rd is only a few days away, so I propose waiting until then to form a final decision. By the way, just because it is registered in the US does not mean anything. For the record, MTV Greece's site is registered in the UK. [2] And Viacom is not an owner of MTV Greece either.Greekboy (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well it looks like the website has launched formally now [3]. So if it is hoax, it is a very elaborate one, as there is detailed info and translated show logos on the page. There is also a TV schedule, and photos of the characters around Athens, as well as pictured with the mayor. Still, I propose waiting for further confirmation. I will search for some news/sources. Greekboy (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well it seems official, and not a hoax. Respected newspaper Imerisia posted an article about eight TV channels, amongst them Nickelodeon, being broadcast through the Digea DVB-T consortium venture. [4] Also Digea has also officially announced it on their website: [5] And according to this news article on MTV Greece's website (at the bottom), Nickelodeon Greece will be the sponsor of a childrens event at the end of this month in Athens. [6] In light of the above information, I vote to keep the article. Greekboy (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also here is an actual article talking about Nickelodeon Greece's launch from Ta Nea newspaper. [7] Greekboy (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antagony[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, unsourced apart from one primary source. Doesn't even appear to be official ("a BotCon exclusive character"). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect remove the article, redirect to any appropiate page and include on any information worth keeping on a page or pages covering more of the overall topic (ie Transformers Universe).--Brave Dragon 22:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page on Predacons. Mathewignash (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: no reliable third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character is obscure and there isn't really something to redirect to. NotARealWord (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onwutalobi Anthony-Claret[edit]

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

It is unclear whether or not subject meets notability guidelines for people. Most references are too unreliable self-citations, but there are 2 references to offline papers (and some editors have implied they are getting more). I'm on the fence but I'm procedurally nominating, as I don't think it meets the level of uncontested needed for a regular prod. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN vanity page and unreferenced per BLP principles. –Moondyne 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails to establish notability - subject of the BLP article fails WP:GNG - sources in the article are not reliable and they lead to the personal website & company websites of the subject of the BLP article - other sources / external links consist of a link to a picture uploaded to wikimedia-commons & a redirected link to the main page of an educational facility. The contributions of the article creator suggest that he created the article for promotional purposes. Amsaim (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mech[edit]

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

Unofficial name for star, not recognised by any scientific authority. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable person, not a recognized name for the star, and looks a bit like spam for the webpage. Hairhorn (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable with no sources. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is absolutely no indication of notability. Additionaly Wikipedia is not the news or a guide to find stars. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity star naming - not notable -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest novels[edit]

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

This list violates OR by assuming what novels are longer than others. There's no citations for placement and the inclusion criteria don't fit the moniker for the article. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. The deletion reason "This list violates OR by assuming what novels are longer than others" is literally nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then provide a source listing any book on that list as being one of the "longest novels". Heck most of the "novels" on the list are not even novels but serial works that span years. Padillah (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does M. Gerard have to? Have you not read even the first source cited in the article, which does exactly that? If not, why not? Sources are cited to be read. Uncle G (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I have read the first citation - it mentions one novel (not a list for comparison). And it displays criteria inconsistent with the article. The article meanwhile, has no explicit criteria at all. Padillah (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note this is not an article but a list, Sadads (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are provided. I'm not saying the page doesn't need work but it's certainly not a violation of OR. I'm honestly confused by the nominator's seemingly nonsensical reasoning, no offence.--Brave Dragon 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if anything, this is a pretty good example of an encyclopedic treatment of what, at first glance, may appear to be not an especially encyclopedic topic. Nominator's reasoning seems unclear at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear? Can you not see how compiling a list like this invites comparison and forces WP:SYNTH? Padillah (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a list, so independent sources devoid of a comprehensive list of longest to shortest are okay, Sadads (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All entries are sourced and clearly fit under the subject. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, the two first entries on the list are not sourced. The first even has a ((cn)) tag. on it right now. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just needs editing, and possibly a retitle. No reason to delete. -- œ ^™ 10:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edward321. WereWolf (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous !votes; not sure what exactly this nomination means, and it's beginning to look like WP:SNOW. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heralds of Unicron[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a fictional term, the article even admits that it's "unofficial", and is "likely derived from...." Black Kite (t) (c) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia needs to be for facts (even when the article is about a fictional universe), not fans' opinions. WP:Original research Steve Dufour (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This article is terrible. It's a made-up term about a bunch of fictional characters, and quickly degenerates into excessive crufty plot summary, riddled with phrases like "unofficial", "most likely", and "many have speculated" that pretty well proves the article is a lot of original research and fan conjecture. Opinion pieces written in a sensationalist manner do not belong in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to WP:verify notability. It's possible this is a WP:MADEUP heading to organize a bunch of inappropriate WP:original research. That makes this article inherently problematic, impossible to fix, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum dreams[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Independent film still in production. No notable figures involved in the production. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps as this film approaches release or gets more independent coverage, we might consider its return.... but for now, it fails WP:NF and does not have the coverage to be an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films and it is too soon for this article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XenForo[edit]

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

Article describes unreleased software, violating policy against predictions. The very few third party sources that exist are speculation about the nature of the software. This article should be deleted until the software is actually released and third party sources exist to reference an article. Danger (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a unreleased software. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the above case is to be applied, then should this not be the case for other unreleased software, especially those without a release date appended to the software? Additionally, all sources are verifiable. $-vrt (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other unreleased software without significant third-part coverage should, by this argument, also be deleted. If you find such an article, you are welcome to bring it to AfD. That is not an argument for keeping this article. Also, just so you know, verifiability is a concept that applies to claims within the article, not sources. --Danger (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure that the crystal ball argument applies here. The XenForo product indeed exists, you can see it and use it on the company website, it has just not been released to the public yet. (And while avoiding an other stuff exists argument, I'd like to point out that Internet Explorer 9 has also not been released.) There really is no speculation going on here; all facts are verified through primary sources. There is, however, a problem with notability. While the product has garnered a fair bit of mention in the relevant niche (webmaster sites [8], [9], [10], [11] and competing Forum software sites [12], [13], [14], [15]), I would have a hard time making a case for notability and must thus reluctantly suggest deleting and recreating when suitable third party sources appear. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep product is available for testing and use on the company site, every feature mentioned is either visible upon testing or has refrences. Does need better notability but an outright deletion based on the fact it is not released would be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CezzBB (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Chatter on web fora means people are interested, but that does not constitute coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the product has received significant coverage in reliable sources it would would be worthy for a stand-alone article regardless of it being WP:CRYSTAL in nature. However, I won't venture to take a position on the significance or reliability of the article's sourcing, as the subject if unfamiliar to me.--Pink Bull 04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RSs means it fails WP:GNG. This may meet GNG in the future, though. Novaseminary (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes. Non-admin closure. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teng (mythology)[edit]

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

This is essentially a violation of WP:NOTDIC. I can't find anything which differentiates a Teng from a Feilong, and the mythological area is covered well enough in that article and Chinese dragon. All that remains is etymology and usage. Good content, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Claritas § 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article explains, this creature is a flying serpent which, lacking legs, is somewhat different from other types of dragon. The Chinese distinguish these types in their poetry and philosophy, as this erudite article explains. Deleting this would be an act of barbarism contrary to our editing policy. Note also that User:Wolfkeeper has recently been banned for an excessively hardline view of the WP:DICDEF policy. The community has explicitly relaxed this policy as we are tolerant of lexical articles when they are done well, as this one is. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting: "An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns".. This article is more concerned with usage, etymology etc. than the dragon itself. Claritas § 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sufficient that the article goes into the semantics of the matter, explaining the differences. That it illustrates the matter with classical allusions is a good thing, not bad. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It's actually not a good thing, because it means the article is about the word, and not the dragon. Claritas § 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the particular type of dragon. Just as we have have multiple articles about the different fabulous beasts in the western tradition such as dragon, wyvern, basilisk, &c., so it is reasonable to have different articles about the different varieties in the orient. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that this article is dominated by a dictionary definition and lists of usage, unlike the articles you mention. Claritas § 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the Chinese ideogram seem appropriate, just as we might explain the reason that some dragons in European mythology may be referred to as wyrms or worms or just as we explain the meaning of tyrannosaurus rex. Chinese culture, language and writing is so unlike English that it is good to explain matters in such detail lest readers make false assumptions or get confused. The essential point is that we are describing the habits and other details of this particular mythological creature here, not just the terminology and word-forms used to refer to it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just list all the facts I know about the dragon having read the article:

. It flies.
. It doesn't have legs.
. It is associated with the clouds and the weather.
. It is pretty similar to what's called a feilong.

Every other fact in the article is essentially etymology/usage/historical definitions etc. Claritas § 10:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Teng (mythology) article, which (full disclosure) I started, has three sections: 1 Names, 2 Classical usages, and 3 Mythology. The WP:NOTDIC criticism could apply to the first but overlooks the second and third. Many articles about Chinese topics include linguistic information for the benefit of English WP readers who are not Sinophones. The "covered well enough" criticism is uncorroborated. Feilong (mythology) mentions teng once in a textual co-occurrence and Chinese dragon mentions it once in a list of non-long dragons. Teng(she) and feilong are flying dragons but not synonyms. This article is about a mythological creature and not merely a Chinese word. If you feel the first section is excessively lexicographic, please either revise it or suggest suitable changes on the Talk page. Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a "teng" and a "feilong" though ? There's absolutely no evidence given that they are anything other than synonyms. Claritas § 20:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me the difference from a Dendrorhynchoides and a Anurognathus in plain English. Aren't they both just flying lizards? Wait, flying lizard describes Teng and Feilong as well... Sorry, but explaining in English, where the words exact words needed to distinguish them may not exist due to cultural differences is a lot to ask for. —CodeHydro 03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure. Claritas § 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no definitive difference because both are imaginary creatures, sources variously describe the absence/presence of feet and wings . The Beishi history (1.2), which contrasts feilong and tongshe as names for different marching formations, provides clear evidence of non-synonymy. Keahapana (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Though the nominator may not see it so, etymology is history, especially in the Chinese language. Chinese words have many numerous connotations in their culture and layers of meaning which are not as obvious in translation into another culture. Granted the article needs some work, but it is fixable as there is a lot more that can be done with this article, such as by drawing in details from the thousands of texts and stories in which Teng have appeared. Moreover, the fact the Wikipedia is banned in mainland China due to censorship, the number of editors capable of tapping into the rich history of China who are on Wikipedia are very very few in comparison to the amount of information they must cover. Nonetheless, there is no doubt in my mind that there is far more richness available, as this myth is thousands of years old, making the unicorn look young. —CodeHydro 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has listed RSs that show notability that I missed among the trivial credits when I initially looked. Unless the trout get me, I will add the sources that this article (currently with no RSs) needs to establish notability so that the article is no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Novaseminary (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karine Plantadit-Bageot[edit]

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

The subject of this article seems to fail WP:ENT and WP:BIO. A Tony Award nomination doesn't meet ENT. And her coverage is limited to credits and brief mentions in reviews of performances. There is no substantial coverage so she fails BIO/GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is a rising Broadway star She was in original of several shows (yes ensemble but still original). If a Tony nomination isn't enough what is? JDDJS (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that a Tony win would go a long way, as would significant coverage. Novaseminary (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, speedy close, and slap the nominator with an entire school of trout. A Tony nomination is more than sufficient to establish notability for a performer, as would be the critical coverage cited in the NY Times profile to say nothing of the Times profile itself [16]). Or the Dance Magazine profile [17]. Or the well over 100 mentions in NYTimes arts coverage alone. This AFD is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus would indicate that as these are two separate characters, one cannot be merged into the other. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron (Beast Era)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character which fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the article is pure WP:OR. I fail to see any significant coverage proffered either in the article on in the previous nomination. Claritas § 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Megatron (Transformers), why on earth we have four articles about one character is beyond me. Also a horrible non-free image violation, and merging would enable Megatron (disambiguation) to actually be about other uses than trivial fictional characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to delete and redirect to Megatron (Transformers)#Beast Wars on second thoughts. There's no verifiable content to merge - almost all OR. Claritas § 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major TV character who started in 2 shows. If you want to delete Transformers characters, why not delete the less notable ones instead of the stars? Additionally this was nomnated before and was an overwhelming KEEP decision. What was changed? Mathewignash (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:CCC, as to why we're having another discussion. Claritas § 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But why have four poor articles on the same character when you could have one really good one? All four articles could be trimmed of all the trivia and plot summary, sourced properly, and with a bit of work you might even make a GA of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - How can you call G1 Megatron and Beast Wars Megatron the "same character"? They are two guys. They even met once. They are two characters. At least the other Megatrons can be said to be alternate reality version of the G1 Megatron, but the Megatron of Beast Wars is a different guy who changed his name to be like the Decepticon he admired. It's not the same guy. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this character is not notable, maybe the main Megatron article should mention him as a separate character and how he relates to the original Megatron. NotARealWord (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The character is notable. One problem with finding online articles is that between toy site articles you would dismiss as done by fans and articles on the G1 and movie Megatrons, this guy would be hard to find. You need to search through several dozen, if not hundreds of pages on those. However, sharing a name with a more notable character does not disprove notability. For instance I just found an interview with David Kaye, who says the character of Megatron (this one) was the animated character he's most like to be remembered for. Mathewignash (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not really a valid arguement. How does the writing of ANOTHER article effect THIS ONE. Have you personally read the sources of this article? They are several professional notable references for this character. You should read them before voting. Mathewignash (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If even this guy doesn't desere his own article, then maybe someone should put the proposed deletion template or start AfDs on all but about 4-7 Transformers characters. NotARealWord (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this could take a while - there are over 1,000 articles in Category:Transformers characters alone... Black Kite (t) (c) 16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting them en mass is hardly fair, as every article deserves a real consideration, and a chance for improvement. Some people act like there is a rush to delete them. I hope this isn't so. Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be a lot easier if all the articles like Breacher (Transformers) were just merged into a list; there's not enough there to maintain an article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If simply deleting en masse is unfair, we can still put them up for AfD and see what everybody (who participates) thinks. NotARealWord (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I don't think merging with the main Megatron article could work, considering these are completely separate characters. NotARealWord (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable character from several notable shows. The article is long with plenty of valid information some people will enjoy reading. Don't be a hater. Dream Focus 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Megatron (Transformers)#Beast Wars. The only real world information lacks sources, making this article fail at WP:Notability. Moreover, the article may be long, but it appears to be due to its incredible long in-universe sections.Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- No. Merging with the main Megatron article would be inappropriate considering they are entirely separate characters. NotARealWord (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is he shown in the same article? Else, he could be merged to a list of character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section mentions them to be separate characters. NotARealWord (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually an acceptable stand alone article, i've been advising merging consistently for subjects of this type ,but this is one of the exceptions. The sources are sufficient to justify the article. The excessive plot should however be condensed, to perhaps half the length. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect. Some (and I mean some) of this content may be worth covering. As it is, this is all plot, bad sources and non-free images, but there may be something of merit. The character almost certainly deserves an article, but that doesn't mean we need loads of articles to hold all the plot information in the world. We only need one- if there's too much plot for one article, that merely tells me that you're including too much detail. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? This is a separate character from the other Megatron? Just delete it then. No decent sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This character is the villian of 2 TV series and numbous comic books. He is a younger Transformer who models himself after the Megatron of old. He even took his name to honor the original Megatron. Mathewignash (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source - Transformers Animated: The Allspark Almanac by Jim Sorenson & Bill Forester page 83 is a whole page devoted to this character. Mathewignash (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was leaning towards merge, but considering they are two seperate characters I think it would be appropriate for this character to have its own article. Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Megatron conquered Cybertron something the Generation One Megatron never did. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. will userfy on request but arguments to keep on the back of it being well written OR or that it could be sourced do not address policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television in the 2000s[edit]

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

Page is completely original research with absolutely no references for any of the information given. It has been tagged for help for a long time, but I do not believe this article can be saved. Angryapathy (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a bad article, but not really the right focus for an encyclopedia. All of the shows mentioned have their own articles where the facts about them can be found. I am also sure there are articles about the TV ratings for the decade. Everything else is someone's opinions about which shows were important and why, so WP:Original research Steve Dufour (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unsourced original essay on a notable topic. If it was a piece of crap, it would be a simple call, but the quality of the work is indicative that keeping it alive for sourcing may be the prescription — this was clearly not pulled out of the hindquarters of a casual editor, but was well researched although improperly footnoted. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Small section on TV in the UK should be chopped off and the article retitled American television in the 2000s. The topic is too big to add ~~Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.~~ the rest of the world and do a decent job of it. I have flagged this for rescue, let's see if someone comes along to get this thing sourced out... Carrite (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows some results. One news source says "REALITY, POINTLESS DRAMA DEFINE TV IN THE 2000S". The article requires a paid subscription to that newspaper to read it though. But some have commented on the television shows of this decade, and what defines them. Listing the highest rated show for each year of this decade makes sense, that something perfectly valid. All the shows listed in various categories should have their ratings listed as well. List their lowest and their highest ratings, such as ratings: 4.2 - 5.6 million viewers. A category could be made for that, one tab for lowest ratings and one for highest ratings. Dream Focus 18:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be the germ of an articel here. It focus is the US and I agree to hte rename to American television in the 2000s.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unverified. The subject is probably worthy of a stand alone article, but considering the article's current situation and its lack of sourcing, it would be best to start anew. --Pink Bull 04:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – could become well-sourced and a good article, but definitely rename per the above suggestion. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conan episodes[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, merge into Conan (TV series) and recreate when there is information. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's pointless. Even in your reason for deletion, you state the article should be recreated. Gage (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a forthcoming issue of TV Guide. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may not be but the article is well sourced and not to far in the future. Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR and WP:CRYSTAL. What is there to list for such a show? Guests and dates? With fiction, there's at least a plot summary of some sort of historical relevance. With late night talk shows, there's nothing notable to keep. Though apparently there is List of The Daily Show episodes which redirects to a guests list, and List of Colbert Report episodes which actually also seem like a violation of WP:NOTDIR.--90.0.130.131 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp IP right above me....like s/he says, what is there to list, date and guests? I wouldn't think episodes would have names, like most tv shows. CTJF83 chat 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Incubate for a month. It would not make sense to delete a solidly established article that will in all likelihood be recreated in a month.--Pink Bull 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per Pink Bull seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 03:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Elly Hansen[edit]

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

Just being old is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of Danish supercentenarians Longevitydude (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a supercentenarian. Edit I see, somehow non-centenarian oldest people of Denmark are on the page. That makes the page badly named. Hekerui (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thats the only option I can think of. Longevitydude (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should rename the list to list of Danish centenarians because that would not be consistent with the other lists by country, which are apparently only for supercentenarians. See Template:Longevity.--Pink Bull 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone's always going to be the oldest person in any country, and I do not see any indication that the coverage of this person meets the requirements of WP:N. Canadian Paul 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- For once I agree with you, but I still think information about the oldest people in Denmark Belongs in the List of Danish supercentenarians, thats the only option I can think of. Longevitydude (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is she different to Katarina Marinič? Lugnuts (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarina Marinič. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I see where the nom's rationale is coming from, but if this one goes, I don't see why the third oldest person in the United States is here, or for that matter, why some of these people have articles. I think the notability here depends on coverage in WP:RS. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her listing at list of Danish supercentenarians. The keep/delete debate for similar biographies (Katarina Marinič, Maggie Renfro, etc.) is not about whether one is more important than the other. It only rests on one issue: the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources for that particular bio. Unfortunately, in this case of Karin Elly Hansen, there is only the one short obit -- and that is not enough to pass WP:GNG guidelines. I searched through Danish media and found no other coverage of her (Only the same article reprinted in all the major Danish news media). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not appear to be significant. Merging does not make sense because the list is for supercentenarians, not centenarians. --Pink Bull 04:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Favonian (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes First[edit]

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

Procedural nomination - user placed the AFD tag on the article but did not start the process. Would-be nominator's rationale was that the article should be deleted for the same reasons as articulated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Dunn and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kessler. -- Y not? 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any significant coverage of this sports agency. Google and Google News find only press releases and such. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 00:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil (film series)[edit]

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

Article is redundant, everything is already covered by the films' separate articles. When created, content was simply copy and pasted from the existing articles (e.g. the Romero script section). If there's any info about the series that is only in that article, it can be put into the Resident Evil article in the Film section. Geoff B (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With four movies, I think that qualifies for its own article for the series. The article may be somewhat redundant, but it saves people from reading all four articles to get the info. I also think there is worthwhile info on this page that should not be deleted or redirected. Angryapathy (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All franchises have an article page, from Transformers to Spider-Man. They are an easier way of navigating through the franchise information without going through every article, as Angryapathy said above. Usernamemehr (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Resident Evil article is already quite long and the Resident_Evil#Films section contains material unrelated to the Resident Evil (film series). This article fulfils a function, and any inadequacies in its content can be addressed by editing.--Utinomen (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per established precedent and standards for such film series. Any problems with style or format are best addressed throgh regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Utinomen, Angryapathy, Usernamemehr. Millahnna (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The best way to think of a film series article is as an overview article with certain information aggregated in one place. The films are quickly summarized, and related elements such as recurring cast members or the franchise's box office are available. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. All make good points. A major series like this deserves its own summary article for quick reference to avoid plowing through the other articles.Jkolak (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. It's a big franchise and the upcoming release doesn't appear to be likely to be the last.Soupy sautoy (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel O'Meara[edit]

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

First, CorenSeachBot identified the page as a possible copyvio of PRWeb in August 2009. The page's creator removed the DB tag without substantially toning down the copyvio; portions of the page are still a close paraphrase.

Second, the individual is of questionable notability. He was a member of a band, O Peso, which has an unsourced page on Portuguese-language Wikipedia but no mention elsewhere on English Wikipedia. He also founded the company Translators, Inc., a company whose Wikipedia page was recently deleted as non-notable and unsourced.

Finally, the page cites only self-published or less-reliable sources: Portuguese Wikipedia, O'Meara's LinkedIn profile, his company's web site, and two defunct blogs. Cnilep (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability, and obvious self-promotion by two single-purpose accounts. CSD:G11 is your other option. -- Y not? 00:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep votes are not policy based and the delete arguments OR, RS, NOT#indiscriminate are all solid policy based reasons Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttle in popular culture[edit]

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

This article was previously AfD discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space shuttles in fiction, when the article had another name. The result was keep.

