< 9 September	11 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. NW (Talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor leaguers are not inherently notable. This player doesn't have significant coverage. I don't think this article passes muster with WP:BASEBALL/N Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable.--Yankees10 01:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor leaguers are not notable and this is no exception. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 20:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way true. Can you cite policy that backs that up? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that may be of interest to you: WP:BASEBALL/N. "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That means that your statement "Minor leaguers are not notable" is false. They can be notable if the articles adhere to the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a borderline case. Williams only played in the low levels of the affiliated minors, and has been in independent ball for several years. However, he is fairly notable within the context of independent baseball, as the 2006 MVP of the Golden Baseball League [1] and a two-time All-Star within that league. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While minor leaguers are not inherently notable, that does not mean none of them are notable. Two time All-Star and 2006 MVP for his league is definite evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk)
Keep Agreed with Edward321, being the MVP of your league is a notable event in a player's career. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being league MVP establishes notability. The quote that insists that, "Minor leaguers are not notable and this is no exception," is completely false. MOST minor leaguers are not notable, and there ARE exceptions, such as Peanut Williams. Vodello (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:N and WP:ATH. Regarding the MVP award, I note that WP:BIO specifies that a person receiving a "well-known or significant award or honor" is generally notable. In view of the paucity of media coverage of the Golden Baseball League MVP award, I don't think it can be regarded as well known or significant. BRMo (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Brian's good point about the notability of minor leaguers, this article fails the notability guidelines for baseball and WP:GNG. Half of it is OR, which WP is not. Worse, all of the prose is unreferenced. The only reason to keep, IMO, is the MVP award. A) the article doesn't even mention that. If ya'll are going to say that's a good reason to keep it, it would help if you put it in. B) BRMo is right - I don't think that being MVP of a nearly unknown league is enough. There is a table on the league page. That's all we need. Nolelover 17:22, 16 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 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy of PHP-based CMS[edit]

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

See talk page for other arguments, but this article's title is misleading, the piece is horribly written, and it has received no attention from its author despite criticisms over an extended period. Furthermore, I don't see how to make it even marginally useful to anyone without a complete rewrite by an expert. It's an embarrassment.Lfstevens (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problems mentioned by nominator sound as if they could be fixed, but as far as I can tell this is essentially original research. --Lambiam 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely OR, nothing to save here. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I don't give a rat's behind about original research, but there's nothing you can say about CMS systems that are written specifically in PHP that adds any value over and beyond a general article on CMS systems (which you can tell from the fact that this article in fact doesn't say anything about them). -- BenTels (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, broad generalizations which might be interesting, but I can't see how this could be re-written to be encyclopedic. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:32, 18 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 Al-Qaeda. Redirect rather then merge because the only reliable spurce is already addressed in the target. History is still there so you can still merge anything useful Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories of Al-Qaeda[edit]

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

Another "alternative theories" dumping ground that connects disparate ideas in an originally researched, synthesized amalgam. Individual ideas can be spun off to individual articles e.g. Laurie Mylroie, The Power of Nightmares, and Jason Burke. Keeping them all stuffed at one article is neither needed nor desirable. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply merge to Al-Qaeda. To the extent that these theories are notable (and my impression is that they are), they deserve a brief mention in that article. --Lambiam 20:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Al-Qaeda. Not enough substance to warrant separate article. Thorncrag 23:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here warranting an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One notable (though completely non-credible) source already treated at length in her own article. BillMasen (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created the article: For the foreseeable future, people will go on attempting to insert such "alternative theories" into the main article on Al Qaeda, which is already quite long. There are two possible responses to such an insertion - either you delete it, or you add an explanation as to why the view in question is wrong. This article was created as a single place where the more popular or reasonable such theories can be stated, and also countered, in a cumulative way. However, it has not seen use, most likely because the average editor of the main AQ page doesn't know about it and its intended function. Mporter (talk) 07:35, 16 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 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley V. Henson, Jr.[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP and probably fails WP:NOTABILITY to boot. As to the first (BLP), he does have an IMDB bio here, but this Wikipedia article is so long that probably 98% is unreferenced. There are no other sources on the web that I can find. (There are five entries in the References section of the article, but none of them actually mention Henson. For instance, the first reference just generally describes the town where he grew up, etc.)