Not one of these entries is sourced. It's become a huge list of trivia and fancruft with an apparent goal of listing EVERYTHING that can possibly deal with the space shuttle. It doesn't discuss the importance of the space shuttle; it's just an indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No question that this list is, like other such articles, a horrible mess. Better to delete the article and have a brief section in Space Shuttle that mentions a few examples of notable works that deal with the shuttle—not a shuttle-like vehicle, not a generic spaceplane—in a substantial fashion. With said caveats the number of applicable examples falls greatly. The only two films I can offhand think of that qualify here are Space Cowboys and SpaceCamp; Armageddon, Deep Impact, The Core, and 2001: A Space Odyssey would not. Two examples to follow, if I may say so myself, are Caltech#In media and popular culture and Area 51#Portrayal in media and popular culture. YLee (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort Of. Whoa. Something happened to this article. I say, rewrite, smaller size, every exampled sourced. No 'shuttle like vehicles'. For example Defiant (G.I. Joe) would be cool, the crashed craft from Alien 2 would not be. Lots42 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This topic is worthy of inclusion. This article is a complete fucking disaster, if you'll pardon my french... As it sits, this is an original essay. A focused article 1/3 this length with good sourcing is what is called for. I'm not wise enough to say whether this should be deleted without prejudice or whether someone should wade into it as it sits A/O with a meat cleaver. One of those things needs to happen. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Awwww, what the hell. Upon further review, the sourcing is so bad that this thing needs to be blown up as an unsourced original essay. No prejudice against recreation of an article on this topic if done correctly... Carrite (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – long awful pointless list. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree about what you all said there are other popular culture articles such as Eiffel Tower in popular culture (the list on that page is even longer) and New York City Subway in popular culture and they have very few references. After all, this list is of a notable icon of the world (like the previous 2 I mentioned). trainfan01 6:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Note to Nom/(N)ACerer - The talk page contains ((oldafdfull)) linking its previous nom. This discussion should probably be pagemoved/should note it's a 2nd nomination, and be relisted. 92.30.85.175 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fictional uses of the real Space Shuttle are of interest to many. Often one man's cruft is another man's important relevamt matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus was in favor of keep; much of the debate was over the application of the subject specific guideline in WP:POLITICIAN to a non-elected provincial (Manitoba) judge. Arguments can be made several ways concerning the interpretation of the phrase "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges"; one can argue that it deosn't apply to judges who are not politicians, and one can argue that "and" means politicians and provincewide judges and politicians; potentially, one could argue that it includes any judge. Most participants who cited the policy felt that it would include the provincial office. Mandsford 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Douglas[edit]

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

One salacious event does not make a person notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. Otherwise, there's not enough reliably sourced info to write a proper biography. The sex scandal is going to have vastly too much weight because there's nothing else to cover. Jehochman ^Talk 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ONEEVENT almost certainly applies, but the story is a big one which seems to be all over the Canadian media. Currently it is the first hit at http://news.google.ca for each of the following search terms: judge, Manitoba, porn. Therefore I guess sooner or later we will have to cover events in one article or another, although certainly not in the same detail as the news stories. I am not sure what to do at this point. Hans Adler 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, WP:NOTNEWS should be considered as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " Five years from now will anybody remember this subject? Possibly, but I think to be safe we ought to delete the article now, and then revisit the issue later if the subject seem likely to achieve that sort of enduring notability. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach. Hans Adler 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before this scandal came to light, she was deemed suficiently notable as a judge, and she seemed to fit into the same category as most of the other relatively recently appointed judges of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba. You can reasonably discuss how much of the recent material ought to be included, but do the recent events make her less notable than she was a weeks ago? David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be a presently-accepted notability guideline for judges (WP:JUDGE being marked as a failed proposal), so notability would be determined via WP:GNG and this seems to fail WP:BLP1E. –xeno^talk 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WP:POLITICIAN cover it (which is where my judge link above pointed)? I know that it some countries judges are political appointments and in other countries they aren't, but that seemed to be the criterion under which judges were covered. David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm - I'm not sure if POLITICIAN applies to Canadian judges: the judiciary is not elected. –xeno^talk 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was created in July 2007; it was not created because of "one salacious event". Deleting the page would make Justice Douglas the only person appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba since 1995 without an article. Why should this justice not have an article when the rest do? Or is it that Canadian judges don't warrant articles, but those from other countries do? Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is an accepted notability guideline for judges, WP:GNG applies. She doesn't appear to have met the GNG guideline at the time the article was created either. This may or not be the case for other Manitoba judges, or other judges in general, and while other stuff exists, we should discuss the article on its merits. –xeno^talk 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas is one of two Associate Chief Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench (the superior court) of Manitoba. Is there any American judge of comparable rank who does not have a Wikipedia article? Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an "other stuff exists" argument - the article should be kept or not based on prevailing inclusion guidelines, not the existence of equivalent articles south of the border. (As I understand it, the American judges are covered by POLITICIAN). –xeno^talk 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of a community-wide consensus on the notability of judges, and given the concerns I initially expressed (undue weight, not news), I am in agreement with the nominator and second Hans Adler's approval of Jehochman's comments. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ONEEVENT applies, but even though the article existing previously, there appears to be nothing per GNG that proves the notability of this individual. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards": "Politicians. 1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." (emphasis added) How does this not apply to Douglas? Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the top of the parent section, it also says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this case the subject' biography is severely violating WP:UNDUE and there does not appear to be any reasonable way to correct it, other than deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's under the '#Politicians' subsection, but judges in Canada aren't politicians. –xeno^talk 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - this guideline (and that's all it is) needs to be re-written to reduce confusion. It's completely US-centric - judges in the US have a different status from those in other countries. Certainly here (UK) judges are not automatically notable, and I'd suggest the same applies to Canada. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's not just any old judge - she's Associate Chief Justice of the superior court. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Connecticut, Superior Court is the lowest court. If she's so important, has somebody written a biography about her? Has she been covered in numerous news articles? What materials are we to use to write her biography, you know, the stuff she does the other 99% of the time when she's not doing...what's been reported in the news. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be similar in Canada, although she's a member an oversight group for judges. That may be enough to meet criteria. No familiarity with Canadian judicial system, so I can't offer an opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Court judges are not the lowest courts. In Canada you have the statutorily created provincial courts and the Federal courts. Superior Courts are federally appointed, provincially administered courts of inherent jurisdiction. Judges of the Superior Courts have life tenure until retirement and a great deal of power. Additionally, as Ravensfire she is a member of the CJC which can remove any Canadian judge from the bench (technically, they make a recommendation – but it's a recommendation of a binding nature). 69.165.250.7 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the lowest courts where you can get a divorce, go with more than a small claim, and go for a felony. Hans Adler 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E in no way cancels any notability that she and her peers on the court enjoyed previous to the news reports of a sex scandal. She had an article for years before the lurid stuff came out in news reports. There is a whole category of Canadian women judges and scads of articles about judges at or below the level of her office. The fact that these article generally do not get nominated for deletion may be because there is a consensus to keep articles about judges of a certain rank. Try a group nom of all 45 or so biographies of Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba if you think there is no consensus for notability such as via WP:POLITICIAN. Don't just selectively delete when some unsavory news comes along about one. The bio does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE. Edison (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revert and fully protect for a month to avoid BLP issues while this thing dies down. Let's revisit in a month and see if the story has legs, but there's really no BLP1E reason to delete a previously trivial/borderline notable BLP just because she's come into the spotlight for salacious (and unproven) allegations. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears notable enough previous to current story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- making big headlines in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a higher-level judge on a regional court, she appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN in terms of notability. Though I agree with the above, it may be appropriate to protect the article to some extent to help sith existing BLP issues. elektrik SHOOS 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline really needs to be clarified; in Canada, judges are not considered politicians. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one of the leading judges in the province of Manitoba, she is certainly notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.155.155 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - for reasons noted and to spite the deletionists.68.144.181.33 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC) — 68.144.181.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: AfD arguments must be policy-based; expect a !vote "to spite the deletionists", from a single-purpose IP address, to be ignored by the closing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A judge at her level is notable, and almost all the people sitting on that court have articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Since I'm not too familiar with Canadian courts, could I ask what a Superior Court is? Is it a province-wide position or more local or what? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Court system of Canada#Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories. They are considered a court of first instance having original jurisdiction. –xeno^talk 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E does not apply, as she is notable for being a judge at a particular level, for the scandal, and again for leaving office due to the scandal. Notability established by multiple, reliable sources, satisfies GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think simply being a judge at a certain level makes one notable. Can you point out any reliable sources for any information about her, except for the recent sex scandal news? This appears to be a classic case of BLP1E. Except for the scandal, there appears to be insufficient published, reliable information to write more than the shortest of stubs. How are we to write a proper, balanced article? Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a start, the first 3 references in the article are nothing to do with the current scandal. David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good start. Can we expand the article to make it more balanced? One result of this discussion may be fix the article rather than delete it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion made to me privately as a point of expansion was to see if she has made any notable decisions. –xeno^talk 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno^talk 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lori Douglas is notable as a Justice of the Queen's Bench of Manitoba. This means that she is a federally appointed Judge to the 2nd highest level of court in Canada, below only the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, she is the Associate Chief Justice - meaning that she is the highest ranking Judge in the Province of Manitoba behind only the Chief Justice Marc Monnin reference. Forget about the current scandal. Douglas is notable for her position as a senior ranked Judge in Canada. Larkspurs (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: This comment is simply incorrect but may have influenced many later !votes because it remained uncontradicted. The Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba is the lowest court for divorces, large claims and felonies, not the highest. "The Manitoba Court of Appeal is the highest court in the province, hearing appeals from the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench and the Provincial Court in the areas of criminal, civil and family law." [18] Hans Adler 12:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's silly how people want to remove notability because of a later event. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this court is along the lines of the 9th circuit (all blue-links) in terms of importance/notability. Keep the alleged scandal stuff to a neutral and BLP-minding standard though, this isn't TMZ. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's independently notable beyond the current news cycle. That she had an entry three years ago establishes some sort of notability, and she is the Canadian equivalent to a US Circuit Court Judge, which easily meets the GNG. I'd not be opposed to nuking this article and recreating the article as a protected stub, though; the BLP and copyright violations in this article make the history quite a mess. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the existence of a Wikipedia article about someone does not establish notability. Many articles on non-notable folks (and even hoaxes) survive for years without being noticed by anybody. The page view statistics from before she got into the news explain this easily.[19] If Wikipedia editors don't even notice an article, they can't prod it or send it to AfD. And for the n-th time, judges in Canada are substantially different from judges in the US. They don't have to convince the masses to be elected, so they are much more private people. Hans Adler 19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify my intended meaning, which I failed to properly convey. This article predates the controversy, so it's not a coatrack, which is the concern with many of our BLP-violating articles, which are written expressly to "document" the event. I was not saying that the simple existence of the article was enough to establish notability, which could be inferred from my original contribution. Additionally, many judges in the US are not elected, either, so please don't assume that I didn't read your oft-repeated statement before discarding it as irrelevant. Elena Kagan has never been elected to anything; does this mean she is not notable? Notability has little to do with elections, and we don't ordinarily have (or at least keep) articles about unsuccessful candidates for office. I Horologium (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Douglas serves in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Family Division), Elena Kagan in the Supreme Court of the United States. Quite a difference, even though the Court of Queen's Bench was originally styled a "The Supreme Court". The word doesn't seem to have the same meaning. See Court system of Canada#Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories: "The superior courts are the courts of first instance for divorce petitions, civil lawsuits involving claims greater than small claims, and criminal prosecutions for indictable offences (i.e., felonies in American legal terminology)." In other words, if you live in Manitoba and you want a divorce, you fill in a form, send it to Lori Douglas' court, and before she stepped back from the bench you had a good chance that she would be concerned with the matter. If anything goes wrong it may go to the Manitoba Court of Appeal later.

However, Lori Douglas is "Associate Chief Justice". It's not clear what that means precisely except that she is automatically a member of the Canadian Judicial Council. Most likely the Chief Justice merely presides over internal meetings, and she can replace him in this function. Hans Adler 12:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have fully protected the article and invite review of this action at ANI. –xeno^talk 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep looks like it meets our requirements protect it not much else we can do Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this seems a rather bizarre attempt to remove an article because its subject has moved from solid but discreet notability to nationwide notoriety. [Comment partially redacted, BLP enforcement] Occuli (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there is a very real problem here, in that there very often aren't many strong or reliable sources for the majority of Canadian judges; given that they don't have to campaign for election the way judges in the United States do, even on higher courts they tend largely to be lower-profile figures who only attract any real press when they (a) get appointed to the Supreme Court, (b) make a controversial ruling or (c) get themselves into hot water. But conversely, saying that Canadian judges are inherently less notable than American ones does end up looking very much like a U.S.-centric bias even if that isn't the intention. And I also know from incredibly frustrating past experience that when a public figure gets into trouble, we invariably see an influx of anonymous IPs who feel entitled to smear wild BLP violations all over the article out of some misplaced and entirely inappropriate sense of pearl-clutching Well-I-Neverism. That said, I'm unsure how I feel about this; while it's true that she isn't, strictly speaking, a WP:BLP1E, it's also true that there aren't really enough strong sources out there to make her article look like much more than a BLP1E. Weak keep, if only because it's already been here for three years and this discussion wouldn't be taking place if she hadn't suddenly become news this week — but given the lack of genuinely strong sources about anything beyond her kinky sex life, I'm not enthused about it and do hope to see some discussion around better clarifying our overall position on the notability or lack thereof of judges. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notion that more press renders one less notable just doesn't make much sense Vartanza (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly consider renaming to 2010 Manitoba judicial sex scandal to make the article less BLP-sensitive. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think titling an article with the words "sex scandal", while her name is still present in the article, would be less of a BLP issue than the current situation is? Wow. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to mention her by name. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex scandal" is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV, and shouldn't appear in the article, let alone the title. And mentioning her name or not (and I fail to see how you would avoid it), it's still a BLP issue as she is involved in the event. Moreover, if you're suggesting that the subject of the article should change completely, it makes more sense to create a separate article; this article is about the individual, not a single event in which she was involved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am repeating this here because I am not sure that people read all the relevant discussion above: Lori Douglas' court is not the highest court in Manitoba. It is the lowest court for anything more substantial than small claims. In fact, it is the lowest court for divorces. Hans Adler 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. No evidence of significant coverage about the subject beyond the scandal to establish notability. --Jmundo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hakem Dermish[edit]

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

Overall, a non-notable reporter and TV personality. Google shows some mentions, but there isn't the sustained in-depth coverage that we need for notability, especially for a BLP. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one mention in an outside source in 2007 which mentioned his move to the DC market, so more a case of temporary notability (and not much even then) and lack of significant coverage. Potential future notability, but not enough at this point. In looking at the contributions of the article's creator, it may have been created by an employee of WRC-TV. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Social-Democratic Union of Youth[edit]

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

Not clear how this organization might meet notability guidelines. Included references are of questionable reliability (one is to a blog, and the other is the official website of the organization). Google searches on the topic brings up the official page, this wikipedia page, and what appear to be press releases from the organization. RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible notability bars for all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. If it exists, it should be covered. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - like I told the user after I declined his extremely improper CSD A7 nomination, there are a number of good references at ru:Российский_социал-демократический_союз_молодёжи#Примечания. -- Y not? 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But is that a guy or a girl? Nolelover 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, references cited by declining admin were not made clear initially, it's clear now. Withdrawing. Looking forward to seeing some of those references in an improved version of this article.--RadioFan (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. we seem to be lacking sourcing and that is fatal to a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Ghose[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:ACADEMIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems individual satisfy criteria number 1, 3, 6 in WP:ACADEMIC.110.33.124.49 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) — 110.33.124.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria. Also appears to have a major problem with WP:COI. The only citation is to the subject's university of employment. This article has had more than adequate time for getting it up to Wikipedia standards (if that's possible); it has had a "multiple issues" tag for two months. A PROD was recently added and then removed with no substantial improvement. Cresix (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (changing to Weak Delete, see below) The article is spammy, but the subject may meet WP:ACADEMIC. He has quite a few citations at Google Scholar.[20] However, the article itself does not establish notability. Maybe it could be given a little time and direction to try to establish proper sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Regarding "a little more time", the article has been tagged as having multiple problems for over two months. The creator has been made aware of this several times, including a PROD (which was removed by an anon likely to be the same editor as creator), and now including this AfD. If someone can bring this article up to standards, it can always be recreated. Cresix (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could indeed be improved in many ways. There is much additional information to provide, and some direction on the matter would be very welcome. My previous edits to add content have been undone by other users on the grounds that said content violates copyrighted material on other websites (particularly the university the subject is associated with). I am not sure if this is a correct application of copyright guidelines. How can information on the professional record of an individual be copyrighted by anyone? This would appear to be a game one can never win - on the one hand, anything that one may say about the subject has probably appeared somewhere else (hence a "copyright violation" for some), and on the other hand every claim must be substantiated by external sources. Some guidance on this would be very useful.Vickiewang (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article myself, to see if I could bring it up to notability. I don't know what your earlier issues were with allegations of copyvio. But the easiest way to avoid a copyright violation is simply to reword the things you are putting into the article - to make sure they are not word-for-word the same as the source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please note that a copyvio does not have to be a word-for-word copy of the original text. If the text has only a slight reformulation of the original it could still be considered a violation. ttonyb (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding Vickiewang's comment "How can information on the professional record of an individual be copyrighted by anyone?", the answer is simple. The university owns the copyright to the entire website. Claiming that such a copyright is a "no win" situation is a meaningless argument. If the subject's notability can only be established by the university's website, then the subject is not notable. 71.52.140.113 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Weak delete. I looked over his professional qualifications and searched for references, to see if I could improve this article. I came to the conclusion he probably does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. He publishes a lot, but it doesn't appear that his publications or leadership activities have had a major impact on his field. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems many saying only references to subjects univ. page. I count 6 references to other sources. More notable from most Australian academic articles.110.33.112.232 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)— 110.33.112.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - You're wrong about that. There is only one citation in the article itself, and that's a link to the university. There are links in the "External links" section; those are not sources. Cresix (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to ask anon 110.33.112.232 if he/she has a registered username who has contributed to this article, or if he/she is the same user as anon 110.33.124.49 above? That's not an accusation, just an inquiry. The anon's IP is similar to one that edited the article and anon 110.33.124.49 who added to this discussion above, and is in a similar location with an identical ISP. I want to be sure there is no votestacking (although it certainly could be unintentional if it is). Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Thanks MelanieN and Cresix for guidance on the copyright issue, and citations/references. I have significantly updated the article in the light of these. There is much more to add, but would appreciate some guidance on whether this is the sort of material you would be looking for re improvements.Vickiewang (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Vickie, but actually no. You have provided links to some of the articles he has written, but that's not what we are really looking for here. We are looking for evidence that he is WP:NOTABLE, not merely that he has written articles. If you read WP:ACADEMIC it will give you an idea of what is needed to establish that the person doesn't just exist or work in the field, but that they really make a difference in that field. Examples would be if lots of other people in his field have cited his work (we measure that at Google Scholar among other places), if he has won significant prizes or other recognition, etc. You may have noticed that I recently edited and improved the other article you created, because I felt the evidence showed that person actually is "notable". But I don't think Aditya meets Wikipedia's criteria at this time - and if he doesn't, no amount of rewriting will help. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep nomination withdrawn and only keep votes, closed by myself but acting as in non-admin closure. Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dago dazzler[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition and includes only samples of the term's useage along with inevitable synthesis to conclude facts about the term. No reliable source presented has covered the term in and of itself in an encyclopedic manner. See WP:DICTIONARY. The fact that this term is not represented on wiktionary suggests a transwiki may be appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought this would be a slam-dunk deletion request on "Not Urban Dictionary" grounds. This is actually a really well done historical article on a bit of long-established (and seemingly notable) racist slang. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the word dago is racist slang. However, this is an article on the phrase "dago dazzler". Please look a bit deeper it is not the same thing. Here I only see a small list of examples of the use of the phrase and no matter how well they are presented that is all it is. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that this is a pre-internet racist phrase and one is apt to see only the tip of the iceberg with a Google search. Even that tip is large enough to justify inclusion. This is a well-done piece of work and its deletion would diminish Wikipedia's knowledge pool. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. I searched "Dago dazzler" and not just "Dago"... Carrite (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that it does not matter that the phrase only appears in a few old books and this has essentially been replicated here, we should ignore the fact that it is a dictionary definition and that all interpretation of what the phrase means and its history is entirely original research and synthesis. I do not share this viewpoint and would prefer this sort of thing to be covered in wiktionary without the original research necessary to try to turn it into an encyclopedic article. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that this is a well-done article on a topic worthy of inclusion and I can not rationalize its deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I am concerned that the entire lede is currently original research and the rest of the article is then simply cited quotes to back this up. No matter how well this is done it is of concern to me that presenting original research on old phrases is not what wikipedia is for. Polargeo (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an interesting article (as I've said before). If there are problems then improve the article instead of deleting it. Polargeo, even if it wasn't your intention it really seems like you are harassing JB at this point and you should back off. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article does not stand up as an encyclopedic article on wikipedia so why are you requesting I fix it? On what basis are you !voting keep? Polargeo (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Polargeo (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Dlohcierekim as a hoax. Unable to locate anything, including at The Twins web page Dlohcierekim 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Puller[edit]

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

This article is a hoax. The subject, "Mitch Puller", does not exist. There is no record of such a player at Baseball-Reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a date reason (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Fund[edit]

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

Out of date page Theartfund (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the fact, that the page is out of date, is not a valid argument for deletion. The nominators username is very suspicious to me (WP:COI) and s/he is a single-purpose account (only contribution is the nomination of this page). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "out-of-dateness" is unspecified and would be ground for improvement not deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important cultural organisation for us in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.127.58 (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this google news search shows multiple notices for its impact on various museums, and this newspaper article is probably a good source for expansion. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, surely. Multiple mentions in reputable news sources and books, 80,000 members. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samus Jay[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. All "references" are either to websites that provide no information about the subject or at to a small mention of the subject performing at an event. A Google News and Google News Archive search provide no references. The article was tagged for speedy deletion multiple times but the tag was removed by the author. Nominating it for AfD so that a legitimate conclusion can be reached about the notability of the subject. OlYeller^Talktome 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. Nothing turns up at Google News, and Google provides only self-referential sites and blogs. No Reliable Sources found. --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kip McKean[edit]

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

This is an 'AfD by proxy' - a reader has emailed in to OTRS under ticket number 2010081310000638 (viewable to those with an OTRS account). I do not have permission to post the reader's name, but they're quite happy for their reasons below to be published:
"I noticed that on wikipedia there is an entry for Kip McKean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_McKean), even though he does not fulfil the requirements of a notable person. He has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for one several times. He has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. He is not a scientist, researcher, philosopher or other kind of scholar. He is generally not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors. He has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and he is not a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. In other words an article of Kip McKean is not warranted to be on wikipedia and, as you can see above, violates many of the criteria wikipedia sets for notable persons."

The reader has asked that the article be nominated for deletion based on the above reasoning. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - as a proxy nominator, I am neutral in this discussion and do not wish to take part. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since he and the church or denomination or movement he founded have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus satisfying the general WP:N notability guideline, as well as "has made a widely known contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field," satisfying WP:BIO. That contribution would be the founding and expansion of a particular church/religion/cult according to various references cited in the article and found in Google Book search. The article cites a 2003 Boston Globe article. In addition Google books shows 277 results of coverage in books about religion for example: "America's alternative religions," (1995) pages 134-140, "The Stone Campbell movement" (2002) pages 35, 564-573, Larson's book of world religions'" (2004) pages 253-255, "A guide to new religious movements, (2005) pages 23-24. Google News archive shows several results about the person, only viewable by payment or at a good library: [21] which appeared in some major newspapers in numerous US cities in 1995, 1996 and 1997. Poorly sourced or material which violates WP:NPOV material should be removed from any article about a living person, but someone simply not wanting a biography of the individual is not a basis for deleting it, when numerous books on religion have extensive coverage. Edison (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep McKean is essentially responsible for the creation of the International Churches of Christ and International Christian Churches... I'd call THAT a significant body of work, and the RSes are plentiful. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and just for kicks and giggles, I also have an offline source in my personal library which discusses him: Hooper, Robert E, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century, Howard Publishing, 1993, ISBN 1878990268. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable and as Edison and Jclemens show, plenty of sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is room for honoring a request for a deletion when the nominated article is in a grey area, but this isn't even close to the line Vartanza (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet the GNG simply by virtue of the Google news items, and the other sources given above make it clear that he's notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amotz Shemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - might rate a mention on any article on the company he is the CEO of (although it's not clear if that is notable either). Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For reasons that are not clear a lot of content has been removed from the article compared to its previous states. I am going to add back what seems helpful. That will give it a fairer chance of being kept, although I am not hopeful. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it was unsourced, if you plan to add information to that BLP article, make sure you are using reliable sources otherwise it will be removed again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back material, including some that is unreferenced. I think we need to consider the maximum claims that are being made for his notability and then see if they stand up. I don't think it is fair to take an article that has claims of notability (even if they are unproven), remove the claims and then consider it for deletion based on the lack of claims to notability. We have to give articles a fair chance. That said, I do think this one is likely to be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This guy does not seem to pass any notability criteria as a businessman. He is claimed to be CEO of a load of companies that are not notable enough to have articles. He clearly does have some notability as an academic. He has published several papers and they do get citations (see Google Scholar). He gets a brief mention in The Scientific American Book of Astronomy[22] but I am not convinced that it is enough to get him past WP:PROF. If we could dig up a bit more on him then he might just scrape over the line. If the article was to be kept, the non-notable business stuff would have to be de-emphasised. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a lot of verification on the article. I wouldn't normally do this for an article that is probably doomed even if the verification succeeded but I wanted to discourage any more content removal. The good news is that everything checks out OK. The only thing I couldn't verify was the bit about his father being an artist. The bad news is that I didn't see anything to suggest that there is additional notability, so my "weak delete" stands. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable for business. Mostly sourced with web-flotsam. While he does have some cited publications, these largely appear to be under his advisor and they result in an h-index of only 6 (WoS). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete No references in the article demonstrate that this person has been the subject of independent coverage, as required for inclusion on wikipedia per WP:BIO. Smartse (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think he is below threshold both as a businessman and as an academic. Notability is measured by the max of one's accomplishments, not the sum. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. -- Y not? 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drexel University Online[edit]

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

Run of the mill college online education program. The notability is not inherited from the University, nor it is bestowed because it offers degrees. GrapedApe (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Drexel University. Doesn't seem to be independently notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was already a section on Drexel University about this program, which I just updated, so it should already have all of the relevant information from the article. --ImGz (t/c) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a merge or redirect since the name is the same as that of the university. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drexel University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Internship[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This just appears to be an article about a specific college's internship program. Registering a trademark doesn't make an internship program notable. GrapedApe (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like Drexel is trying use wikipedia to drum up business. In any case, this specific internship is not inherently notable, and citing the Trademark application does nothing for establishing notability. The tone of the article sounds like a marketing blurb for the program. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been meaning to expand this article since the coop program is a large part of the history of the school, practical education for industrial workers etc. However as it stands it would probably be better served merged into Drexel University. --ImGz (t/c) 15:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Could be kept as a redirect since Drexel has copyrighted the name, but not notable enough for a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Guy (Executive Director)[edit]

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

Non notable ex-Royal Navy officer and now businessman. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:MILPEOPLE NtheP (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Notability not established. Appears to be a vanity article (not necessarily written by the gentleman himself). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep I have verified that Robert Lincoln Guy (b. 1947) is in Who's Who from 1982-1987 (using the Biography and Genealogy Master Index (BGMI). Searching teh Google for the phrase "Robert Lincoln Guy" turns up what appears to be a passingly prestigious award from the Japanese Government. The article needs some work (such as including some of the information in this note - I'm feeling peckishly lazy on this warm Friday in St. Louis - such as middle name, year of birth, etc.) So, I am flipping my flop from delete to keep. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Equerry to the Queen appears to be a notable office, as evidenced by the listing of notable officeholders at Equerry#Equerries_to_the_British_Monarch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal bio that fails to demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One article from the Japan Times does not lead to notability, I can't find any other sources. Not sure that Equerry to QEII gives notability. Looking through that list suggests a lot more names should be here too, they're generally poorly sourced. Bigger digger (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Suggest a move to Robert L. Guy. Thanks to the changes I think this just about scrapes by. I might swing by and sort out those WP:ELs soon though...Quartermaster, I think "peckishly lazy" is the phrase my constant state of being has been waiting for, thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been a misunderstanding. The first entry on Robert Guy - 'Robert Guy (Royal Navy)', has been written by an unauthorised person and was inaccurate. It has been on Wiki for the last 4-5 years or so. We have corrected the mistakes and wanted to edit the old entry but were unable to and in the end the entry got deleted by the admins, saying the man himself is not notable. So the only thing I do not understand is the entry has been accepted in the first place and has been on wikipedia for many years (none of you during this period of time said he was not notable enough to be on here), and when we try to edit it and CORRECT some major mistakes, you delete it and say he is not notable enough. Please see [Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk] post above, in Britain being Equerry to the Queen is regarded as very notable.[[[User:Sujingyun|Sujingyun]] (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Carefully follow Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and ensure the article addresses its requirements. At the moment, the only in depth coverage is the Japan Times article, but there needs to be more. I googled to the best of my abilities but couldn't find anything else. If you can suitably reference his entry in Who's Who and find a bit more info I would be happy to reconsider my position. Also, there's no such thing as "an unauthorised person" in terms of wikipedia editors. Bigger digger (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC) - Struck following article development. Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on this person has twice been speeedily deleted (once in Jan 2010 and again in August 2010) under A7. It now appears to rest solely on notable because of one position held namely being an equerry to HM the Queen. I don't think that having held that role is enough to make a person notable. NtheP (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new reference from the 'Who's Who 2009'. To our knowledge Robert has been in the 'Who's Who' since 1981.[[[User:Sujingyun|Sujingyun]] (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although numerically this is a toss-up between delete and merge, I note that one of the 'merge's would "support deletion", and that the only policy/guideline quoting is by the deletion camp. On the whole, the consensus would appear to be to delete this article, as having no reliable sources to verify the information -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santon (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic not notable enough for own article. Was voted for deletion some time ago. NotARealWord (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge the supported content to some appropriate page such as List of characters in Transformers comics. Cnilep (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to an appropriate page like Beast Wars Second. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a merge is better, then I think Beast Wars II is the appropriate page to merge it with. NotARealWord (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - comparing the old Afd and page's history], it seems like this article was deleted previously but User:Mathewignash unnecessarily recreated it. Maybe this needs to be protected from recreation or something. NotARealWord (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It lacked good references before. I gave it some more, tried re-writing it into a better article, but sadly it still may still fall short of notability. That's why I am voting against keeping it now. Mathewignash (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers" Dwanyewest (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would support deletion since there are no sources to WP:verify notability. But my main !vote is merge for the sake of building a consensus. Hopefully the closer of this discussion will be able to find one. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FICT and can't be verified with WP:RS, anyway. We can't include pages that can't be verified by independent sources. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axer (Transformers)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough to warrant it's own article. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge the supported content to an appropriate page such as Transformers (toy line). Cnilep (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. No sources to WP:verify notability which would be appropriate for deletion... but willing to go along with merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Do we really need a redirect for such a minor character? NotARealWord (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Not really. But I'm trying to build a consensus. I'd support a merge, redirect, or deletion. This is clearly not appropriate for an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If you think a redirect isn't needed, shouldn't you vote for deletion? NotARealWord (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting achieves nothing. I'm here to build a consensus. So yes I'd support deletion. But I see a growing consensus for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless merged. Not seeing any great need for a redirect unless it is needed for copyright reasons... J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the best option above...redirects are cheap, no reason not to have one. CTJF83 chat 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manterror[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough to warrant it's own article. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Predacons. Mathewignash (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable independent third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Both WP:V and WP:N say that we do not keep information that cannot be attributed to reliable third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crumplezone[edit]

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

Subject is not notable enough to warrant it's own article NotARealWord (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A reoccuring anime villian. Mathewignash (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it appropriate to be talking about deleting this article when it's currently being suggested it merge with another article. Shouldn't that be settled first, so we know if there even IS an article to consider for deletion? Mathewignash (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if anybody wants to, they can vote "merge" on an AfD. NotARealWord (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless it is merged. Feel free to merge the content if you think it's necessary, but this article cites no reliable sources, and I am seeing no evidence that this character has any real-world notability. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence exists to WP:verify notability in the real world. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Shea[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD. Youth footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 13:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would being called up to the England squad for the Bulgaria and Switzerland games count towards Wp:GNG? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if he actually plays then, yes. In the last few years, we've seen Northern Ireland call-up and play youth players despite not having played for their respective clubs. They were still deemed non-notable until they took too the field. Reading the article, Shea is not actually called-up to the squad, just training with them to make up numbers and probably gain a little experience. --Jimbo^[online] 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to back that point up further, now that Scott Carson has pulled out of the squad, Scott Loach has been called up as his replacement, not Shea. --Jimbo^[online] 11:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is blatant advertising as well as completely failing to assert any real encyclopedic significance. ~ mazca ^talk 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher deluxe[edit]

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

Un-notable type of food. A google search only has restaurants with the name of "Kosher deluxe" therefore failing WP:GNG. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Looks like a first article by a new user proposed for deletion on the day of its creation. It certainly needs work and references and may well be unencyclopedic. But is just seems too bitey to propose deleting it immediately upon creation. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 14:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was hopeful this could be rescued, but it's only become worse. In light of Dmacks note (and the subsequent actions of this new account), I am withdrawing my weak keep and now agree this should be deleted. It has morphed from what looked like a poorly written, but good faith attempt to compose a new article about a type of food into a poor article about a non-notable restaurant. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be moved to request section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.217.252 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see much notability. Eeekster (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) No assertion of notability. Just a restaurant. Heck, not even really a coherent article so much as a menu-dump? I would have already done so (and the associated ((uw-create1)) or some other pointer to WP:YFA to the creator), but since we're here already, I guess no objection to waiting a day or so to see if he comes up with anything... DMacks (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I blocked the original author as spam-only account after it repeatedly recreated a different hopeless spam article despite warnings (that included links for article guidelines and how to get started). The article being discussed here is marginally better, and I'll refrain from speedying it because of an existing "keep" !vote. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Notability not asserted; heck, the article is barely even prose, just a list of menu items. Any article which concludes with "made fresh on premises enjoy your meal have a deluxe day" ought to be outta here soonest. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronica Festival of Felchford[edit]

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

I want it to be true, but sadly it appears to be a fictional event, existing only in a BBC radio 1 comedy programme that is, in itself, unlikely to be notable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, non-notable fiction presented as fact. Companion article Felchford about the non-existent village has been PRODded. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only exists as a non-notable Radio 1 spoof. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs describing saving oneself from oneself[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this page is merely a list of songs with a common line. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really don't need lists like this cluttering up WP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete songs not notable, obviously just a word string search turned into an article. inclusion criteria if its just song lyrics: too narrow and are OR (who has written about this song lyric?). inclusion criteria if for the idea: way too vague and imprecise. Not any better than "list of songs about crying to oneself" or "loneliness". etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the phrase "save me from myself" were a notable aspect of a song, the list might have some merit, but I cannot see any evidence of that, nor how this article can be useful for anything except trivia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the face of it, a list no better and no worse than lots of OTHER STUFF that EXISTS. But here's really the issue: is this list going to matter to anyone? Is anyone ever going to find it? Nobody is going to search the phrase "List of songs describing saving oneself from oneself." So how does one get to this page? Answer: one doesn't. It's a low-value orphan article that's linked to nothing, nor can it really be linked to anything without a bunch of non-germane "See Also" links. No nutritional value and not encyclopedia-worthy, in the final analysis. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea what purpose this serves. - eo (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list that can't save itself from itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see this passing any notability category. It seems like trivia to me. Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable resource management[edit]

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

Non-notable academic program. The mere verifiable existence of the program does not mean that it is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Proposed deletion (with this exact reason) removed by the article's author with no explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Delete without prejudice. The underlying concept of this program may or may not support an article; but any such article ought to be about the underlying idea taught, not about this course. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Common outcomes: "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field (e.g., University of Chicago Department of Economics), or produced a number of notable graduates (USC School of Cinematic Arts, Oxford PPE)." There's nothing to suggest this program meets those criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stopouts[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No significant coverage. Reference provide a single review and a very brief interview with the front man (who is notable as a local council member, but not so much as a member of this band). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. [23] Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dodd[edit]

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

Withdraw Appears to be a non-notable person. Subject has requested deletion through OTRS (ticket number 2010082510007565) due to numerous factual errors. No sources provided. I could only find one brief mention of the man's work. (Not the same person as the rock&roll author, who has many articles written about him) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Plenty of sources online to suggest the appropriateness of a Wikipedia article on Philip Dodd. The errors Dodd has found are very regrettable (not again on WP, etc), but insufficient reason for deletion. Commentator Oliver Kamm's objection to his own article did not lead to its removal. Philip Cross (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Definitely notable, lots of secondary articles etc. in the newspapers. Needs referenceing and the errors removing though; I'll make a start at that. Chris (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, Very notable figure for a. work as an academic b. Directorship of the ICA during a febrile time in British art c. work as a broadcaster d. work as journalist/editor e. influence on 'Cool Britannia' and cultural identity in the United Kingdom f. cultural interchange with China. Piece does need additional references/fact checking, but since it was only started yesterday it's in reasonably robust shape. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll withdraw this in a minute but could people maybe provide me with the sources they found because I was coming up empty for this gentlemen. I'll fix the article once I've got them and withdraw. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brides of Sodom (film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable horror movie. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reliable third party sources in the article and none found in a search. Fail WP:N. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. As the film was only released to a small market last month, there is not enough available (yet) to show it meeting WP:NF. I would not be adverse to it being userfied with our thanks back to its author for continued sourcing as such become available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure thanks are in order - see this ANI post about their likely copyright violations. All images I reported in that posting are still there as of right now, if anyone would care to look into it... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ouch... another new editor who does not understand the ways of Wikipedia, and apparently does not understand the requirements for proper licensing/attribution of film images. I see 73 inexperienced edits since March 2010, with 71 of them during the last two weeks of August.[24][25] Would it be too much of an extension of good faith to think this user might benefit from a little guidence? I look at it this way... if deleted from mainspace and userfied, and even if never worked on or ever improved, Wikipedia loses nothing. But if the editor does a turn-around, learns our processes, and become a valued contributor, the project might gain an asset. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete other than nomination, a growing snowball of keeps thereafter. Mandsford 18:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2000 Sunderland A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an arbitrary season of an arbitrary football team. Contains virtually no information. Wikipedia is not a sports archive. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is one of a series of articles about English (Premiership) football club seasons - see Category:English football clubs 1999–2000 season. The only "arbitrary" thing about it is its selection for deletion. I agrre that it needs some text and references adding, but that has never of itself been grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent is that articles about seasons of football clubs are acceptable for inclusion. This one needs more work than most, but sources are relatively easy to find. I just added two to start us off. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this policy Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons. Stifle, you know way, way more about this than I do obviously, so I'm not exactly questioning you here, but you routinely say that Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or a sports archive in nominating articles for deletion. I cannot find a precedent or Wikipedia policy saying this...I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but it's just that "almanac" and "sports archive" are really vague terms to me. I have a lot of older sports almanacs and Wikipedia already contains 100 times the sports information as these almanacs. As a result, saying Wikipedia is not a sports almanac just doesn't mean a whole lot to me - it's just far too vague to understand. Can you clarify with a Wikipedia policy or a past precedent? Thanks! Bds69 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IINFO item 3. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't say that the article shouldn't exist, just that it shouldn't be entirely statistics. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." So all we need to do is rewrite it to have more context and it'll be OK. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotcha. It seems, as applied to this particular article, to not apply. That particular item is concerned with readability and sprawling lists of statistics. While the article is definitely bad, you can't really say that's it's not readable or a sprawling list of statistics. Bds69 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content is pretty much non-existent, but the subject is certainly notable. The article just needs a lot of work. – Pee Jay 16:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – An article on a Premier League club's season definitely figures to be notable. There should be plenty of sources available to help build a nice article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But clean it up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep As a season article for a Premier League club this would appear to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons, although it is in dire need of sourcing to help establish notability through WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article could use with some expantion, but is certainly notable enought to merit inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a rubbish article, but it is notable. —Half Price 15:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an article on a professional top level club season is certainly notable. --Carioca (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK #2 and WP:SNOW as this is obviously not going to be deleted. Kudos to Uncle G for showing how it's done yet again. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic probation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced for nearly four years, fails WP:V. PROD a year ago for this reason was contested with a bare assertion that sources exist and an AFD was closed as keep for the same reason, but the burden of proof is on those seeking to include content — a burden which was not discharged by the dePRODder, or anyone else who commented, in the last year. I must therefore conclude that the sources which users alleged must exist are not in fact available. I invite users claiming otherwise to WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There really wasn't a need to take this to AFD if you wanted to upset those people again. Abductive clearly didn't read the book that xe so merrily cited in the last AFD discussion (There was a source cited.), but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't either. I've rescued the article for you, using the source that was cited the last time around. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not the only meaning. its also a term used for students who have done poorly, and must improve grades to maintain their standing at school.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually called scholastic probation, you know. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A close thing, but just edging into 'keep' territory. This might be a suitable topic for an RfC to be started about, so that a definitive policy or guideline can be established, as I could see this discussion taking place at various times in the future! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish football transfers summer 2010[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not the news or a sports almanac. This article constitutes original research. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an indiscriminate collection of statistics either, but we still have a list of pollings of the 2008 presidential election and a list of Luton matches against league oppponents. Who knows what wikipedia is? Sandman888 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don't think its useful. Sandman888 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upon re-reading NOT#STATS, wikipedia is indeed (also) a collection of stats. Perhaps it shouldn't be called NOTSTATS but w/e. Sandman888 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Neutral~~ - ~~but~~ why select this one article out of the many in Category:Football transfers summer 2010? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, this article and List of Turkish football transfers 2010-2011 need merging. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Helpful information, but probably should merge with each team's season page. If the team does not have a page for this season, it's probably not particularly important information. Bds69 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many teams don't have their own season pages. But it doesn't mean the information is not important. Lots of big teams don't have season pages only because there are no enthusiasts to create them and update regularly. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo, pending a discussion on whether these sorts of lists are worthwhile. Deletion may prove to be the longer term way forward, but we need a more general discussion on the matter than a single AfD. See the recently kept Manchester United match AfD, versus the equally notable but deleted Tottenham match AfD. Unless this AfD is closed as a keep, we will undoubtedly see similar inconsistency should someone decide to nominate the English, Scottish, American or German equivalent. --WFC-- 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I throw a die to ease the decision process of whether a particular list should be deleted or not. I can highly recommend it. Sandman888 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking your contributions to this discussion in isolation, most readers would assume that you are looking to make the place more inconsistent. I know for a fact that you're here to improve the place, and readily conceed that content-wise you've done more to improve Wikipedia than I'm ever likely to. But that is how your comments look. --WFC-- 16:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I genuinely begin to think a central committee that made guidelines would save wikipedians years of policy-creation. Sandman888 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 168 articles of this type. They provide useful information for those who follow the football transfer market. However, some of them are well sourced (example), some are not. This needs a discussion for sure. My vote is to keep these lists, or at least the well sourced ones. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#STATS Secret ^account 04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least for now. More discussion is needed on this type of article in general. I agree with the above statements that these articles provide useful information, and the ones for the major football playing nations are well sourced. The claim that it constitutes original research is, with all due respect to the nominator, simply absurd. This one, unfortunately, is not well sourced, but that can be changed. In my opinion, it requires sourcing not deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Hekerui (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo. Giant Snowman 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Bullet[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. One EP release only and no evidence that it on an important label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources past a small local piece announcing a gig. Prod removed saying "Removed prod. Band has released an album under a notable label. There may be another. Prod duration is less than edit interval, so likely to be missed by contributors. Please take this to AfD." I can't see where notable label comes from. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning to delete). I removed the prod. It's hard to find reliable sources on this band. I found one local online magazine in Brisbane, Australia (the band's home) profiling the band. My search revealed that the band almost meets WP:BAND criterion #5 for inclusion, having published one EP and a single through a long-established independent label (Red Eye Records), but not two albums, as far as I can tell.[26] Red Eye isn't mentioned in the article, but that omission is grounds for improvement rather than deletion. If they released another album this year (as the article implies), they'd just squeak by the criteria for inclusion. That reasoning, and the fact that the article has had many editors but the prod duration is less than the article's historical editing interval, convinced me that the prod should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is to the red eye record store, not the label. seperate businesses. the pink01 you see for that ep suggests it is a self released ep. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then I say delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xin-She Yang's functions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Xin-She Yang's functions

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

The article is entirely sourced to the publications of Xin-She Yang in the past year. There is no indication that these functions have played an important enough role in mathematics to pass the general notability guideline. Furthermore, as far as I can ascertain, the only one who calls these "Xin-She Yang's functions" is Xin-She Yang himself (which is already a fairly questionable practice in academia). In light of this, it seems to me very likely that this article is an attempt of the author to promote his own non-notable original research, and at the very least there is almost certainly a conflict of interests. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure that the author is self-naming these functions but in any case they don't seem to meet notability criteria.--RDBury (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There are only references from Xin-She Yang. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above sound reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 16:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Koppelhus[edit]

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

This person is not notable enough to meet WP:BIO, or more specifically WP:ACADEMIC. Any notability seems to be related to her being the wife of someone who is notable rather than them being notable by themselves. Unless there is substantial coverage that I have failed to find, we should delete. Smartse (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention at Philip J. Currie. She has co-authored several books with her husband. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Philip J. Currie as article fails notability criteria for authors, but is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index of 6 and total citations < 60 (WoS) – far short of our typical acceptance range. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gobots. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobots (Transformers)[edit]