OK so it could be pared down to a stub, based in the IMBD bio, But before doing that work, I also don't think he's notable. As I said, there's nothing beyond the IMBD page, so he does not meet the WP:GNG. (Also, FWIW, The article was created by User:Sistaliz09, and she has only edited this article and his movie Rise above the silver and gold.) The one thing that any notability could hang on is that he did direct two movies -- but neither movie is notable. He's done other stuff that's interesting but does not rise to the level of notability. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject's activity as a filmmaker is not sufficient to make him notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. His actually short career and lack of coverage in reliable sources fails notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. All books and films are self-published. Lacks significant sources to establish notability as an actor beyond self-published press releases and social networking sites. This notation by subject indicates that his background in film was based on his employment as a security guard. Cindamuse (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The notation clearly states that Henson began his film career as a security guard on the set of Steven Spielberg’s set, “Back to the Future” AND as an assistant to Cicely Tyson, Yaphet Kotto and the late Ron O’Neal. As a production assistant on various sets and as a producer he gleaned and learned the art of film making, in addition to his studies in college. Also as an actor on Atlanta Child Murders and Playing with fire which are referneced on Imdb. Henson also studied under veteran actor Maurice Sneed.Sistaliz09 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The subject of the article has to meet notability criteria found at WP:BIO. Specific areas where we are looking include WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. Of the two roles mentioned above, one was as an extra, while the other was uncredited. Work as a personal assistant does not establish notability, nor does his onset education or affiliation with Sneed. His work as a PA and producer is not verifiable and does not indicate notability according to established criteria. Take a look at the notability criteria and address those issues, providing reliable sources to support the claims. Cindamuse (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article's author has removed AfD tag from article twice. Need help to re-add. I don't know how to do it without starting another AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the tags by going into the article's history, opening an old version (that had the tags) in the edit window, copying the tags, and pasting them back into the article. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Dang, if I don't learn something new every day. I never noticed the edit prompt up there next to the undo. Facepalm. Cindamuse (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noticed that the author has posted comments on the article's talk page regarding deletion. It appears as a new author, she may not have been aware of how to participate in this discussion. (AGF) She was also not notified on her talk page. I have directed her to make comments on this page. Cindamuse (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of moving her comments (lightly edited) from the article talk to here, they are immediately below.
Keep as article creator. Stanley V. Henson, Jr.'s page is relevant as a director and producer because:
- He has directed Bill Cosby, Dick Gregory, Clifton Powell and a supermodel/actress who was discovered by Robert Altman, Georgianna Robertson.
- He also owns all content for the two films that he has directed and produced.
- His film "Rise above the silver and gold" premiered at several AMC Theaters in 2005 before being distributed on DVD.
- Disqualifying this page to exist would also justify deleting the pages of Matty Rich, Spike Lee, Kasi Lemmons, Vincent Gallo, and Michael Winterbottom, whose films were equally independent and featured actors and actresses of less notoriety and celebrity status than that of Bill Cosby, Dick Gregory, Taraji P. Henson and Clifton Powell.