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

Toy which fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This toy is independent of the later toy line, which has received somewhat more coverage. Claritas § 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I suggested that this article merge with the Gobots page. Why does no one listen? Mathewignash (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a sensible idea, because this toy has little to do with the later series of the same name. Which Gobots page, anyway ? Claritas § 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be a simple sentence in the page for Gobots, which also needs work, but at least it's notable. Mathewignash (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How are they related, apart from sharing the same name ? They were manufactured under different companies. Claritas § 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason they share a name is because Hasbro bought the Gobots from Tonka in 1991. Mathewignash (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - More on how they're related. NotARealWord (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "No one listens" because you used sockpuppets/meatpuppets on the last round of AFDs and your credibility is now less than zero. You're actually right about this one though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Perhaps personal attacks are not the best thing for a deletion debate?
    - Uhh, you're aware that you admitted to it (in this diff), right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I discovered what I did was against the rules, so I admitted to keep it from causing a problem. I'm talking about your note that my "credibility is less than zero" comment. Inappropriate and personal - as well as lacking logic. If it were true I should vote to delete all these articles now, so my negative influence would make people vote to keep the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence into the main Gobots article. It's pretty unusual for a brand to take over its main competitor and assimilate rather than bury it. But the character doesn't need a seperate article whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew Lenahan. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge: really just a WP:FORK of other gobots material. Only need a mention that the franchise was bought out and then you're done. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should say more than that. It was bought by Hasbro and they used it to make several lines of toys called "Gobots" over the years. One of these lines even had a short run TV show. Mathewignash (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPAG[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK article with possible WP:BLP concerns. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Vladmir Putin - I can't see that this company is particularly notable, and as the nom. says, there are possible BLP issues, but as Putin worked there for eight years, it could be covered in his article. Claritas § 09:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Putin didn't work there for 8 years - "What is known about Putin's involvement in SPAG is this: Company officials acknowledge that Putin took a place on the company's supervisory board in his capacity as deputy mayor in charge of St. Petersburg's foreign economic relations in the early 1990s. But they have downplayed the post as an "honorary position" that did not involve participating in the company's day-to-day operations." Everything else is conjecture, nothing is confirmed. Instead of quoting the entire article, the creator has selectively chosen bits and pieces in order to paint a certain POV (read below). --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another of this users articles done under what I can only assume is an advocacy crusade. The company itself is not notable, and the Ukrainian transcripts are a major WP:BLP issue. Do not redirect to Vladimir Putin or anywhere else, but an outright delete. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware this is part of a crusade - if I'd known I might have speedied the article (A7, possibly also G10). I won't bypass the discussion process now it's started, but if any admin more familiar than I am with current XfD practice feels this can be wrapped up early, I have no objections :) EyeSerene^talk 11:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, issues raised with the article creator over a range of issues have all gone unanswered, and have been warned by admins.
Delete per nom. Satisfies COATRACK and is a BLP concern. It is also mentioned in a section of his article already. A Russian Wikipedia sub-Putin article, which I can't paste the link to in here (Translated: The work of Vladimir Putin's government of St. Petersburg ( Leningrad)), covers the event as well but it is a sub-article and with better content. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Just leave the article there, it is notable, the President of Russia was affiliated with it. Comments above state that the article isn't notable, but there isn't any qualification for the lack of notability, other than saying "it is not notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.164.24 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tomičić[edit]

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

Stub article created by subject. Multiple refs relate solely to the conference he organised. Notability is not inherited and simply organising a conference does not make one notable. No evidence of awards or notable publication. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncontroversial case – organizing a conference does not confer notability per se. Really just a vanity entry. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paravar last names[edit]

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

This is an indiscrimante list that fails our core policy of verifiability almost entirely. The closest I was able to get to sourcing this list were a few references that say that "members of the group were given Portuguese names at their Baptism and those names became their surnames". A similar discussion on the last names for another caste resulted in a delete. Delete. —SpacemanSpiff 08:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been around since January, and it is completely uncited and lacks real relevance to anything. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norm.think this article also needs to be deleted Surnames of Shivalli Madhwa Brahmins.Linguisticgeek (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, to add to the WP:NOTS, genealogical entries.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other articles with similar themes like

Even these include to be included in this AfD discussion. If the consensus is delete, then all should be deleted, else all kept. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Adding to the list:[reply]

- Daivajna surnames and Gotras
- List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Indiscriminate lists.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Hallay[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Can't find any third-party sources about her other than her college website. Chris (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main source is web page entitled "Our Authors." Fails to clear the notability bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors and academics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An adjunct professor at a school not notable enough to even have its own article seems far below the bar for WP:PROF, and working for some magazines also isn't good enough, nor is writing two as-yet-unpublished novels. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incidentally, since when is Lim college a leading college in NY? Adjunct faculty w/o significant publications are generally not notable Vartanza (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Clark[edit]

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

Not notable. Only self-written sources. Chris (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any RS mentions after brief search. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no reliable sourcing so is unverified (also contradictory in places - for example, his parents were largely absent from his life, but he was devastated when they later separated?). --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Tigers[edit]

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

User:Staffwaterboy attempted twice to tag this article as CSD as meeting criteria "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)."

While the article does make a vague assertion that is not verifiable from the article text, the article has been created with no reliable third-party sources and as such, this assertion is not verifiable at the present time.

Unless this is corrected, in which event I will withdraw the nomination, I'm proposing the deletion of this article. Triona (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As stated above Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}]] 04:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find anything that would confer notability, though I think a speedy under A7 would have been suitable; the sole claim made is that participants have gone on to play College or Professional baseball, but does not claim that the organization is why they have been able to do so. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the CSD because it was contested with a halfway reasonable argument, namely: see Bayside Yankees, a comparable team (in the same league, I guess). Which is a much better article. Granted this article is a bad article, it could be improved. However 1) even then it might well not be notable, and 2) its bad enough that deleting and waiting for a better article to be written from scratch would be reasonable. So I don't have an opinion and am not !voting. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am adding Bayside_Yankees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this discussion as it is in a procces of Afd as well , and as per user:Herostratus point above . Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}]] 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This team has national recognition. The News & Advance reported that the Long Island Tigers won a World Series title for the National Amateur Baseball Federation in 2008.[27] MLB players from the Tigers include Dave Valle, Jose Lopez, Steve Karsay, Sean Brown, Mike Parisi, Don Cooper, Neal Heaton, and Ed Glynn.[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)
Delete Would need a lot more references than that to prove notability. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Darli Theintan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd nomination.

Burmese singer with WP:V problems. There is one non-reliable source (which I've temporarily added to the article) that seems to hint towards notability, but that's not enough to establish notability, not being, well, a reliable-source. The Burmese language barrier, variant and changed spellings, etc., are all challenges to getting this call right, but really, this is a BLP without a reliable source, and unless someone can show a couple... --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and im thinkin the name is Poe Darli "Thein Tan".. Try a google search with that little space in there... Granting the ref's aren't much better (language barrier) i got like 900 more hits... - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Can you point at one reliable source? I'll look through some more, but what I was seeing was largely blogs and reposted videos. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, [29] is relatively trivial coverage but at least from a source with an editor. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Regardless of the spelling of her name I can find no independent reliable sources to confirm she meets general notability standards for inclusion. I'm open to changing my !vote to keep if reliable sources can be found (they don't have to be in English) to verify she meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Yankees[edit]

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

No notable source for team Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}]] 04:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a couple of articles in the New York papers and added them to a separate reference section, although I didn't do the work of adding them in-line to reference any part of the article. But I couldn't find anything beyond these two newspaper articles. So this moves them toward notability, but whether it puts them over the line is debatable. I do not have an opinion at this time. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Newsday, the Bayside Yankees are a team with national recognition, winning five straight National Amateur Baseball Federation World Series titles from 1993-1997. According to PremierBaseball, the following MLB players started with the Bayside Yankees:
- Rocco Baldelli, Jason Bergmann, Tony Giarratano, Ross Gload, Tony Graffanino, Craig Hansen, Jim Johnson, John Lannan, Jon Lester, Matt Morris, Cody Ross, Garvin Alston, Mike Jerzembeck, Steve Karsay, Billy Koch, Jim Mecir, Pete Munro, Gary Scott, Frank Seminara, Joe Valentine, Peter Zoccolillo
Because of the sources and the sheer amount of talent from the team, I believe this subject satisfies general notability guidelines and should be kept. Vodello (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teams of this sort will not normally be notable , but this seems to be an exception. Really notable alumni can count heavily towards making an organization notable DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABC-DEF-GHI[edit]

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

It depends on notability here. Certain Sesame Street songs such as Bein' Green and C Is For Cookie are indeed notable since they both seem to have a lot of history and cultural references. This one does not seem like much. The only history or encyclopedic statements I can see on this page are "The song's lyrics were written by Jon Stone and Joe Raposo, with music by Raposo. It first appeared on the Sesame Street television series in 1969." and " "ABC-DEF-GHI" has appeared on at least 14 different Sesame Street-related albums since its debut, counting renditions by Big Bird and Elmo and appearances in medleys.". Everthing else is nothing but original research and the only "reference" on this page is not even secondary as it links to a video clip on Youtube (which is of course not an allowable source). The remaining above info I have mentioned is short enough that I don't think a standalone article is neccessary. It is also simply just the Alphabet Song in a different version and that it could easily be merged to some other Sesame Street song related article or to Big Bird (whom the song is sung by). The previous nomination in August 2008 was kept and yet there has been absolutely no improvement in the past 2 years. trainfan01 20:11, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete not individually notable, can't possibly be sourced. Redirect per below. What were they thinking at the last AFD?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street per WP:NSONG. I haven't been able to find significant sources about this song. They might exist, but if so, they have not been easy to locate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Gnews archive searches show nothing but a few trivial mentions, same in a book search. Web searches show lots of video clips and listings on lyrics and other databases, but no non-trivial WP:RS sources. Novaseminary (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajnikanth awards and nominations[edit]

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

Absolutely unnecessary. Rajinikanth has not received enough awards that would require it to be listed in a separate page. The most he has won are a few Tamil Nadu State Film Awards and one Filmfare, as well as some nominations. Also, most of these awards are not sourced and appear to be made up, which seemingly violates WP:CRYSTAL. Regardless of whether this list is entirely true or not, this list still is too short to require a separate page. All awards can be simply described on the Rajinikanth page. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this stuff is already covered at the Rajinikanth article, where it is sourced properly, and this article would not serve as a useful redirect because of the typo in the title. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to FCW Florida Tag Team Championship. author already redirected it JForget 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hutter[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Also doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as he is only a developmental wrestler in WWE, and hasn't worked in a top promotion. Nikki♥311 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NOTNEWS is a policy and trumps N. I note a proliferation of similar keep arguments at the end of the discussion by newish users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 West Bank shooting[edit]

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

An article about a shooting in the West Bank that left one dead and three injured. The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Jmundo (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Some murders are not notable. This, however, is a terror attack in which murder was committed in the context of an ongoing struggle. It is notable by definition.AMuseo (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to point out just which criteria of Wikipedia:Speedy keep this AfD meets, or was that just a bit of embellishment on your part? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. This is exactly what NOTNEWS is about, a single event that has fleeting coverage. Note that every single source is from the day of this attack. nableezy - 03:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non notable news article, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS as above, one-off news-of-the-day, no assertion of historical significance or impact. Better suited for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per category Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010 Peculiar that the nom has singled out only these three Palestinian attacks and not any of the many other similar articles in the top level and sub-categories. This seems to be larger than one event, and should instead get some RfC instead. --Shuki (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News event. A high bar for all new Israel-Palestine articles is called for and this doesn't clear it. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. ~~It is just a bank robbery with shooting.~~ Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"bank robbery", eh? I guess even pretending to make valid policy-based arguments that relate to the actual article in question is too much trouble now, and we're just throwing out any old thing that pops into our head these days. DO read the article and reconsider, or at least feign you know what you are talking about. HupHollandHup (talk)

Keep Per AMuseo and Shuki. Part of a larger event/phenomenon and given location of attack near Hebron, even more important following yesterday's murder of 4 Israelis. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a well-sourced article on a notable terror attack. Wikipedia has space to retain articles on notable events, in addition to articles on the broader conflicts of which they are part. As long as such articles are NPOV, I see no reason to delete. In fact, I wish we had many more individual articles on particular battles, diplomatic incidents, and terrorist attacks, because these enable readers to click and learn about a specific incident in depth, and adds a great deal to what we can provide in articles on the larger struggle of which they are part. See, for example, my recent article on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet. It is a small example in the context of the larger topic of Clandestine churches, an article on which I recently did a major rewrite and expansion. The article on clandestine churches must, in turn, be placed in the context of the Reformation. Several users argue for putting all terror attacks in a region into one large article. Following this logic, we could eliminate my articles on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and Clandestine churches and redirect everything to Reformation. But, can we understand the Reformation without understanding the phenomenon of clandestine churches? or understand what a clandestine church was without a small article showing us how Catholic churches had to be camouflaged to look like barns? Similarly, can we understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Islamist movement without understanding that it includes shooting attacks in times of peace? And can we understand the nature of those attacks without small articles that explain in some detail the nature of particular attacks? I argue that we cannot. And that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it enables us to take our level of understanding both up to the mega level of the Reformation, Islamism, or the Arab Israeli conflict and also to turn up the magnification for a close look at St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and a shooting of Israeli police officers as they drove along a road. This is Wikipedia's great strength. It lets us do something that is difficult to do in a book or in any other literary or reference form. Let us not destroy this strength by deleting good articles on sub-topics.AMuseo (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's well-sourced" is a bit of a strawman response, as the sourcing was not a criteria cited by the nominator. News events are always reliably sourced; what the issue is is that there is really nothing here that shows it is significant or notable enough beyond a news blurb. All the article is is a recitation of the shooting. People died, it's tragic, it is a part of the cesspool that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which is really what is driving the movement here to article-ize each and every incident), but that is all that it is. I'm not going to copypasta this response to the several other similar AfDs as you have yours, so consider this a general response to them all. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia that terrorist attacks are notable. This one in particular is more notable than many, as it was carried out by Palestinian Fatah, a group that often fights terror. The argument that it has no long term impact rings hollow, since no evidence has been brought to show that this is the case; and I don't see any other arguments for deletion in this discussion. Shuki's concern that this AfD may be part of a pattern motivated by geographic considerations, or whatever, concerns me too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? My nomination is based on the accepted consensus of WP:NOTNEWS. There is a reason we don't have an article for every recent terrorism attack in the List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Making assumptions and accusations about my editing pattern is not the best way to go. --Jmundo (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out this similar AfD. In fact, no one even injured here, thank God, yet virtual unanimous consensus for keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia isn't news, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives 10,000 more times the attention than any other war. Any incident could very well lead to its own wikipedia article. Terrorist attacks are notable and this was a blatant act of terror committed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. Compare a non-casualty car bomb ATTEMPT to successful acts of terrorism against civilians as was the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a significant incident.Josh02138 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many convincing arguments here that this article should be kept. I agree with Jalapenos do exist that it is particularly notable that it was carried out by Palestinian Fatah. KantElope (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear evidence of due dfiligence by the delete side on teh sourcing and this has not been rebutted effectively Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golfo Azzurro[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it has sources, no original reasearch. i dont see why it shouldnt be included. theres numerous shorter articles. it needs to be improved, not deleted. Joesolo13 (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and delete It has sources? It has a self published source that is not reliable and a violation of WP:SPS. Until secondary sources are found I don't see how this can be kept. And Google news is showing a press release. Nothing of value will be lost if this is deleted so if sources do come up in the future it can easily be recreated.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. The ship has been involved in at least two international incidents and has been discussed in news reports on television as well as in many websites. Google is not the end-all know-all source. It takes time to search for sources and build an article about a ship and there is a wealth of data to be mined about this one even before the SSCS took over it's operations. UB65 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide the sources! Blogs, press releases, and primary sources do not affirm notability. I originally did assume it was notable but keep on coming up short with sources. And editors continue to add inappropriate sources. So if it is notable you should be able to provide significant secondary coverage. I assume this will be possible sooner or later but not now.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship articles have different notability requirements than events and people. This ship definitely qualifies for an article.UB65 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something like a Wikipedia:Notability (ships) that is used to replace WP:GNG? If so, how does this article meet the requirements?Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Wikipedia:Notability (ships) does not exist but Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles), which has been cited in several ship AfDs quite clearly states, "It does not replace the WP:N requirement for significant coverage in secondary sources." --AussieLegend (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To improve ship-related content throughout Wikipedia, the project uses Assessment and Review processes. Here are guidelines. I have found independent sources and listed some. There are also many from blogs and youtube sources that I haven't used and many other independent sources that offer only scant or duplicate info. I have avoided copies of the press releases in the news media and will work on the article further but it has enough for notability now with the references and links it has now. The ship has a history I am trying to sort out before SSCS began using it. It was notable enough before to be in many of the ship-fan sites.

There is much curiosity about this ship as well. It is notable. Please help improve the article. UB65 (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment and review is used in every Wikiproject. It is in no way related to notability. The general notability guidelines that are applicable to all articles require that the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As of yet, this article has not met the GNG requirement and you have not demonstrated how it has. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to answer Cptnono's questions since I was too vague. Assessment and Review processes, and the guidelines do help to determine notability. It is by using other people's opinions via assessment and review as well as the guidelines to help determine notability per general notability guidelines and any special circumstances specific to ships. I also thought that the article was being judged as if it were a biography instead of as a ship article. They are different and that is what I had been referring to.

I went over the article, removed sources like the blog and included independent sources and sources that address the subject directly in detail as well as secondary sources covering the subject. They appear to have editorial integrity. I have avoided mirrors and sites that just copied press releases since they were already cited. The ship was in one verified international incident of being boarded and escorted. It appears to have been in another regarding an acoustic system deployment which I am still searching for secondary, independent verifiable sources. This article is about a ship also, not just Sea Shepherd or any of the other foundations. It is about this ship and it's history. It was the first commercial North sea trawler to use a sumwing and the first in the Netherlands.

Keep This article is notable but if it is decided to delete it please send it to the article incubator or failing that please Userfy it to me as I will adopt it and continue to work on it. I would rather have the help available in the article incubator though.UB65 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NOTNEWS is policy and trumps N. Arguments of inate notability are well assertions and carry little weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba[edit]

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

Another day, and another rocket attack in the region. The article fails several policies including, Wikipedia:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Jmundo (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non notable news article, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep attack on Jordan is significant. Not just a regular attack on Israel which can be swept under the carpet. per category Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010 Peculiar that the nom has singled out only these three Palestinian attacks and not any of the many other similar articles in the top level and sub-categories. This seems to be larger than one event, and should instead get some RfC instead. --Shuki (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another in a series of articles on news events relating to the Israeli-Palestinian war. This cuts both ways, both for articles based on breaking news for attacks on Israeli civilians as well as for the actions of the Israeli military forces against their targets. Major topics of Israel-Palestinian relations are already adequately chronicled with articles. Given the well-publicized effort at training and launching POV editors at Wikipedia, new articles on the superheated Israel-Palestine situation should be held to the strictest standards for inclusion. This, quite simply, is a news story, not a historical event, and does not get over the notability bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe fact that Wikipedia needs more good articles on everything from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe (two among the many countries that need more editors and articles) is not an argument for deleting well-sourced articles on notable events in Israel and the Palestinian territories.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'User:Carrite's assertion that there is a "well-publicized effort at training and launching POV editors at Wikipedia, new articles on the superheated Israel-Palestine situation should be held to the strictest standards for inclusion." is bizarre, and not collegial.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is under attack by a campaign to train and launch editors to advance a specific Point of View with regards to the ongoing Israel-Palestine civil war, if I may call it that... I cast no aspersions upon any editor for being part of this campaign, or not part of this campaign, I only say what I feel — at this juncture we need to take particular care that Wikipedia content is not "gamed" by coordinated POV editing by taking a particularly close look at ALL new articles on the Israel-Palestine situation and making sure they ALL clear a very rigid notability bar. In this particular case, this is a news event, not a historic event, and thus for me an easy call for deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's quite AGF I must say. Check out this similar AfD, you can't claim that this is a coordinated effort. In fact, no one even injured in that incident, thank God, yet virtual unanimous consensus for keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-sourced article on a notable simultaneous attack on a Jordanian and an Israeli city. Wikipedia has space to retain articles on notable events, in addition to articles on the broader conflicts of which they are part. As long as suc articles are NPOV, I see no reason to delete. In fact, I wish we had more good coverage of many more individual articles on particular battles, diplomatic incidents, and attacks of civilians, it enables readers on a particular topic to click and learn about a specific incident in depth, and adds a great deal to what we can provide in articles on the larger struggle of which they are part. See, for example, my recent article on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet. It is a small incident in the context of the larger topic of Clandestine churches, an article on which I recently did a major rewirte and expansion, and the article on clandestine churches must be placed in the context of the Reformation. User:Jmundo argues Another day, and another rocket attack, I suppose that its is, (unless, of course, it was your relative who was killed), but where does this argument lead us? User:Carrite and User:Jmundo would have us put everything into one large article. On the same argument, we could eliminate my articles on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and Clandestine churches and redirect everything to Reformation. But, can we understand the Reformation without understanding the phenomenon of clandestine churches, or understand what a clandestine church was without a small article showing us how Catholic churches had to be camouflaged ot look like barns? Similarly, can we understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Islamist movement without understand that it includes attacks on civilian targets such a Aqaba and Eilat. And can we understand the nature of those attacks without a small article that explains that a Jordanian taxi driver can be killed on a sunny day while waiting for a fare in front of the Intercontinental Hotel? I argue that we cannot. And that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it enables us to take our level of understanding both up to the mega level of the Reformation or Islamism and also to turn up the magnification for a close look at St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and a single rocket attack on Aqaba. This is Wikipedia's great strength. It lets us do something that is difficult to do in a book or in any other literary or reference form. Let us not destroy this strength by deleting good articles on sub-topics.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due to WP:NOTNEWS. Kavas (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and a healthy dose of WP:RECENTISM. Seriously, this is getting to be tiring. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia that terrorist attacks are notable. This one is especially notable because of its international nature, its highly unusual method (launching missiles from the Sinai peninsula), its high profile target (a popular and usually quiet Red Sea resort town) and its ramifications re relations between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, Egypt and Hamas, and re the US State Department's designation of Eilat. The nom and all the deletion advocates so far have said nothing more than "WP:NOTNEWS" without any attempt at substantiating the implicit argument that this attack is merely news. The fact that this AfD is part of a pattern of attempting to remove specifically terrorist attacks committed by a particular group (Palestinians) is troubling. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has ample coverage about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only pattern I can observe is the need of editors to rush to create articles about a particular region suffering from WP:RECENTISM, lacking historical perspective and a worldwide view. --Jmundo (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same editor has been spamming every Israeli-terror article with AFDs. one, 2. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the same editor. Who are you refering to? Kavas (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terrorist attacks are notable, especially this one since its violated the sovereignty of both Jordan and Israel. Cross-border attacks are quite notable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some terrorist attacks are notable, but we don't need to rush to create an article for every attack by Hamas or the Taliban. We are not part of the 24 hours news cycle. "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." (WP:N) --Jmundo (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hamas has committed thousands of attacks against Israel - do we have thousands of articles describing these acts? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly not every Hamas rocket attack is listed as an individual article. This one is clearly distinguished for the broad level of reporting and the fatalities. Many rocket attacks reported garner only a single article in the Israeli media. This is clearly not one of them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an incident, not encyclopedic. btw, could someone reinstall my page cellar flooding in my house in mainspace? My local newspaper was very expanding on it. A scanned copy anyone? -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, long time no see. Where have you been? I think that incident in your home would be NN. In contrast, this event has been picked up by the international media. --Shuki (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

long time no see? Instead of soft tracking me, you could have come over and help cleaning up. The whole neighborhood had the problem, you know. -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't have a separate article for each missile attack against Israel, and rightly so. However, this one is very different because it involved a cross-sovereign attack, which is, as manifested by the sources had far greater and long term ramifications then anything else that may be considered wp:notnews.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Takabeg (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone fires rockets at two peaceful cities and kills a civilian. Of course it's notable.Josh02138 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian deaths are always unfortunate and many are covered by the media, but Wikipedia criteria for inclusion is more than news coverage. (note: The incident is already listed in the extensive and current List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010) --Jmundo (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Plot Spoiler that there has been a broad level of reporting on this one and there were fatalities. It is part of a larger picture. If we don't keep the parts we will have a picture with parts missing. KantElope (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Llewellyn-Waters[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Notability tests. Chris (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for entertainers. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Racism. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race baiting[edit]

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

Definition/dictionary cohesion 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by not dictionary. This is an old-fashioned term which I have not heard for years. The definition given is rather vague and I'm not sure if the examples are relevant.Borock (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICDEF applies. ~~Also, only one of the sources provided includes the term "race baiter" exactly once; thus, I'm inclined to believe the majority of the article appears to be synthesis.~~ --Kinu ^t/_c 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and improve. Google news and google news archives return hundreds of examples of the term going back decades, is clearly notable. --George100 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and improve. This term is heavily used in the social and political sciences today, and has historical value extending back 100+ years. • Freechild'sup? 15:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's about the term then it belongs in Wiktionary. Borock (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a historical class of behaviors. --George100 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main source cited in the article, a dictionary, defines race baiting as: "the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group." I agree with you that this is a historical class of behaviors. in fact people were probably doing it in prehistoric times. But what are you going to say about it beyond that? Borock (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Select good examples from the hundreds that are readily available. 2.) Locate good sociological studies that explain the concept and explain what the term means (These are difficult to find). --George100 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm amending my justification as the examples and non-sources appear to have been removed. Nonetheless, the only content of this article now is an unsourced definition which may still fall under synthesis and, at best, WP:DICDEF. The term is of encyclopedic value, I'm fairly certain, for an article; however, right now this article basically states race baiting is [insert unsourced/possibly OR definition here], and Glenn Beck uses the term. In other words, what's present is not an encyclopedic article about the topic of race baiting at the moment. Keep and improve could be a possible course of action, but given the lack of anything sourced in this article, WP:TNT might apply here unless an editor can, at the very least, amend and source the definition soon. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The article needs improvement, but the subject is notable and part of the ethnic studies research as shown by in the Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies and Race, politics, and governance in the United States. --Jmundo (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Race baiting seems to be a form of Racism, so merge there.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable. I'm concerned that a simple keep will leave us with a lingering neutrality problem for years. - cohesion 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to race card. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same thing. --George100 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve. A well practiced and continuing art among racists of all stripes. Just watch the words of the racist politicians for any length of time. Hmains (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. This is a notable term, which deserves to be included in Wikipedia, but I don't think there's enough to say about it to justify a separate article (that goes beyond a dicdef). I would agree with merging into Race card, as Bearian suggests - while not quite the same thing, they do seem to cover very similar topics with a considerable amount of overlap, which would be best covered in the same article. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further reading, perhaps George100 is right that 'race card' and 'race baiting' are distinct topics. In that case, maybe this should just be merged to Racism; I just noticed that Muslim baiting redirects to Islamophobia, so we could do the same here. Robofish (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pemberton Square[edit]

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

Non-notable, no non-trivial secondary coverage found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub about a non-notable shopping mall. Maybe could have been speedied since it doesn't even claim notability - much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NOTNEWS is still a policy and it still trumps N Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 West Bank shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - this is an "article" on a single news story, a news story that admittedly is covered by many news sources, but that is true of nearly every news story. WP:NOT is clear that such news stories do not merit articles. Nableezy - 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy - 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy - 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a notable event, with repercussions for the peace process. The over use of AFD's for conspicuously notable events become a form of time wasting.AMuseo (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But if we have to go through this process, this AFD shold be listed in terrorism related AFD's.AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When a news event happens, AMuseo, and you find yourself with the urge to write a news article complete with what early reports by Agence France Presse say, why do you not first reach for Wikinews instead of Wikipedia? That's exactly the sort of immediate reaction, that an article is needed whenever a news event happens, that Wikinews wants. Uncle G (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is yet another news article. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non notable news article, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS as above, one-off news-of-the-day, no assertion of historical significance or impact. Better suited for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. Editors seem to need a brushing-up on WP:RECENTISM, as well. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important that Hamas actually claims responsibility. Sicne Hamas is the defacto ruler in Gaza, this is in fact a declaration of war. per category Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010 Peculiar that the nom has singled out only these three Palestinian attacks and not any of the many other similar articles in the top level and sub-categories. This seems to be larger than one event, and should instead get some RfC instead. --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basing a "keep" on personal opinion while casting aspersions on the nominator's motivations does not a sound argument make. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - News story. The notability bar for creation of new anti-Palestinian stories should be a high one in light of the recent well-publicized efforts to train and unleash POV editors on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that this article is necessarily part of that campaign, or its creator one of its participants, only that we should hold ALL new articles on the overheated Israel-Palestine topic to the very highest standards for inclusion. This one doesn't get over the bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "anti-Palestinian" is an odd objection to an article that cites the Palestinian Authority's condemnation of an attack by Hamas and concerns that the peace process may be derailed by a Hamas-sponsored attack. Hamas, whatever else it is, is not co-extensive with the Palestinian people.AMuseo (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the content of the creator's first edit: The 31 August 2010 West Bank shooting was a Palestinian terror attack near Kiryat Arba, in which four Israelis, one of the them a pregnamt women, were shot multiple times until they died.[1] Quack quack. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure news story, and thus doesn't belong to Wikipedia, at least in its current form (WP:NOTNEWS). DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is notable as it was the deadliest attack in more than 2 years, and the one that occurred on the day of the start of direct negotiations. - BorisG (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Calling this article "anti-Palestinian" implies collective guilt and is morally wrong. - BorisG (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no indication of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Shuki and BorisG. Notable as part of ongoing event/phenomenon, Hamas claims responsibility, deadliest attack against Israelis in 2 years. Significant media coverage of event as attempt to derail peace talks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a well-sourced article on a notable terror attack. Wikipedia has space to retain articles on notable events, in addition to articles on the broader conflicts of which they are part. As long as such articles are NPOV, I see no reason to delete. In fact, I wish we had many more individual articles on particular battles, diplomatic incidents, and attacks on civilians, because these enable readers to click and learn about a specific incident in depth, and adds a great deal to what we can provide in articles on the larger struggle of which they are part. See, for example, my recent article on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet. It is a small example in the context of the larger topic of Clandestine churches, an article on which I recently did a major rewrite and expansion. The article on clandestine churches must, in turn, be placed in the context of the Reformation. Several users argue for putting all terror attacks in a region into one large article. Following this logic, we could eliminate my articles on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and Clandestine churches and redirect everything to Reformation. But, can we understand the Reformation without understanding the phenomenon of clandestine churches? or understand what a clandestine church was without a small article showing us how Catholic churches had to be camouflaged to look like barns? Similarly, can we understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Islamist movement without understanding that it includes attacks on civilians? And can we understand the nature of those attacks without small articles that explain in some detail the nature of particular attacks? I argue that we cannot. And that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it enables us to take our level of understanding both up to the mega level of the Reformation, Islamism, or Hamas and also to turn up the magnification for a close look at St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and a shooting of Israeli civilians as they drove along a road. This is Wikipedia's great strength. It lets us do something that is difficult to do in a book or in any other literary or reference form. Let us not destroy this strength by deleting good articles on sub-topics.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that construction started 2 days after this terror incident on sites across the West Bank in violation of the freeze as a direct, political response to this shooting attack.AMuseo (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article more suitable for Wikinews. --Jmundo (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. this is an "article" on a single news story, a news story that admittedly is covered by many news sources, but that is true of nearly every news story. WP:NOT is clear that such news stories do not merit articles. The fact that something is in the news does not constitute evidence that it fails WP:NOTNEWS, obviously. This isn't a deletion nomination, it's an excercise in syllogistic fallacies. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out this similar AfD. In fact, no one even injured in that incident, thank God, yet virtual unanimous consensus for keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ISAWITALLDAYONCNN herd mentality. Also, I note well over a half-dozen of the keep calls are on completely invalid grounds ("keep its notable", "keep it's harmless", no reason given at all, etc...), so it isn't as lopsided as it appears. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Glad to see the POV mobs rushing to remove the article in its infancy. The event is unique because it is the first attack during the peace process, and is the most deadly in recent years. See Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai and Tapuah junction stabbing for precedents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Other articles do exist" is not a solid argument for deletion neither the name calling (POV mobs). FYI: The result of the AfD for Tapuah junction stabbing resulted in no consensus so it defaulted to keep. --Jmundo (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Otherstuff" does not apply. The articles mentioned above are identical to this article. It is the same type of event, probably more important and notable considering the loads of attention it has received and recognition by the PA, Hamas, Israel, USA, etc. It is not a token event in an otherwise peaceful Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a notable and reliably sourced article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of these "I <3 WP:RECENTISM" articles. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not every attack in this conflict is notable, but this one is, as it was widely reported and created a great deal of speculation about how it may affect the new peace process. Robofish (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With peace talks starting in Washington, Hamas murders innocent people in order to derail them, and brags about it. Of course it's notable.Josh02138 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we going to close this?
Speedy keep. Notable, this article is --69.201.145.140 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, please provide a rationale behind your !vote. This is not a poll. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been noted a number of times, this was the deadliest attack in more than 2 years and there is much discussion as to how or whether it will effect peace negotiations. KantElope (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you see what it says with your WP:CRYSTALBALL? —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall (Louisiana)[edit]

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

Absolutely no non-trivial coverage found. Malls are held to WP:GNG, which this fails. Only hits on Gnews are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no reliable sources and fails GNG. Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub about a non-notable mall. No significant sourcing. Possibly could have been speedied since it doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall (Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

Only online sources I could find were trivial. One chronicling the closure of Boscov's stores but noting that Clearview's remained open; one denoting that it was one of several Ames stores to be retenanted, et cetera. There are several hits on Gnews but almost all are trivial or just plain advertisements. Seems to fail notability for shopping malls, which are generally held to WP:GNG because there are no other specifics for mall notability. Article was originally very spammy, trivia-laden and coatracky before I removed most of it and got falsely accused of vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various news hits [30] but they are trivial, mostly passing mentions in connection with a store opening/closing, a sale, or a crime. Nothing about the mall itself which seems quite non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by JamesBWatson. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Tones[edit]

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

How do we know this is notable? For that matter, how do we know this is not a hoax? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. No assertion of notability whatsoever. The band is "as yet unknown vintage"... it pretty much asserts its non-notability. That is some awesome hair on that album cover, though... --Kinu ^t/_c 04:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: A1. Appears legitimately tagged per below as having no context. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic essay[edit]

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

Very short, unreferenced, and does not show notability at all. In my opinion, every article on wikipedia should answer this question; so what? JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to speedy delete as A1. Other than that, delete per nom and above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources adduced do not seem to have swayed the direction of the debate or other active participants Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. T. Mathew[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to show that the subject exists, which is a pity because if he does, he passes WP:PROFESSOR. Extensively searched Google News Archive and Google Books to no avail and the websites of Caldicut Medical College, Government Dental College, Caldicut and University of Caldicut make no mention of him. Without a reference this WP:BLP cannot be kept, hopfully someone else will have more luck than me. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Which category of WP:Prof does he pass? I can't find a single citation. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

answer: five, he had a Chair appointment (according to the article) at the University of Caldicut, but I agree with you, without sources he does not pass. J04n(talk page) 09:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially all information in the article fails WP:V. No evidence of satisfying either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The subject apparently satisfies criterion #6 of WP:PROF as he held the position of the director of a notable academic institution. However, none of the material, including the directorship is verifiable. I am willing to reconsider my !vote if somebody comes up with sources. Salih (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak keep in the light of the source unearthed by Msrasnw. Weak because the large portion of the article is still unverifiable and hence WP:OR. Salih (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if sources existed it would be hard to overcome the barrier of zero citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mean to give you a hard time, especially because we agree that the article should be deleted, but if sources existed we could add citations. J04n(talk page) 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Directorship of Dental School: On DENTAL EDUCATION IN KERALA. we have this .. College was shifted to the new building in 1984.Dr C.T. Mathew was appointed as Director of Calicut Dental College.In 1984 Dr B.R.R.Varma was transferred back to Trivandrum as the Director of the Dental College. is on the site: http://www.idakerala.org/historydentaledu.php. Hard too find much else - but his Directorship of a Dental School is now cited albeit rather briefly. Is this Directorship sufficient for WP:Prof 6 The person has held a major highest-level appointed academic post at an academic institution? (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

comment, good work finging something, I tried and came up with nothing. Don't think being a director paases muster but let's see if anyone else is swayed. J04n(talk page) 15:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I can't find much else, I think the citation for Directorship of Calicut Dental College - can be judged sufficent to pass WP:Prof #6. By my reading of the article Prof Mathew seems highly notable within Keralan Dentistry: Head of the Department of Dentistry, founder-director of the Dental College, Professor of Post-Graduate studies in A.B. Shetty Institute of Dental Sciences, member of the Dental council of India and President of the Kerala Dental Council. I guess that most of his achievments are recorded in pre-internet sources in India and most of us would have difficulty in accessing these. These would all seem verifiable in principle. By my reading of WP:V not everything need actually be attributed. WP:V requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs sources. I guess my argument would be we have enough to satisfy WP:Prof #6 and that the rest is OK unless we have editors who wish challenge the truth of the rest of the claims and they should have requests for citations for those bits or that those bits (but not the whole article) be deleted. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment, as the nominator I am not opposed to the article being kept with the source found by Msrasnw. However, I think it's too borderline a case to withdraw my nomination. J04n(talk page) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another two possible refs: There are a couple of refs for a Prof CT Mathew being prinicpal of another HE institute: "Between 1981 - 86 Prof CT Mathew was Principal of the Mar Thoma College, Tiruvalla" this is a Christian educational establishment. And we have (or had) a claim in the article that our CT Mathew was active in the Keralan Christian community. Is it the same person? It seems possible if it were a part time post - but I am not convinced and guess there might have been - be two Prof. C T Mathews.

Refs:

http://www.marthomacollege.org/aboutus/profile.htm
Commonwealth universities yearbook, Volume 3 Association of Commonwealth Universities, Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth Association of Commonwealth Universities., 1986 p1627

PS we might need two C. T. Mathew's pages (not one or none :) )

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

* PPS These look almost certainly like another CT Mathew - so perhaps I might/ought to strike them from here. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have taken a look at the sources, but this case is still a solid delete, IMO. WP:PROF#6 is really meant for higher positions, like a university president/chancellor. Sometimes this criterion could be used for lower level positions (e.g. a Provost at a major university), but there would have to be significant evidence of additional coverage in such cases. The sources found by Msrasnw contain very brief mentions and a rather small amount of verifiable information, plus it is not even clear that some of these sources really refer to the subject of the article. For a truly notable academic (or even a notable academic administrator) there would be some additional evidence of their impact apart from the fact of having held some post - at least some amount of citability of their scholarly work, some news-coverage, etc. Here we do not have any of that at all. With so little verifiable information, I do not believe that a biographical article is justified here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, let me quote from Item 13 in WP:PROF#Notes and examples: "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to satisfy Criterion 6, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." This seems directly on point here: being the head of the Dental College within Calicut Medical College is essentially a Dean-level position and so it does not qualify for WP:PROF#6. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite the items dug up by the conscientious research of Msrasnw my delete still stands. The Dental College is too obscure an institution to count for WP:Prof #6. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think, the Dental College, Calicut is not that obscure. It is the second Dental College established by the Government of Kerala,[31] a state of about 30 million population. Salih (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time C.T.Mathew was there, the college was not an independent college but a department and then a school within the Calicut Medical College. This comes from the homepage of the Dental College itself where its history is explained:[32]. It says there that it was first a "a small department of Dentistry at Calicut Medical College" started in 1969, expanded to "a Dental wing with four specialties in 1974". Then "a B.D.S.Course was started with thirty students in the year 1982." Then "In 1986, the first B.D.S students graduated from this institution" and "Recognition of B.D.S Degree of University of Calicut was granted from September 1986 onwards." According to the C. T. Mathew article, he retired in 1988. The Dental College site says that: "In 1996 the dental college was given independent status with its on principal and complete office setup. Full administrative powers were delegated only in 2001.". So by the time C.T.Mathew retired as its head in 1988, the Dental Colllege was still a division of the Calicut Medical College, and its head would have had a Dean-level position, at most. Moreover, this was a small division, as the Dental College webpage goes on to say[33]: "In 1996, the number of B.D.S seats was increased from thirty to forty" - that is really small. This kind of position is not at all what WP:PROF#6 has in mind; see a quote from tem 13 in WP:PROF#Notes and examples above:"Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to satisfy Criterion 6, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." Moreover, apart from issues of notability, essentially all information in the C. T. Mathew article is unverifiable and fails WP:V and has no sources at all, not even self-published ones. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of these facts, and was not arguing a case for C. T. Mathew. I just, wanted to state that the Dental College, Calicut is not an obscure institution, at least at present. Salih (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Dental College seems notable in Kerala and via his work like that he seems to have got Membership of the Dental council of India and Presidency of the Kerala Dental Council and I think these would seem his most important achievements but sadly these are as yet unsourced. But do we doubt these? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

We doubt nothing. We merely require claims to be sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Another minor thing: There is a little article in The Hindu Tuesday, Mar 13, 2007 Reviewing our CT Mathew's translating of the Sebastian book - http://hindu.com/2007/03/13/stories/2007031301910200.htm - The only bits are :English translation of the memoirs of P.J. Sebastian, who was a frontline activist in social and political struggles in 1930s, has been brought out by C.T. Mathew, the former Director of Government Dental College in Kozhikode. Dr. Mathew has added a short general history of the period when Sebastian was active in politics and public life. "This would lead to better understanding, especially for those who are not well-acquainted with Kerala history"(Msrasnw (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Another potentially useful but problematic ref: How about this http://pullamkalam.net/PJS_autobiography.pdf On page 10 it has a brief biography of our Prof Mathew including all the major details - including Presidency of the Kerala Dental Council. The book is MY LIFE - AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY - P. J. Sebastian published by Pullamkalam Family Fraternity - Perumpanachy P.O., Changanassery - 686536 - Kerala, India First Published in Malayalam : May 1973 Tranalsated into English September 2006 by C T Mathew. Although to some degree self published it seems to have been reviewed by The Hindu (see above) which might allow us to give it some credence! (Msrasnw (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

* Another little publication:Jacob PP, Mathew CT. Occlusal pattern study of school children of Trivandrum City. J Ind Dent Assoc 1969;41:271-4. - Citd by Doifode VV, Ambadekar NN, Lanewar AG. Assessment of oral health status and its association with some epidemiological factors in population of Nagpur, India. Indian J Med Sci 2000;54:261-9 and THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DENTAL OCCLUSION: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL John D. Jago LDS, MDSc Journal of Public Health Dentistry Volume 34, Issue 2, pages 80–93, June 1974 (Msrasnw (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Even the nominator thought he'd be notable if it could be shown he existed, and that much has clearly been shown. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that someone exist and the existence of that person is verifiable does not make them notable. The nominator is unfamiliar with WP:PROF, as the discussion above fairly clearly demonstrates. The subject clearly does not qualify for WP:PROF#6, and there is no evidence of citability of his work (let alone anything like significant citability) required for WP:PROF#1. Absent that, we only have WP:BIO and WP:N to go by, but among the sources found by Msrasnw there are just a few brief mentions of the subject and nothing coming even close to significant and specific coverage of him. Moreover, essentially all information in the article (apart from having been the Director of the Dental College, which is a one sentence worth of information) still fails WP:V and is not based on any kind of sources, not even self-published ones, and not even sources failing WP:RS. There is simply nothing. I just don't see how keeping this article could possibly be justified under these circumstances, especially given that this is a BLP article where the sourcing really needs to be adequate. Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: This source [34] (which as argued above seems credible) argues that "The major part of his career was spent in Calicut where he began as Head of the Department of Dentistry. The department of dentistry underwent systematic expansion and became a full-fledged dental college with graduate and post graduate dental training of which he was founder" Is this leading the Gov Dental college to independece and then to the Uni/Medial School. If so this seems to me possible evidence of WP:Prof6 it also refers to his membership of the Dental Council of India and his Presidency of the Kerala Dental Council and was also member of the National Board of Dentistry- which might be evidence of WP:Prof 7 or WP:Prof 3 depending on interpretation. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. There is another AfD debate on the article Proof by verbosity. I have recommended a keep there as the process is not uncommon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Galneryus. I am only going to close this about "The Flag of Punishment", as clear concensus for the other albums has not been established - although new AfDs are welcome on those should someone want to do so. The consensus is that this album does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article - however, rather than deleting, I am going to redirect it to the band's article, as this would seem more helpful to users of Wikipedia than a "hole"! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag of Punishment and others[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Article on a non-notable album; it does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NALBUMS--it is little more than a tracklisting, and there seem to be no references in existence (searching for Google Web doesn't help). Considering the recent history, I thought I'd bring it to AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP below correctly points out that the band's other albums suffer from the same lack of notability: Advance to the Fall, Beyond the End of Despair..., One for All – All for One, Reincarnation (Galneryus album), Resurrection (Galneryus album). Does anyone know how to add those? BTW, I note that they seem to get more optimistic in their album titles as time goes by; there may be hope yet for the world. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Never heard of them--intelati 02:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither have I, but that is not usually an accepted reason for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, and WP:N. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any evidence that these two albums charted on Oricon, but I do find their site a bit hard to navigate and I have failed to find such evidence before. (Haven't checked the others.) Per WP:MUSIC, the SOP in this case is to merge the albums up to the band (which is indeed notable by WP:MUSIC C5) -- and that's what I endorse: merge to Galneryus. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ETA clarification: this comment was made when only The Flag of Punishment and Advance to the Fall were on the ticket, and applies only to them -- am withholding comment on the later additions for the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've tried doing that and had it reverted. It's my preferred way of dealing with non-notable songs/albums, but fans seem to resist such efforts... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes it takes an AfD to enforce such a merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reaching #161 isn't really notable. みんな空の下 (トーク) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm neither a fan of this band nor totally familiar with the notability criteria applied to music albums, but we have two albums in this bundle (Resurrection (Galneryus album) and One for All – All for One) that have had tracks/singles used for TV theme tunes, and it looks like three of the band's albums had covers designed by the well-known Japanese designer/illustrator Yoshitaka Amano. Is the bar for album notability so high that such album articles all get thrown out with the bathwater because they have been bundled together for deletion? Incidentally, I have added the Oricon rankings to each album article, and while the band's first album only reached #161, later albums ranked higher, with their most recent one (Resurrection (Galneryus album)) ranking #35. Is that still not high enough? Hmmm... --DAJF (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't think that the cover designer really affects the notability unless the cover gets noted in reliable sources. Being used for TV themes and charting above a certain level, which I'd peg as around #40 in a market as large as Japan, sound like markers of notability to me. That said, currently the guideline for albums is the general notability guidelines, which means that a charted album can make a band notable but not the album itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Charting is not necessary for album notability, per WP:ALBUMS. It is a necessary for songs (assuming they don't meet WP:N or have multiple covers), but not for albums. Rlendog (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." That the article is currently little more than a track listing is not a reason to delete per WP:NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." I would not necessarily object to a merge, and see absolutely no rationale why there should not be at least a redirect, but delete seems inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Authors Limited[edit]

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

The article appears to fail WP:ORG. Isabel Atherton seems fairly synonymous with the company and there might be an argument to create a BLP based on the Google News and book mention matches for her. Agency organizations do not get automatic notability conferred by the fact that they may, at times, represent notable people. Matches in Google News and Google Books are tangential, normally in passing reference whilst talking about an author. Consequently there are a lack of independent sources available to demonstrate significant impact or impact on the historic record. Raising for discussion rather than PROD due to multiple authors involved and prior speedy already removed. Fæ (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of notability. The only reference given is to the company's own web site, and the external links are all either likewise not independent, or make only passing reference to the company, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Association with notable writers would count in its favour, but that doesn't sufficiently compensate for the near-nonexistent coverage in third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep -- It may be useful as a list of authors represetned by this agency. Since the proprietor does not have an article, we cannot easily redirect to her. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of third party sources does it for me. Also, I'm not sure that many of the people represented are either authors or notable (check the wikilinks) - if they were literary heavyweights it might be different. Chris (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passarola[edit]

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

90% obvious nonsense ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is my first AfD - hope I got the process right. In any event, the article makes absurd factual claims - there may be room for some of the content if sources can be found, but only in an article dealing with 'historic mythical flying machines' or something. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my first thought was that this article was an obvious WP:HOAX. Looking into it further, it may in fact be an off-wiki hoax. Redirect to Azhar Abidi or Bartolomeu de Gusmão, perhaps? The article at present is written from an "in-world" perspective, but if reliable sources can be found, it may well warrant a stand-alone article. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hoax, people. Don't confuse the historical account on the claimed invention of the Passarola with a book written around it. For what it's worth, I have even watched a TV docu on the Passorala a few years ago. My vote for merge is based on the fact that there is little and poor information in the current article (thinking of that, it should be a redirect... changing to). However, there is clearly historical/literary interest in this. See, for example: MIT Library/Veil Collection, Princeton historical outline (which calls the Passarola a glider), and many other literary sources. Nageh (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly a hoax as currently written due to absurd claims — first plane to fly...may have been akin to a balloon. If there is an authentic historical article buried under all this silliness, it needs to be restarted from the ground up... Carrite (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is a reliable article. The name passarola is linked to to Gusmão. Google books has a number of books where the name is discussed in association with Gusmão. The Italian WP also has an article naming the craft as The Passarola, and is written by a different editor. There is this site, [Anniversary] article which describes it 2009 as the anniversary year of the passarola. That is a well respected organisation, and I don't think they would put up an hoax support page. I think this should be kept for the meantime to determine if real sources can be found. scope_creep (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link fail there, could you put that one up again? Carrite (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Redirect into Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Read up Early flying machines for/against claims presented in the lead. Nageh (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Registering my formal vote (while agreeing that some, but not much, of the content could be merged per above if someone is keen) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) - Delete with redirect makes sense. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per Nageh. East of Borschov 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read my comments including sources above? Notability of the term is clearly provided, so even if we decide to delete the current text we should at least redirect to Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Nageh (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bartolomeu de Gusmão which already seems to cover the topic well enough.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article had been tidied up and references added towards the end of the original listing, and previous contributors had the opportunity to either confirm or change their recommendation. However, this AfD was kept open for a week after the changes, with no changes. As such, the consensus remains to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Kamen[edit]

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

This isn't a very strong opinion but I generally am averse to BLPs of marginal notability. This guy seems to be a well-known session musician who has worked with many major live and recording artists, but hasn't been a band member or released any work individually so he doesn't seem to pass the music biography notability guidelines. I'm not convinced he passes the general notability guideline either, as coverage in other sources is usually just to note that the support musician for a band on a tour is Chester Kamen, or that the session musician on a recording was Chester Kamen. TheGrappler (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly slightly contrary to what I have written, he may for a time have been a member with the band Uropa Lula although the biography article does not make this entirely clear. TheGrappler (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Kamen although the fact that he has played with several notable artists is certainly verifiable. I just don't think there's enough for an article, although if coverage directly of him could be found that would be a different matter. The possible Uropa Lula membership doesn't add anything in my view - there's little claim of real notability in that band's article and the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired (a forum, discogs/similar site, other wiki articles, and an online shop).--Michig (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO completly. scope_creep (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played on major albums and major tours. Music notability guidelines are silent on band members of 'solo acts', but there is some precedence for recognising session musicians. That said, without a doubt, the article needs improvement. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've done some cleaning-up of the article and added a couple of citations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I expand on my earlier "keep"? Having worked on the article some more, I feel stronger that Kamen is notable. WP:BAND #6 says, "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Kamen has been a member of multiple notable ensembles, including a band member of Uropa Lula, part of Roger Waters' touring band, a long-running role in Bryan Ferry's band (touring, recording and writing material), and multiple session appearances (including UK multi-Platinum releases with Robbie Williams and Gabrielle). The WP:BAND language does not say it only applies when someone is an official band member of a named band (as with Uropa Lula). It seems to me the wording there can include a regular role in a 'solo' act's backing band (Ferry, Waters) or even session work (Williams, Gabrielle, Massive Attack, Madonna). WP:BAND #2, #3, #4, #5 and #11 all apply to recordings featuring Kamen, even if they were not released as by Kamen. The article content is all verifiable, as Michig acknowledges. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beneva Flowers[edit]

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

Article does not meet nobility based on sources giving. Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}]] 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not enough sources, the ones I found were related to Beneva Corporation, which seems to sponsor this flower shop. That article was created by the same author and g11ed. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 01:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spammy, but has received quite a bit of coverage, including some mentions in books (the first seems to be siginificant coverage, not sure about the last as the preview doesn't let me see it). They've appeared to have won some "top 25 in the US" prize more than once, from Teleflora, so it seems fairly notable with the coverage. —fetch ·comms 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fetchcomms. It just needs a clean-up. Diego Grez (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaveOMac. I thought I had enough sources to make this article valuable. Also Beneva Corporation was the company name that was created to group all of Beneva Flowers companies and divisions under. The term is no longer used as a company and I believe does not exist in any form anymore. User:DaveOMac (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Second book was made by the Ceo Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}]] 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I made the Beneva Corp article but I had no idea what I was doing then and realized it was done all wrong. After about a year of seeing if I had it clear how to write buisness articles I tried again more appropriately.User:DaveOMac (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability, as far as florists go. -- œ ^™ 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Octix by Aeternitas827, with redirect left behind deleted by JamesBWatson, so this AfD is now moot. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Octix[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Google search brings up mostly download pages and press releases. Prod tag removed by IP without comment. ... discospinster _talk 01:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Best I could is this which does not seem to be a reliable source. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - I'm not done writing this article. Is there a way to make this private so I can edit it before my ambition gets blown to pieces? Leodorain (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the games own creators are not a good enough source for information, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetern142 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Incubator; article isn't 24h old yet, and a cursory search indicates the article may be able to pass given work, and the author has given indication of doing so; I say give it a chance before it's cut.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of moving it to the incubator, however I won't be able to do this. According to wikipedia, in order for me to move an article I would need to have my account for four days Moving an Article. I just recently made this account. The only option I can think of now is to drag everything I've got and put it aside. I'm afraid of what will happen to my current article. Seems like it'll be deleted, but I'm wondering, can I re-post the article? Is that against the so-called "rules"?
Thanks for your support Aetern. I really appreciate it! :) Leodorain (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with that, given the circumstances; is there any objection for going this route (at least for the time being?)Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"is there any objection..." I don't see any reason why I shouldn't do this so there are no objections. Leodorain (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-reading, I'm going to say that consensus isn't a need on this sort of move, as it is a viable alternative to deletion. I'll undertake the move momentarily.Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete, now located here. Nearing my end of night, however, when I have a chance I'll take a peek and see if I can help out with improvement. Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team LayCool[edit]

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

They are not notable as team. There is no tag team championship for divas, and no significant accomplishments as team. The creator of the article has possible conflict of interest. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a google search revealed some decent sources demonstrating notability; I'll add these to the article in a moment. This includes this, this, this, and this. Strong evidence that this meets WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as a team. Stub article that any relevant information could(and should) easily go in the respective article. Spoke shook (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided multiple sources which show that the team has received media attention, and a google search yields several more; I'm not sure I see how the team is non-notable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources you provided: WWE.com is a primary source, divadirt is not a reliable source, zimbio is a video of a match, and skysports is the website for a channel that airs WWE, so I'm not sure it can be considered a "reliable source that is independent of the subject". A Google News search only provides more of the same. Nikki♥311 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are produced by the team, so none of them are actually primary sources, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the official website of WWE? That's like saying the official website of a television show is not a primary source for the characters on the show. Nikki♥311 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have a point there; still, Sky Sports is certainly independent. I also found a news article which mentioned a newsletter as its source and I'm trying to hunt down the newsletter (the news article was on what appeared to be a peer-reviewed site so isn't much use in itself). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my reasoning above. The team is not independently notable of the individual wrestlers. Nikki♥311 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable as a team. Being "Co-Champions" with the Women's title is a special feat. With the upcoming Unification match, they may even prove to be the LAST Women's Champions. Definitely worth inclusion. There've also been a few other title reigns within the group. The idea that because there's no women's tag team championship, when championships are just props in pro wrestling, means that a women's tag team can't be noteworthy is ridiculous. Again, I reiterate, keep. Josh (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please let's remember that we are talking about choreographed entertainment here, not sport, so the web sites of the promoter and the televisor are certainly not independent, and any position of champion or co-champion is simply a theatrical role, not a personal achievement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This team has only been together s short while, and with the nature of modern "sports entertainment" may well have other storyline partners/friends/whatever soon. Remember also that Chris Jericho and Chyna were co-Intercontinental Champion for a while, but there's no page for them. Until they can establish some sort of REAL notability, there does not seem reason to have a separate article. Any relevant information can be placed in their respective articles. This isn't the wrestling wiki,a it's Wikipedia, and articles on every teaming or storyline in wrestling history does seem to be going overboard. Spoke shook (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 analysis of the sources shows it comes up short on N so the consensus of this discussion is that this does not meet our inclusion criteria Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New Pantagruel[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think this blog with a two year run fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. The purported NY Times recognition mentioned in the second paragraph (as of the Afd insertion) gave me pause (link here). Upon reading the NY Times article, though, it turns out to be not much more than a mention of the website as one of several examples of a phenomenon without any discussion of the website itself--far too minimal to constitute even one instance of significant/non-trivial coverage coverage, let alone the multiple required. I can't think of any other route through which it meets notability. Novaseminary (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 4-5 year run, depends when you start counting. The founders began working on it as Re:Generation Quarterly was in its last year. It was a carryover from that in some ways. Googling TNP shows its place among certain significant ongoing discussions of religion, culture and politics on webzines and blogs. If you look at the contributors and editors, and their ongoing careers, many of them are still within the mainstream of conservative reformed, evangelical, and catholic publications of this type. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.22.193.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yeah, 5 years online, 3 years of producing articles: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://newpantagruel.com And it's been the subject of an MA thesis [35] that argues TNP had significance although the original editors and contributors might have found this a bit absurd. Why not ask them and some of the other people and publications about TNP's impact or significance? See the list: http://web.archive.org/web/20071129231954/www.newpantagruel.com/about.php While Fr. Neuhaus is no longer living, David Goldman [36] at First Things used to correspond with the TNP eds when he was "Spengler" at the Asia Times Online. [37] Goldman, like many other people, learned of Stegall and TNP thought Dreher's Crunchy Cons book, which gave attention to both. [38] Jonah Goldberg and others at the NRO spent a month debating Stegall and Dreher on a special site [39] which NRO has since deleted. (Goldberg hated and continues to hate the whole anti-neocon young crunchy theocon stuff, or whatever you call it.) Dreher would be a good guy to ask about TNP, obviously. [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.193.136 (talk • contribs)

Comment Asking people for their take on the importance of an organization is not something we do on Wikipedia; it violates WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on what we call [[WP:RS|reliable sources] (WP:RS). That is not to say that any particular person is or is not reliable, but we don't do the kind of original research that reporters do. We leave it to them (reporters, academic journals, government statistics, etc.) to do th e original research, then summarize it on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you can read their testimonials on the archived "about" page. The citations and people mentioned above--a book, eds of other publications, the ongoing careers of the contribs, and the thesis are pretty good creds. You can download the first chunk of the thesis for free, which argues the significance and notability of TNP which had to be justified to a committee of religion and am studies profs at a state university... Have you checked that out? I can't think of any other "blogs" that without any money ran a publication with so many academics and others with serious creds -- and just good writing anyway. Too bad the visual art has been lost. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be relevant for WP:N purposes, the sources need to be independent of the subject. Novaseminary (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many of them are in the comments above now. Check the thesis as well, since it spends its opening chapter making the case for significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Caleb Stegall. Although this article goes into excessive detail, it looks like there might be a few sentences that could be constructively added to the article about its founder.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a strong objection to that since there does seem to have been one person (him) driving the site. I would be concerned with redirecting it to a particular person's article if several WP:N people had the same level of input (But several notable people having input into something is more likely to make that thing notable for its own article anyway). Novaseminary (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea? Stegall and about 3-5 others at various times were actively involved with its production, as editors, to say nothing of the contributors and forum flies. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the article itself (of course it is unsourced, so take it for what it is worth): "Caleb Stegall was tNP's editor-in-chief for the duration of the journal's existence." I am still fine deleting it, since the blog fails WP:WEB. But, I would not object to a redirect per WP:R. As an aside, I have no idea whether you were or not, but if you (67.22.193.136) were associated with the blog or its editors, please take a look at WP:COI. In addition, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD for more on how to most constructively engage in these deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unsourced. Look at the webarchives. Stegall was clearly the ed in chief the whole way. Every publication that has an editor in chief has only one, but that does not imply they are the primary force behind it. That is a very contrived and false crypto-objection--really a biased assertion you made, that it was a "blog" with essentially a single author. That willful disregard for objective, sourced fact calls your objectivity and motivations into question. The thesis and references it supplies and the Dreher book alone satisfy the first notability criterion. The third is arguably satisfied by the fact that things in TNP were republished in notable books, magazines, and its authors were concurrently editors, contributors and authors involved with the other more mainstream publications TNP was in dialogue with... That distinguishes TNP from most blogs or webzines. Keep in mind too it always had a marginal identity and mission, to critique and be outside the mainstream of its logical peers. This too is covered in the thesis. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody else is mentioned in the article as being a driving force behind the blog. And only one other "person" is named as an author or editor, and that was a nom de plume (Fr. Jape), according to the article. The limited RS coverage there is seems to refer to it as Stegall's blog or the like. For example, the New York Times article – the only RS cited in the article-- notes that he was its founder and goes on to discuss him briefly (if not the blog). I understand the blog had multiple authors and editors. Don’t get me wrong, I still prefer to delete the article without a redirect. I was merely indicating that I do not have a strong objection to redirecting this article to the former EIC/founder of the blog. As for the thesis, was the thesis published? Has it ever been cited? The author indicates in the beginning his relationship with a writer for the blog and its editor (and notes on page 4: "Though lack of time kept me from substantial criticism more than any other factors, I believe I made the right decision to prioritize an appreciative reading over a critical one..."). He also writes on page 7 that the blog "was just a blip on the cultural radar" and on page ten that "... TNP was not well known and has not been the subject of scholarly research...". He seems to be advocating a position (that this blog represents a notable example of a certain technique). How widely this has been accepted since the author published the MA thesis in June is unknown. Novaseminary (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are very odd assertions, coming from a standpoint of substantial ignorance. A thesis either is or is not a reliable source. Obviously it is one, and the academic and journalistic professions accept it as such. Your personal review of whether a specific thesis is reliable or not is quite irrelevant to the matter. To be correct, you would be impugning the judgment of a committee of 3-4 experts in religious studies and american studies at a state university. (The thesis describes a bit better who the driving forces were, but obviously there was a large contributor and editor base, along with the technical support such a production would require.) The thesis was published in the sense they all are: you can download them, get them on some type of media via interlibrary loan, etc. Has it been the basis for a printed book or article? One would have to research that question to find out. Quick web searches and a little reading are hardly an exhaustive quest for the available sources on any topic, especially if it's of academic interest. Universities and their media have been resistant to putting all their wares on the web for free. in, all that is irrelevant. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.x, my suggestion is aimed at preserving some of the content, and the edit history, of The New Pantagruel article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. It's quite marginal whether The New Pantagruel is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. However, Stegall himself appears to be more clearly notable (again, in the Wikipedia sense), and there is an existing article about him, and that article needs to discuss The New Pantagruel anyway, so merge is a logical way to maintain information about The New Pantagruel on Wikipedia. Based on the discussion so far, it looks like the choices are going to be merger or deletion: which one do you think is better for the encyclopedia?--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Why is the choice deletion or merging? It appears keeping a separate entry is entirely legit. Novaseminary's complaint has been that TNP is insignificant and not notable, except as a pared down note on the Stegall entry. (Which itself contends TNP was significant and notable.) The Stegall entry brings up TNP to shed light on the context--political ideas, popular movements, etc.--in which Stegall is significant. People seeking more information about that would, in a more developed Wikipedia, find not only a TNP page but a whole group of related zines, such as the one referenced here, which was often compared to TNP and had some overlap in readers and writers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Doman A separate entry on TNP allows people to delve further into this context--which may be culturally marginal but not insignificant. TNP is representative not of Stegall alone but of a fractious, unusual, very mixed bag of people and ideas. It really deserves its own entry for that reason. Having an MA thesis written about it, and the ferment of ideas it represented from culturally conservative intellectuals...I think wikipedia can live with the small space it takes up. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete or merge Having reviewed the Wikipedia policies on deletion and merging, I see a consensus is required to delete or merge, at least from people offering logical, factual positions in line with Wikipedia policies. I say there is no consensus for either move. The Pantagruel entry passes the notability requirement for websites on at least one of the 3 criteria for sure, arguably two, so it shouldn't be deleted for lack of significance. It should not be merged with the Stegal entry because informative material would have to be cut radically, and its value is as a separate contextual source linked to Stegall, Dreher, and other contributors with Wikipedia pages of their own. It does need editing, since it appears to have been written without all the relevant sources and links, and before they went offline. Links to the publication itself ought to go to the wayback machine or simply be removed. There should be some examination of related publications TNP was in dialogue with to see if there are some relevant crosslinks to be made to help suggest the contours and diversity of latter day traditionalist conservative populism, tory anarchists, and the other monikers that tend to cluster together in these circles. There is definitely something to be said about Stegall, Dreher, and some of the others' coming together via TNP and cooperating thereafter--writing about each other and common concerns in different venues, from Dreher at NRO, BeliefNet and Dallas Morning News to Stegall, Larison and others at American Conservative, etc. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete or merge I agree with the comment above. A google of "New Pantagruel" yields 15,000 results. Results include: Georgetown U Prof. James V. Schall's publication list; faculty page of Georgetown U provost James D. O'Donnell; publication list of Westmont College Prof. Telford Work; the description of editor Jeremy Beer for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute book _American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia_; author description of Read Mercer Schuchardt's _You Do Not Talk About Fight Club_ (foreword by Chuck Palahniuk); the LinkedIn profile of Annie Frisbie, a WGA award nominated screenwriter; link to Frisbie's interview with Scott Derrickson on the official website of fantasy and horror fiction writer Clive Barker; a web link from Telos (journal); the Front Porch Republic blog; and the author page of "Sexless in the City" author Anna Broadway. Wikipedia users seeking more information on any of these references deserve a full stand-alone page. (full disclosure: I wrote a book review published in tNP.) --KJJ (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those are RSs, and even if one or two are (for some purposes) all are trivial mentions or resume line listings, at best. Novaseminary (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publishing Georgetown professors and having links from prominent academic journals are not guides to notability? Mentions on academic and popular book covers is not notable?

Comment Yes that is notability, and TNP has been cited, discussed, linked, etc. from reliable sources by the Wikipedia definition. It's hardly trivial where academic books are reviewed, BTW. If the people being reviewed thought it was a trivial blog, they wouldn't list it. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the NYTimes source, recall: Wikipedia:Notability"Notability is not temporary."

Another reason to keep the article: the usefulness of an independent article to the curious. How many people have read the article?

Notability is entirely temporary. Small magazines, clubs, salons, and other coteries especially pre-web are always temporary--it is part of their nature and historical interest. They are the tyhpe of things academics "discover" and argue over for their significance. How much something is remembered and by whom is one way to measure notability, but if people go about wiping out the memorials and records the aim is to efface the basis for notability--not a very neutral or informational move. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The continuing careers of several tNP alumni and contributors also suggets notability, at least in the niche area we are talking about. Daniel Larison and Michael B. Dougherty are both writers on their way up. Listing notable contributors is also SOP for articles in these categories, so that too would be an improvement.

The strict scrutiny being applied to the tNP article seems arbitrary. Its consistent application would also mean the deletion of many stub articles in the tNP-including Category:Literary journals.

I think enough reasonable doubt has been established to make a permanent stay against deletion. --KJJ (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidelines. Trivial mention in a NYT article, along with non-WP:RS citations just don't cut it. Doesn't even meet the easier threshold of WP:WEB. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does meet WP:WEB for reasons already noted. You are making an assertion without evidence or reasons. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't meet the "...subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The mentions are either not in reliable sources or too trivial/brief to matter. Name-dropping is not sufficient. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news gives 9 results. One of them is from the New York Times. [41] Search for the word "Pantagruel" and you can see it mentioned there, as to why it existed, and some information about it. Dream Focus 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the NY Times article (the same on mentioned in the nomination), is the best hit. That sort of brief mention is not the type of significant coverage we normally require. Novaseminary (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "we"? 67.22.193.136 (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure that I understand many of these claims. Caleb Stegall was not by any means the sole or primary contributor. There were probably at least ten contributors, but this question is not a matter of guessing, as one only has to search archived web pages to see lists of contributors and editors, many of whom are associated with long-time websites such as Metaphilm, etc. Reliable, researched sources such as an accepted Master's thesis and long-established web sites such as First Things are sources about tNP. Need to consider tNP's significance, also, within the context of its brevity -- though it was relatively short-lived, it still garnered national notice. Stegall was interviewed by national media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.111.9 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.88.111.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 23:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deletion discussions where notability has been questioned are not difficult. It doesn't matter whether you think it's notable or I think it's not notable. The only thing that matters is whether or not multiple reliable sources exist which are independent of the subject, and which cover the subject in a significant, non-trivial way. Four things need to be satisfied: multiple sources (more than 1), reliable sources (see WP:RS for a definition), independent sources (see WP:SEC), and significant, non-trivial coverage (see WP:GNG). These requirements have not been satisfied for this article. The number of Google hits you get for searching "The New Pantagruel" is not proof of notability. If actual reliable sources come to light, I will gladly switch my !vote to Keep. Until that time, however, the article must be deleted. A partial merge and redirect might be appropriate, although it's unclear if any of the info in this article can actually be sourced. SnottyWong ^gossip 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue - You are ignoring (as have others) the items such as the MA thesis about TNP, and the discussion of it in Dreher's book. But the interesting thing here about how the rules don't really apply well--and as Jimbo has made it clear, Wikipedia is not bound by rules. The thing with literary periodicals is they don't really get written about much outside their coteries and dialogue partners. (So that is "conflicts of interest?"--absurd. Then we'd have to discount anything Eliot or Woolf or Pound etc. said about their respective presses, magazines, and groups because they all published each other. In reality they made each other notable largely by talking about each other and writing significant things. That is one thing being ignored here, that TNP published significant and notable stuff by notable people. Like any other little magazine, you don't expect people to write *about* them at any length until they are dead and someone comes along, maybe long after, and writes a dissertation about them...which TNP has enjoyed. An editor at American Conservative is the author of one of the various elegies at TNP's passing. There are others, seemingly by notable writers, clergy members, etc. Their identities are verifiable and their blogs are reliable sources. Keep in mind Moby Dick was trivial and non-notable until it was discovered in the mid 20thC. Literary mags get mentions, and their critics or contributors get kudos or barbs from others in other venues, but they don't really talk about each other as publications. They talk *with* each other as an active discourse while living--they are the ones who do the talking about other things and become notable by trying to confer notability...or infamy on books and authors, public figures, etc. The criteria of their reliability and notability is that they are read and responded to, or published in, far more than they are written about. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is ignoring the unpublished thesis. I quoted from it above ("page 7 that the blog 'was just a blip on the cultural radar' and on page ten that '... TNP was not well known and has not been the subject of scholarly research...'"). Keep in mind, nobody who has !voted to delete is saying anything negative about the blog. It might have been the most wonderful blog ever. WP:WEB and WP:N are not quality tests. It isn't personal. And if you disagree with the various notability standards, the place to argue for relaxing or changing them is on those policy's or guidelines' talk pages. Here, (you, me, and the other editors participating in an AfD) are to apply those policies to the articles we are discussing. Novaseminary (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have had a look and some sources I found seem to refer to something else. No signifant sources in the artciel. If sources can be found (that establish notability not exsistance) I would change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one here believes that the content of tNP is being criticized. Advocates for rescue are claiming notability. Let us then establish notability: in addition to a thesis devoted to tNP, tNP has been referenced by:

The Oxford Handbook of British Politics: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZmWTRt5DY54C&pg=PA420&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=gc9_TOScE8H98Aal3vT1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false . That's Oxford University Press. Whether or not the individual contributor to this volume was also a contributor to tNP is irrelevant -- the editors at OUP considered reference to it worthy of inclusion.

Chuck Colson, once intimately involved with the Watergate scandal and then a leading religious and political writer: http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2006/03/07/a_peculiar_people

The Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC21Ad02.html

Jeff Sharlett's edited anthology, Believer, Beware: First Person Dispatches from the Margins of Faith: http://books.google.com/books?id=k2xpyi53q7gC&pg=PR13&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=ssd_TO7mFIWenQfDrJW1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false

Rod Dreher's book, Crunchy Cons: http://books.google.com/books?id=9yBzfOSpww4C&pg=PT211&dq=%22new+pantagruel%22&hl=en&ei=ssd_TO7mFIWenQfDrJW1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22new%20pantagruel%22&f=false

In addition to its own section in the Traditionalist Conservatism entry on Wikipedia, which seems to have been created by someone unaffiliated by tNP.

I'm not sure that I see the problem, and I'm unsure whether many other uncontested articles would have nearly this much support. The only issue I see is more thoroughly referencing these sources within the text of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are merely citations (the Oxford Handbook cite is literal just a citation in references section) or very trivial mentions of the blog in discussions about something else (about, e.g., Stegall, and were written by cotnributors to the blog). The coverage needs to be significant. Trivial coverage, even in significant sources, is not enough. Novaseminary (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many "blogs" get these kinds of citations? That in itself is highly notable and significant. TNP obviously attracted the attention and contributions of notable writers and academic "experts" or "authorities" on various subjects pertaining to religion and politics. Many of these people were editors with TNP. It was published at a very interesting and significant time in US history for both religion and politics. Other experts obviously accepted the reliability and value of TNP as a source--or else they were fooled into thinking a trivial and insignificant website was much more than that--also a notable and unusual event. The academic world is quite critical of source reliability since it is ultimately a measure and commodity of personal reliability and value for individual scholars. In the early days of the interweb, the university world with its fetishization of print has been extra-critical of online-only publication, often treating it with less regard than vanity presses/academic self-publishing. Let's be clear--TNP was a reviewed journal, kind of a literary journalistic enterprise by academics, not a blog, but it was also open to non-academics. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment You don't "verify" notability. You set standards for notability and judge entries against these standards. No one is claiming that tNP was the best blog ever written. We are only claiming notability, and providing a number of significant mentions to support this claim. However, I would like to verify one fact about a comment above:

Verifiable falsehood no. 1: "These are merely citations (the Oxford Handbook cite is literal just a citation in references section)" The author of this comment clearly does not understand the nature of citations in academic works. tNP was cited in the Oxford Handbook because of an approximately 60 word quotation on p. 406 in this handbook from a tNP essay. This is a substantial quotation for a work in a reference book; seriously, this quotation alone should justify keeping a tNP Wiki entry, as people reading this reference work might search Wikipedia for more information about tNP. While I appreciate the fact that the author of this comment did take the time to click the link, s/he clearly did not take the time to search the book before commenting. And this still fails to address that -Chuck Colson-, who is literally a key figure in 20thC American history, made reference to Mr. Stegall's work at tNP, nor does it address the extensive references in published books by Rod Dreher, Jeff Sharlett, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are missing the point. Even if I believed that TNP had been the most significant, notable, wonderful, and insightful series of writings ever produced by humankind, and even if somehow I could objectively prove this to be true, without the requisite coverage (not citations), the article would fail the various incarnations of WP:N. It is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Neither me nor any of the other editors have claimed anything more than this: the article fails under WP policies and guidelines. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. These sorts of mentions and citations in a works cited don't cut it. Novaseminary (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need more diverse admin discussion* Since the unidentifiable proponents of deletion have stated from the start that the entry *will* be deleted or merged, they have indicated they are fundamentally biased and closed to the proper process of consensus-building discussion. Additionally, verifiable falsehoods and unreasonable assumptions about the number of people involved in producing a quarterly journal have been asserted by these individuals whose continued reference to TNP as a single-author "blog" are hostile and false on their face. The attacks on the reliability and significance of sources has been pushed unreasonably to the letter of Wikipedia *guidelines* and beyond. References in reliable sources have been attacked as trivial, and the reliability or significance of the sources has been questioned so that renowned scholars' resumes, the New York Times, and Oxford University Press are all described as, if not trivial sources, having trivial references to TNP. Is a small reference in the NY Times worth more or less than a brief reference on a random blog? Is a large accumulation of small references in reliable and indeed significant sources for an unfunded, non-commercial webzine that had a very brief lifespan truly "trivial?" (Of course many of the references to TNP in external sources are non-trivial as well.) Let's also look to the whole purpose of Wikipedia--accessible, good information about any subject. Suppose someone is inquiring into the history of politics in the US during the time of TNP's existence, and they find references to it in the resumes, journals, newspapers, books, etc. The curious will invariably look for more information about TNP and the web of notable people who helped constitute it as writers and/or editors. It is a consensus view that TNP was entirely marginal in the sense of speaking significantly from the margins--even it's page design suggested this. But marginality is not triviality. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read through our policies on assuming good faith and consensus, please. Several editors have expressed an opinion as to why this subject does not meet our notability standards, and you obviously disagree. disagreement is fine, but when it veers into attacks and disparaging comments (e.g. "fundamentally biased", "verifiable falsehoods") then that is, well, not so fine. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying "verifiable falsehoods" is not a matter of "good faith" -- if a falsehood is verified, it is a matter of fact, and should be contested with facts. I provided documentation for at least one verifiable falsehood above. I can seek more if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.137 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is only your opinion that they are ""verifiable falsehoods", though. Disruptive editors can be removed from the playing field if need be. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a bare mention in the NYT, but nothing that can WP:verify notability of this short-lived web publication. The NYT article is about a much bigger phenomenon. Unfortunately this article needs third-party sources to meet policies and guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They exist. How much time did you spend looking? 67.22.193.136 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First thing to note about the notability guidelines is that notability for TNP is established by the notability of the *content* not necessarily of the publication itself. That is a big difference from what has been argued here by deletionists, and they have not acknowledged it, even though the point has been made.

Secondly, clearly the deletionists are using the term "trivial" in an overly broad sense. Look at the definition of "trivial" in the wikipedia guidleines:

"web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)."

Third, TNP did win at least one award as one of its articles and authors was recognized in the anthologized book "Best Christian Writing" of 2006 edited by John Wilson, the longtime editor in chief of Books & Culture. The article is the one by Gideon Strauss--verify via the wayback machine. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787974757,descCd-tableOfContents.html

There you have it. And all of the academic citations to the *content* published in TNP are non-trivial third-party published works. 67.22.193.136 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So are you acknowledging that the publication itself is not notable for WP purposes? That is the only question posed by this AfD. The question is not whether the content of any posting is notable, or worthy, or even a reliable source, or whether a writer for a particular publication is notable. Those things can inform the question or debate about the notability of the publication, but not supplant it. And I think you are misconstruing what other editors mean by "trivial." You might want to look at footnote 1 in WP:N. Trivial is not a judgment about the source in which the mention appears, nor is it a comment on the accuracy or even importance of the mention in some contexts. It is a corollary to WP:V. You can't write a sourced encyclopedia article with a combination of "trivial" (in this sense) sources and sources affiliated with the subject. That is why, as affirming and important to academics as citations are, a citation to a particular book, article or other writing -- or a one-sentence mention in a NY Times article-- is a "trivial" mention for notability purposes. That is not a criticism or dig, just a characterization of the mention as not presenting the sort of "biographical" information one needs to write an article. Trivial mentions can be fine to use as citations in an article that meets notability through non-trivial sources or some other way (subject to WP:UNDUE concerns), they generally just can't be the basis for the conclusion a particular person or thing is notable. Novaseminary (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is notable according to WP:WEB, but you are misconstruing those guidelines so that notable/non-trivial coverage means the newspaper article would have to be about the magazine itself. That is by no means what WP:WEB says. Speaking of just the NY Times article, TNP and Stegall are treated and described there as non-trivial and representative of a new/unknown/non-mainstream current in conservatism. This is non-trivial. To quibble over the intention or meaning of "non-trivial" in WP-WEB so as to achieve a very narrow definition is unreasonable and violates the spirit of WP. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reliable sources don't give the site significant coverage, and the sources that do fail WP:RS by some margin. It needs much more good quality coverage if it's ever going to pass WP:WEB. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need "much more." There is no criterion for quantity of coverage. It is simply an issue of non-trivial coverage. Being described as part of a movement found notable by a political columnist in the NY Times and published on the front page (A1) for a Saturday is notable coverage. See below under "save." 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save. Who are the "editors" who support deletion? The people who originally started this are not editors. The only relevant issue is that the deletionists do not understand WP:WEB and appear to be willfully misreading it, while styling any criticism of them as an "attack." This is all that matters, in WP:WEB:

The Wikipedia definition of trivial:

"(1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The New Pantagruel has been described in newspapers in the context of a movement or line of political of which it was deemed to be representative.

The Wikipedia definition of web content:

"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."

Thus, a website itself is made notable via its content. How else could it be otherwise? This is made abundantly clear by the specific definitions of notability already cited. Content in TNP was published in books, magazines, other sites, won an award, etc. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A new approach that may be more productive." Would everyone agree that the fundamental disagreement here hinges on a lack of consensus on the minimum standard of non-trivial mention in a newspaper--or really any "reliable source," correct? Isn't the main sticking point specifically the meaning of the phrase "a brief summary of the nature of the content [of a web publication]" in the nontriviality guidelines in WP:WEB? It may be better to try to clear this up, ideally by reference to specific cases in Wikipedia where online publications similar to TNP were AND were not allowed to have their own entries for reasons based on the non-triviality guideline. Can anyone provide such examples?

For example, I see that The Revealer, which has been mentioned here and on the TNP pages, is possibly even more ripe for deletionistic deleting from WP [42] based on the views of those supporting deletion here for TNP. It merely refers to uncited citations of it in the New York Times. That said, I am positive The Revealer belongs in WP too. It is supported by a major academic institution and has been a longer running blogzine that appeared about the same time as TNP. As mentioned here, The Revealer's primary author/editor Jeff Sharlett used to be in dialogue with TNP, discusses it in some of his published writing, and he gave TNP a long mention as a significant publication on his site. (This can be fact-checked by looking at the web archive for TNP and The Revealer.) Now if The Revealer belongs in WP and gave significant mention to TNP, then that too would satisfy the non-triviality requirement.

Basically I think the main criterion in contention here needs to be clarified to a consensus meaning as a standard in WP based on past practice in WP, and then it can be used as a test against all the various cases for TNP's non-triviality--mention in a non-trivial and reliable source whether it's a book, newspaper, magazine, web publication, etc. 184.59.1.92 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most wp articles would not survive a a confluence of taking of all of the wp:n and wp:ver standards categorically and literally at the granular level. Doing so would make survival of 1/2 of wp articles simply a random matter of which articles do and don't have a savvy person attacking them. Fortunately in reality it isn't done like that, instead it is consensus based, including applying those standards in a general sense. That's what really makes the standards work despite their flaws, and that's what really happens in Wikipedia (most of the time). Y'all should do that here. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know of this publication until it was put up for deletion. There are reasons why I feel that it should be retained. My argument stems, not from Wikipolicy, but from an argument made in a thesis, from which I would like to quote part of the the abstract^[1]: In this thesis, .... the use of the carnivalesque tradition in a small web-journal called The New Pantagruel (TNP), which published between 2004-2006. The TNP editors and contributors deployed the carnivalesque tradition to criticize excessive individualism in American culture in general and, with particular fervor, several generations of American evangelicals...... the carnivalesque tradition grounded the cultural criticism in TNP in artistic and compelling ways, despite the seemingly strange combination of the nature of their critique, their deployment of the carnivalesque tradition, and the digital environment in which they published......... this strange combination of features reveals TNP to be a culturally significant artifact that both confirms and complicates traditions in American cultural criticism, especially as these traditions develop in a digital environment. These are not my words but a literal transcription from the thesis^[2]. UMI has it's own entry in Wikipedia. No copyright infraction was intended but a link to this thesis was in my opinion not enough. Please contact me if you should feel this section should be edited or removed. For the stated conclusion I would feel that the article should be kept. --JHvW (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Because I have voted for keeping of the article, I have studied the article. If it is decided that the article should be kept, I also believe that the article needs rewriting, there are reasons for this: 1. The article is not well structured. 2. Most non-Americans (like myself) will want to know why this publication was important, a clear history and purpose should be given. 3. Some of the finer points are not mentioned (a jape is joke, japery is a verb meaning to jest or to mock). 4. The links are often dead or incorrect. 5. There are articles on similar publications in Wikipedia (in the article The Wittenburg Door, Ship of Fools, and The Onion are mentioned). It should not be too difficult to rewrite the article to WP standards. Keep. My conclusion, again, is that I agree with Matthew Stewart that TNP is a culturally significant artifact and deserves a place in Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Stewart, Matthew D., M.A., A continuing survey of the farce": "The New Pantagruel" and the carnivalesque tradition, University of Wyoming, 2009, pp 103
^ The UMI Dissertation Network Website

Comment But "culturally significant artifact" is not part of any WP guideline. As JHvW noted, JHvW's argument is not based in WP policy (or guidelines, I would add). In an AfD, what matters is whether a particular article meets WP guidelines and policy. Per WP:AFD, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". JHvW, how does what you wrote support the argument that this article meets WP:N? Novaseminary (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer What constitutes notability as meant in WP:N is rather subjective. The fact that a thesis was written about this journal is in itself notability enough (in my opinion). If the consensus is that TNP does not deserve it's own article, it could be argued that it should be merged with the article on Caleb Stegall. This would however mean that the publication is linked to a person and I do not believe that that was the purpose of TNP. American cultural criticism is something I am not familiar with because I have only lived in the United States for a short while (less than a year). But an encyclopedia should contain information on all important cultural developments, even after they have disappeared and regardless of where they took place. I do not agree with many of the viewpoints expressed in TNP, but they were done with an intelligent sense of humor. I certainly do not consider myself someone from the Christian conservative tradition, but I do feel that freedom of speech was an important part of the culture in which this journal was made available, especially as it was one of the first to use the emerging Internet. It may have been an artifact but it deserves a place in Wikipedia. And if the article does not meet policy or guidelines, is it not the task of contributors and editors to make sure it complies to these standards rather than just deleting it and losing something that was once a part of everyday society in the United States? Is this an answer to the question? --JHvW (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really. We both agree that the current article is terrible. The question here is only whether the blog meets WP:N or one of its related guidelines. If not, it should go. If so, it should stay (regardless of the current state of the article, though a better-done article would help make clear whether notability is met). As for the argument regarding the thesis, I cannot imagine that any subject ever covered in any MA thesis from any school automatically meets WP:N, especially--as I noted in several quotes above)-- when the thesis itself discusses the blog as "a blip" and "not well known", etc. Novaseminary (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Maybe it is because I am a scientist, I take the contents of a thesis serious. It is unfortunate that this thesis is only "a blip" to you. Obviously notability is measured by how many hits a subject gets when looking for it with a search engine. The fact that somebody from an academic background has studied TNP carefully and even wrote a thesis on the subject, in my book accounts for something. The fact that the thesis was presented on the MAASA-PPSA (Middle Atlantic American Studies Association-Pennsylvania Political Science Association) 2009 Conference, means that there is some academic interest. In the past many important facts were mentioned in such publications and, quite often, where initially overlooked. Then there is of course the Wikipedia proces itself which will not improve readability. Finally there are some other facts that I would like to bring forward (being a bit of an outsider). This journal was published quarterly. There can not have been that many editions. So it would be logical that it is considered "not well known". The impact however seems to have been great, I have been informed that around 0,2% of the total population actually read it. But if you realise that at that point in time Broadband Internet was in its infancy, the actual percentage may be much higher. Caleb Stegall, I believe is republishing the journal on his website. If the article is deleted, somebody will probably start it all over again and the whole process will be repeated. If you look at the history of the article in Wikipedia, it seems like few people have worked on it. It may be a vanity article. But unfortunately TNP is mentioned everywhere. A small well written article would be justified in my opinion. The numbers are not impressive but publications like Punch had a smaller readership (but a longer history) and still have their own article. If it is the feeling of the community that it should go, it should go. But I will be sad to see it go as I truely believe it is a part of American culture that needs preserving in Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say the thesis was a blip. The thesis said the blog was a blip. Novaseminary (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. merge material can be found in histiry but there is aklso consensus this is unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability. Previous AFD closed no consensus. Nothing from this unsourced plot-overloaded trivia-laden article needs to be merged to the episode list article which already covers it in appropriate detail. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried this once before. This is a 10 minute episode that relies basically on fan entries and trivia for its content. I love the show but the pilot episode isn't notable for its own article. Merging is not a good idea as you would just be merging trivia and it would compromise the article it's merged with. Mjpresson (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It's the notable classic pilot episode of Adult Swim's 3rd most popular / and longest running series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapesoda22 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 26 August 2010

And the independent reliable sources that establish that it is notable are...? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. There are no independent RS currently in the article, so no prejudice to un-merging when and if appropriate sourcing is found for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to [[List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes]] pursuant to the guidelines of Wikipedia:EPISODES. No need to bring this to AfD as a merge could be done without discussion. Inniverse (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect per Jclemens. The current article does not have enough non-trivial real-world info to justify a separate article, but if and when such material is added, I wouldn't mind allowing the article back. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A pilot episode is notable if it leads to the creation of a notable series. Dream Focus 17:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not supported by the general notability guideline which requires independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode. The notability of the series is not inherited by individual episodes of the series, not even the pilot episode. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony LaPanta[edit]

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

Non-notable sports broadcaster. There was a debate on if BLPPROD was applicable so I have placed it at AFD instead since the article probably should be deleted but I don't believe BLPPROD is applicable. DJSasso (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources to pass WP:GNG. Blp-prod probably wouldn't have applied since there was one reference to IMBd. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm from the Minneapolis area and LaPanta is barely (if at all) notable even here, so I can't imagine we'd find sources to pass WP:GNG. Bds69 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic, also has a little lack of sources, and anyway very short article that doesn't really include any info except the basic intro. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is he a High School Broadcaster? I found this reference, but I don't think it is enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNP Moorsmur (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines. Jmlk 1 7 08:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America's Got Talent (season 5). I have just deleted the season 4 auditions article, as the AfD result for that was delete, but only a redirect got deleted. The consensus here is that the auditions are not sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. The content should be selectively merged to the main season article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions)

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

Wikipedia is not, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, a directory for every contestant who ever auditioned for a talent show, which is what this article is. Hekerui (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep America's Got Talent (season 4 auditions) is also like this. Also, seasons 1, 2, 3, all contain lists similar to the one in America's Got Talent (season 5 auditions). MR. PreZ 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF? Hekerui (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and Merge the article into America's Got Talent (season 5). Agree with nom. that it shouldn't list every audition--only provide a summary and list in the main article.173.8.11.157 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said for season 4: Reduce and delete - it is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. All the info here can be summarized very succinctly in the season article (if you are on a TV show with 200 other contestants it does not make you notable enough to have an entry on wikipedia). Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I'm not mistaken, this list will never be complete, because while thousands of auditions occur for the show, only a few are actually televised. Thus, I'm assuming not all rejected acts are or can ever be included. (Indeed, the season 4 article seems to lend credence to this by saying the acts accepted/rejected "include" explicitly.) If there is anything worthwhile and sourced to merge to the main article, I would not oppose a merge/redirect, but as it stands, this list seems to fail guidelines on indiscriminate information. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This style of listing every contestant on AGT developed in Season 2 and has continued all the way since. There was a discussion on whether the auditions page for season 4 should be deleted, and the result was keep. The show is unique and unlike most shows on TV as it shows a variety of contestants, and to delete all the information would be a loss. Plus, if it was integrated into the main page (which is already very detailed and crowded with info), you would get one very hard page to navigate, as is what happened with the Season 2 and 3 articles. The show is not American Idol, where all the contestants are singers, but a varied competition with acts from many genres. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – that the other seasons have an article similar to this is not a good enough reason to keep. Anything of value in this article could I guess be Merged to America's Got Talent (season 5). Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, the only thing to remove would be the rejected audioners and by that logic you would only have one article about the one winner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee well (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC) — Bee well (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WiiMC[edit]

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

Contested prod. Software with no indication of notability, only existence is established by the primary sources used. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After this nomination, the line, WiiMC has been reviewed by the independent gaming press was added to the article. However, the only reference used to support that is a very short entry in a blog. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Y not? 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Hüttner[edit]

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

Possibly fails on ppoints 1 - 4 of WP:ARTIST. Article has links in a references section but the sources appear to be mainly blogs, websites with a fleeting mention of the subject, social networking, and gallery exhibition calendars. None appear to be RS or to assert the subject's notability. Further searches seem to reveal more social networking sites and blogs. Kudpung (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I suspect that there's stuff written that isn't in English. This German article identifies his work as part of an exhibition. [43] and [44] appear to be about an exhibition he is curating. [45] contains more coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huttner clearly fulfills points 3-4 of WP:ARTIST. However, tt seems that me and my assistant have been a bit slack with the sources on this one. We have updated some stuff yesterday and today and will add some more when we have gone through catalogues and stuff.(we won't have time the next week or two though). I hope that we can sort out the problems. Huttner's a very important artist, even if he might not be the most commercially successful. all the best prallman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prallman (talk • contribs) 10:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Hello again, we dug through the catalogues and hope that this will be the end of the discussion. Having worked on the text for a while it is clear that Huttner fulfills points 1-4 of WP:ARTIST criteria 3-4 of WP:ARTIST is beyond doubt considering that there are so many monographs about the artist and that he is collected by major museums in 3 countries. we think that we have figured out how to sign this and sorry for missing that in the above remark.all the best prallmanPrallman (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be something to this person, but oh what a mess the article is. Sample selected pretty much at random: It has been shown in major museums in the USA[32], Spain[33]Poland[34], Romania, China[35] and Sweden[36]. "Major" looks like mere peacockery. Note 32 links to this page, within which a search for "Per" turns up nothing. Note 33 reads "'Pleasure and Pain all Rolled into One,' BIDA 2003, Centro de Arte de Salamanca, Spain, p.110-113". It's unclear to me what this is. Note 34 links to this, which is fine. Romania goes unsourced. Note 35 cites "'Gongzhen' Catalogue published by, Museum of Contemporary Art MoCA Shanghai." But what is "'Gongzhen' Catalogue"? Does it have an ISBN? Can I find a copy in a good library outside Shanghai? If, as I guess, "Gongzhen" is in Chinese, then it would be much easier to locate a copy if we were given the title in Chinese script. Note 36 links to this, which is fine. ¶ It appears to be an autobiography. The article was created and extensively worked on by Prallman. Let's look at File:Sachi.rome.JPG. It was uploaded by Prallman, with the comment (((Information |Description=documentation from Sachi Miyachi's performance at 1 to 1 projects |Source=I created this work entirely by myself. |Date=sept 2008 |Author=Per Hüttner |other_versions= ))). -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some suspicion is thrown on this by association with The invisible generation (art project) and I am a Curator, articles about projects by Hüttner which were created by user Hannah.bu.bu (talk · contribs) who also created Mark DeSilca, speedily-deleted as a blatant hoax with false references. That article had mutual cross-references with another blatant hoax Quantum Police created the same day by user Hao.hao.hao (talk · contribs), who has (trivially) edited this article. Anything associated with these two hoaxers needs careful scrutiny. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The longer I look at this article, the screwier it looks. Here's a second sentence: Other noteworthy exhibitions that dealt with these issues and that engaged the audience<ref>Per Hüttner and Gavin Wade interviewed by Barnaby Drabble , Marianne Eigenheer (Hg.) Curating Critique, ICE Reader 1, 2008, ISBN 978-3-86588-451-0]</ref> in continuously reshaping the exhibition<ref>“O'Neill, Paul, [[Art Monthly]]; Apr2004, Issue 275, p7-10</ref> was [sic]: ''I am a Curator''<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6371/is_80/ai_n29071086/ C: International Contemporary Art, Wntr, 2004 by Fergal Stapleton]</ref> at ''[[Chisenhale Gallery]]'' in [[London]]<ref>[http://www.supportstructure.org/ss_phase1_02.html Support Structure's contribution to the Exhibition]</ref> and ''Participate?''at ''CEAC'' in [[Xiamen]], [[China]] and at ''Basekamp'' in [[Philadelphia]] <ref>A Tasty Treat, James Westcott, [[Zingmagazine]] 18; p.270-272; 2003; New York, USA</ref>. So the noteworthiness and engagingness are on the say-so of Hüttner himself (and/or one Gavin Wade). The findarticles.com article does indeed exist. "Support Structure's contribution to the Exhibition" is in soporific MFA-ese; it's a long advert by its authors. "Zingmagazine" -- we're told in a totally unsourced article within that unreliable source Wikipedia -- has always offered redactional [sic] freedom: artists and curators are invited to submit what they choose with zing publishing the project as is. Contributors have appreciated the opportunity to create projects that they might not otherwise have the chance to create. Which seems to mean that it lacks any quality checking. ¶ And this is all for a single sentence within this article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's quite a bit about our man Hüttner here in en:WP. But it's all at least a bit dodgy. Take "Democracy and Desire", for example. It's a long article on "an evolutionary exhibition project by artist Per Hüttner that develops as it travels". Here we have Prallman adding to it: The approach to Zen Koans in this form was much less austere. The content was pushed towards a more blatant idiocy, humour and with a further shift to the carnivalesque and holding back the mysterious and nonsensical approach of the Buddhists. The contrast between the cool appearance of the installation and absurd content of the texts shows that the artist takes a more positive and proactive approach to the issues at hand. He moves further in the research to see how contemporary science and its outlook on temporality can be used to inspire life and art. Which was, and remains, unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you sometimes missing the point? The first line in the paragraph about Hüttner's work reads "Hüttner's work investigates our perception of reality by looking at the limits of time, identity[14] and rationality and tries to provoke curiosity and imagination in the minds of the visitor enabling them to create loopholes of personal freedom for themselves." He is a great friend of and greatly influenced by David Wilson and The Museum of Jurassic Technology. He has used Jean-Yves Girard's text Mustard Clocks (Les montres à moutarde, une approche intégrée au temps et à la nourriture) ^[1] as an integrated part of an exhibition (which Girard translated for Hüttner's show at The Museum of Time). It is hardly surprising that he attracts the attention of hoaxers and that any text about him is full of traps and tricks. But this does not diminish the artistic quality of his endeavour. My assistant has found a few more ISBN's which will be added tomorrow.Prallman (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far be it for a mere (non special-purpose) editor of Wikipedia to attempt to evaluate the artistic quality of his endeavour. Let us put that aside, and instead concentrate on this bit: "any text about him is full of traps and tricks". Would "any text about him" include any Wikipedia article about him? -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting question indeed and an enormous one, as a matter of fact, it is safe to say that it is probably one of the most debated questions in 20th and 21st century philosophy as I am sure you are well aware. Further, wikipedia texts are a joint venture and what above mentioned hoaxers and other contributors have written is beyond my control. I assume that what you want to ask is: “have I contributed with any deliberate traps or tricks in my contributions?” and the answer to that question is obviously, no. This question has been addressed in different ways numerous times above and in the autobiography question. I appreciate you and your colleagues’ efforts to make wikipedia a reliable source. It is a great and amazing endeavour. Like I promised yesterday, I have now added some more sources and ISBN numbers that my assistant has dug out and cleaned up some other weak points in the references. I am afraid that some of them are faulty, but we have copied them as they appear on the back of the publications. In some cases the publications can be traced in other ways.Prallman (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not personally familiar with Hüttner, but perhaps I should be. This article in a major Swedish daily paper speaks of him as an established artist that the initiated reader (the kind of person who regularly reads art criticism and follows the contemporary Swedish art scene) is expected to have heard of. Both Göteborgs konstmuseum (the Gothenburg Museum of Art) and Liljevalchs konsthall, mentioned in his list of exhibitions, are important, major exhibition spaces. I don't really have the time to look at the article or the sources in detail and can't judge whether there are issues with the content or sourcing that makes it problematic in some way, but the topic appears to be valid. --Hegvald (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tazzella[edit]

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

A user brought up this unsourced article at the help desk (link) alleging that the subject is a hoax. I have searched Google web and books for <Tazzella angel -wikipedia>, <Tazzella fairy -wikipedia> with no relevant results. Both this article and the Spanish version have one reference and using my computer's find function on both pages (1 & 2), I find no mention of this title or the Spanish title. Likewise, the name asserted in the article as how they are known in Spanish and French, "Briansel Sháztelas", returns no sources anywhere I've checked. Possibly a last name—an attempt at a little dubious Wikipedia fame?—but this is only based on my inability to find sources rather than anything about the topic that screams hoax, so I wanted to give the community a chance to take a look. We can always G3 it if its fictitious nature becomes clear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who find the article. In es_WP was speedy deleted, and the illustration was deleted in Commons for not add sources or licences, but it was very difficult to have both because the image was probably stolen. All the 5 images from this user in commons were deleted for the same reason. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this user loves to recreate the deleted articles. In es_WP were I do maintenance we deleted it several times. Chears. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hoax. I see no references and no citations, but I only see a link to the blogging site. The article fails WP:N. JJ98 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Hoax! Naraht (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious hoax/madeup item. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete per Orange Mike. ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Unwikified and unsourced original essay if it's not an outright hoax. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly the great lack of reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find a single reliable source on this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all above, + excruciatingly bad English. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken (2005 film)[edit]

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

The only content about the film is the writer, director, producer, star, and tagline. No sources provided nor notability asserted. BOVINEBOY2008 19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, search for sources for the film yield mostly mentions of the star listed in the page, nothing that would allow the film to pass WP:MOVIE.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources. Also very short article, including very little info. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HIAir - Hayat International Airways[edit]

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

I have declined an A7 speedy deletion of this article, because airlines are frequently kept, and there is one source (Daily Telegraph) which seems to offer some coverage. I therefore feel that it should not be deleted without discussion. Even so, I don't think the airline meets the relevant notability standards. It is essentially a small air taxi company, operating small aircraft, not a scheduled airline which has been the subject of widespread media attention. The airline is less than a month old, and I think an article at this point is premature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would be helpful if an admin could review the previously deleted versions and pull some of the old sources that cast doubt on the legitimacy of this venture. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I am aware, the company do not actually own any aircraft themselves, they essential "resell" the services of other company, an air-broker if you like. If this is correct, then I believe that the company does not meet the criteria to be kept. --95.149.228.221 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely the lack of discussion illustrates the point that this article may not meet nobility standards? 178.96.45.36 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, lack of discussion indicates that people either don't care either way, or that they are having a tough time making up their minds. I wouldn't read any consensus out from the mere lack of discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that that is usually the case. However, this article is about a company which has barely existed for a month or so; I would say that the lack of response indicates that either very few people have noticed the deletion debate (as very few people have viewed the article's main page) or that people do not care either way. If the latter is the case, then I believe that there is a genuine case for deletion if it cannot be proved that the article meets notability standards. 95.149.228.221 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really an airline just a company that will lease aircraft or seats from other operators, bit like a tour operator. Looks like it will not breach the 19-seater size to it doesnt need a licence either as an airline or a charter. Cant actually find any evidence that it is a registered company either, nothing with that name listed by Companies House. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original article created by User:HIAir was not that different from the current and did not provide any different references. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After considering the limited sources available, I firmly believe that this article is of insufficient notability to merit a Wikipedia article. In fact, I quite agree with MilborneOne; HIAir is not (technically speaking) and "airline". It owns no aircraft, has not had any customers to date and is, quite simply, extremely insignificant in the airline industry. I really cannot see a need for an entry on wikipedia; most people would be able to set up such a "company" in a matter of weeks, ie. without owning aircraft, having had any customers and having arranged other companies to provide the aircraft, flights and staff etc. I think this shows how insignificant this company is and how, therefore, it lacks notability of sufficient degree to warrant an article on Wikipedia (or indeed any encyclopaedia for that matter). --95.149.228.221 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unlikely search term so no point on a redirect and is already covered Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat

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

Not an important enough event to justify a separate article. The article is really just a collection of quotes from Blagojevich and others, commenting on the idea (sample: "Also on the morning of January 26, TMZ.com posted a video of Blagojevich in New York explaining to one of their reporters why he had considered Winfrey"). I've already inserted a section about the proposal (basically copied from the introductory paragraph here) into Rod Blagojevich controversies, so I don't feel any other merger is necessary. Propaniac (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion discussion for this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought was that this would be useful information merged elsewhere. Seeing that it has been done, no reason to do other than delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if something has been copied to the Rod wotsisname controversies. PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and Merge into Rod_Blagojevich#Oprah_Winfrey. Not notable enough on its own for a separate article. --Crunch (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already there. Although I'm inclined to take it out because "Oprah Winfrey", or support of Oprah Winfrey, is not a "political position", and it seems a much better fit under Rod Blagojevich controversies, where it's also already there.Propaniac (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this article does not describe a controversy so how does it fit in with Rod Blagojevich controversies? SamanthaG (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the topic is not controversial. Propaniac (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was virtually no criticism of the proposal in the media, so objectively it doesn't qualify as a controversy in any meaningful sense. SamanthaG (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the media had felt it necessary to give the topic more discussion, criticism would surely have been documented; the number of times Blago was apparently asked to explain and justify the idea should be evidence that many did find it controversial. The fact that media commentary amounted to a couple of comments, whether those were supportive or not, should indicate that this topic was not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. (If it's not controversial, then it's just something that happened, or something that could have happened.) Propaniac (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The media gave it tons of coverage as this article clearly indicates and there's been even more coverage recently that has not yet been added to the article. And the media asked him about it because they found it interesting or often Blago himself brought it up. I don't think you can speculate on what should have or might have been controversial. If you're going to add something to an article about controversies, you need valid sources showing it to be controversial. SamanthaG (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article only quotes two uninvolved sources offering any kind of opinion of the proposal. For an event that received "tons of coverage," see the Steven Slater incident, which has inspired literally hundreds of news articles, commentaries, interviews and other reporting around the globe, and yet still appears unlikely to find a consensus agreement that it's notable enough to surpass the WP:NOTNEWS guideline. I'm not saying that the Slater article or AFD outcome should have any effect on this one, but it offers some perspective on what kind of attention and impact an event should have to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the line is drawn far above a handful of quotes from people centrally involved, and a couple of mentions on pundit programs. (And the release of related audio recordings doesn't make much difference either, at least in my opinion, unless there's some evidence that these recordings have any impact, on anything.) Propaniac (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Especially now. The article has become far more relevant and news worthy since the first deletion attempt. Actual tape recordings of Blago discussing Oprah with staff have emerged and documented in reliable sources and these need to be added to the article. Please don't flush all the hard work that went into creating this article down the drain simply because it's not yet complete. SamanthaG (talk)
Move to a title such as Appointment to the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, after which this topic can be fleshed out to become an article that can stand on its own and is also understandable for a reader who did not follow the events at the time, dealing with: why the seat was vacated; what Illinois state law has to say about the succession; accusations about putting the seat up for sale; reactions of Blago; public speculation in the media; role of the White House; appointment of Burris. In this fleshed-out article Oprah is an element and not the whole opera. --Lambiam 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists at Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, which has also been suggested as a merge target. I don't really care which, but the last AFD was essentially closed as a merge that never happened, which is why I did the merge in advance (not that it seems to have made any difference to the people still !voting for a merge). Propaniac (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large overlap: the corruption-charges article pays much attention to the Senate Seat replacement events also outside the scope of the corruption charges, and goes into detail that is not relevant for the charges per se, while not all corruption charges – and in particular not the one Blago was convicted for – are directly related to the appointment issue. So I feel the material could be distributed more evenly and clearly: an article really focussing on the criminal investigation and proceedings – telephone taps, charges, indictment, court case, verdict, appeal, ... – and an article concerned with the civil governmental aspects. --Lambiam 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is interestining, historic, well cited, and increasingly relevant. Zomputer (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant info to appropriate articles. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is not an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, the article contains mostly just news stories.--TM 05:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic is already covered elsewhere, and it was basically a big nothing anyway. Blagojevich never offered the Senate seat to Winfrey, he never discussed it with her before offering it to Roland Burris, and he never publicly revealed that he had considered her for the position until after Burris had been seated in the Senate. Even if Blagojevich hadn't recently been convicted of making false statements, I still don't see why something he says he thought about doing, but didn't take any concrete steps toward doing, is worthy of a separate article. The supporters of a "keep" should consider that even if this article is deleted, the knowledge of this unrealized idea will not disappear from Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we now have proof that he thought about it and discussed it with his staff before he decided to name Burris as FBI tapes have emerged documenting the fact. It may be nothing in the grand scheme of things, but for the great number of people who study the intersection of politics and pop culture, it's an epic piece of history, and it gives great insight into how the most colorful governor in American history thinks. SamanthaG (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One minor event, reporting by gossipy news sources does not give it lasting importance. Anyway the Senate seat is not President Obama's, and I'm sure he would say so himself, any more than the presidency is George Bush's or for that matter George Washington's. Borock (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was also reported by the New York Times, the Washington Times, CNN, CBS News, debated on MSNBC, discussed by Dianne Sawyer, documented by FBI tapes, and even used as part of the defense in Blagojevich's trial. And if everything in wikipedia had to be of incredible importance, there would very few articles indeed. SamanthaG (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A big pile of WP:NOTNEWS, a blip of a media frenzy with no lasting, historical significance. It is addressed now at Rod Blagojevich controversies, time to move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is fascinating, well documented and contains enough in depth detail to justify a full article. Everything about this article is extremely relevant. The governor who proposed the idea is the most notable governor in America, the woman he was considered for the senate is the most notable woman in arguabley the world, and the fact that it was the seat of the first black president gives the article historical significance and makes it interesting to people all over the world. Makewater (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really plausible that Rod Blagojevich was, at the time of this incident, the most notable governor in America? Just being indicted made him more notable than the movie star or even the former vice presidential nominee? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Palin wasn't in the news at the time, and not much was going on in California implicitly related to Schwarzenegger. Furthermore crime sells. Wing gundam (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great article, well researched and sourced; it's quite relevant, and as good as any other nomination article that hit the media. Furthermore it lends quite a bit to the Blagojevich and the Corruption Charges articles. definitely a keep. Wing gundam (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a pipe dream/non-event, existing mention in Blagojevich article is more than enough Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a conxdensed manner. There is not actually that much material that it demands a separate article. The use of article sections for each individual comment makes it look much more impressive than it is. It would all fit nicely into a paragraph or two. The not very informative repetitive text of the individual comments would fit nicely in the footnotes giving the source. Blagojevich made a number of comments defending or explaining his choice . <refx> <refy> <refz3> ... Various commentators thought it might in fact be fitting . <ref> <ref> . Others thought otherwise . <refa> <refb> <rref>. This preserves all the information. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable and highly discussed event that has been covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the article's subject. It easily passes the GNG, and I fail to see how this is just a news story. Merge to a new article about Obama's Senate seat if necessary, but this article can stand on its own. —fetch ·comms 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America's Got Talent (Season 4 auditions)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/America's Got Talent (Season 4 auditions)

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

Another directory for every contestant who auditioned on this show, deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY since Wikipedia is not for collecting information indiscriminately. Hekerui (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and delete - it is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. All the info here can be summarized very succinctly in the season article (if you are on a TV show with 200 other contestants it does not make you notable enough to have an entry on wikipedia). Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said this on the Season 5 auditions AFd page, but this show is not American Idol, which is just about contestants from one genre. It is about acts from many genres, and to delete all the info would be a loss. If you have a problem with the style (listing every act because of the variety of the show), then this is for the talk page, not an AFd. This page has been nominated once already for deletion (there was quite an argument that year, if you look into the archives), and most people did agree that the info should be kept. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the delete !votes (including my own) at the season 5 auditions AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika Mukherjee[edit]

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

Article is a stub and fails WP:ACTRESS. On a unrelated note, I did not put swastika into the article name just for the curious. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮ 卍} 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable Bollywood actress, based on the two Telegraph articles.--kelapstick (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her roles don't seem that significant. Clicking through the IMBD list, she has mostly very minor roles. There are two Telegraph articles as noted above, but they don't assert any more notability, other than the fact that her father is famous Indian TV star. Does not seem to pass WP:ACTRESS. --Crunch (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a bit more coverage in Google News, and articles such as this and this indicate she's a pretty well-known society figure. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to pass primary notability guideline. cab (call) 03:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Drmies and Kelapstick. The article is in a bit bad condition overall, but I say let's fix it, not delete. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Dear all, I am creator of this article basically. I have been working around Bengali film Industry and actor/actress/film. She is notable figure. Even though there are lots of actor/actress, I not create many more, only create who is more notable. Our Bengali society have a problem with English content data lacking. We have many more Bengali print media, (like Anandalok, Anandabazar Patrika) cover her story frequently. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable actress. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:ENT--Sodabottle (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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