It appears the editors are more concerned with their power than the necessity to improve Wikipedia. Sistaliz09 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC) as formatted and edited by Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, yes I'm new to this, thanks for your assistance. I would like for the Rise above the silver and gold and the Stanley Henson page to be deleted. It's no big deal here, now I can't delete because someone made some minor grammar and formatting changes? To articles that you don't want here anyway? There is no balance. The comments are negative, mean spirited and insulting. I don't want the pages up anymore. Please delete. Since I am the author, what rights do I have if any? It seems like the editors with seniority have ego and power issues. Please just delete both pages. Thank you. Sistaliz09 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the ((db-author)) tag on the Stanley Henson page as you have requested it be deleted. If you are the main contributor, an Admin will probably delete it shortly. Otherwise, it may need to complete this AfD process first. --Korruski (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Henson directed Bill Cosby, it would have been in Bowl of Dreams, but the imdb entry for that film doesn't mention Cosby (although Dick Gregory is in the film). FWIW the Wikipedia article on Bowl of Dreams was deleted. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I know this doesn't technically fall under the letter of G7 but it sure seems to fall under the spirit of it. 28bytes (talk) 04:17, 15 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 Nominator withdrew. Diego Grez (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 San Bruno fire[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Citing the original creator of the article: "waiting for the deletion discussion in which someone will mention WP:NOTNEWS without actually having read it". I did read it, and I don't foresee historical significance more than a few broken houses. Diego Grez (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice - delete per the nominators rationale, no historical significance beyond immediate damage. 6 months down the line, this'll be a memory. Barking Fish 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, it is in the news right now. But I think the incident has attained notability since it is reported by major news sources such as BBC and CNN. Plus, this is the first major explosion in the area in recent history. I say this definitely has "historical significance". If the incident where a gay flight attendant yelled out profanity on the plane then grabbed a beer and escaped via a slide got an article, then this should get an article.—Chris!_c/t 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is on the news now. What about in three months? Four months? A year? It will be forgotten quickly. It's just an insignificant accident. We got here in Chile like two earlier this year. Did they got an article? I'm sure they did not. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Diego Grez (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Diego. Chrishomingtang - Using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at an AFD is not great. Each article is assessed on its own merits, just because something else equally shite exists, doesn't mean we need more. Barking Fish 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it will be in the news again as the cause of the explosion revealed and ensuing lawsuits unfolded. The angry flight attendant incident will be forgotten in several months, yet it got an article. I knew about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am just trying to show how events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia. —Chris!_c/t 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as my argument for keep. I am just mentioning that a lot of events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 23:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate them for deletion then! --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he nominate them for deletion if he's arguing for keep on this one? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he said "that a lot of events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia." --Diego Grez (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nominate them because consensus has already been established in most cases. One example was JetBlue Flight 1052, which was kept after a lebgthy afd, drv and yet another afd.—Chris!_c/t 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a serious problem. Wikipedia should not be writing articles for events that happened 15 minutes ago, as I mentioned before, Wikinews is the proper place for such articles. I agree it is a bit hard to write there first, but that's the place they should be, not here. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Try to go against consensus and afd them all yourself. Good luck with that.—Chris!_c/t 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If this was merely another fire I might agree that it should be deleted. But the nominator has, for some reason, chosen to minimize the scale of the disaster. "a few broken houses"?? Try again. Furthermore, the fires were the result of a natural gas pipeline explosion, which is very far from an everyday event and immediately sets this apart from ordinary fire stories. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the historical significance of the event? Wikinews is the news source. Wikipedia is not supposed to do reports on news events unless historical significance is asserted, which in this case it has not been. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical significance has not been asserted! Please, read my comments again since I have clearly explained why it has historical significance.—Chris!_c/t 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few reliable sources right 2 days from the incident and that's historical significance? Nope. Historical significance has to be asserted in a matter of months or years. This event happened just 2/3 days ago. It is much better suited for Wikinews than Wikipedia, because of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikinews is the news organization, this is the encyclopedia. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because "this event happened just 2/3 days ago", this deletion debate is a nonsense. How can you assess historical significance if this just happen?—Chris!_c/t 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because of "How can you assess historical significance if this just happen", the article shouldn't have been created in the first place. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't even assess historical significance, then how can you say this is insignificant? You are basically saying your deletion reason at the top is nonsense.
Bearing in mind that a similar event, the Buncefield fire, is a Good article, it might be worth holding off judgment until we can properly assess its historical significance. But do note that there has been massive destruction of property and a state of emergency has been declared, which does imply that the event is notable. At the very least it should be merged to San Bruno, California. Fences&Windows 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Buncefield fire resulted in zero deaths, while the Lasting effects of the 2010 San Bruno fire include at least 4 deaths and 38 destroyed homes. Further, we expect legal and maybe even political effects here; if nothing does happen in terms of lawsuits and regulatory changes, then delete the article. And I don't buy the argument "We had similar incidents in Chile but there are no articles." Then create the article! I won't AfD it! Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, they have no historical significance more than a few deaths and some broken private homes. This one has no historical significance either. Diego Grez (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you have repeated this assertion, please enlighten us as to the nature of these purportedly similar inicidents in Chile. How many of them involved natural gas pipeline explosions in urban areas? Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Bruno, California. Information on what schools are closed, what blood type is needed, and where shelters are being set up is insignificant. The incident to the city of San Bruno is significant and the amount of coverage it has received warrants mention in the main article. If that expands over time, then a split may be needed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge debate is a little soon imo since this just happened.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - A merge to San Bruno, California is the most reasonable thing I've heard in this debate. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in WP:RS, and a major event. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources have covered what is Gordon Brown's favourite cookie. Should we have an article for it?. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous apple and orange comparison! That is insignificant trivial info. This is a major disaster.—Chris!_c/t 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... I reiterate. What is the historical significance? Historical significance happens to appear just after some time from the event, but Wikipedia's problem is to write articles about news that should not be here, but on Wikinews. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I repeat. Read my comment again if you can't see the historical significance. I already explained.—Chris!_c/t 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sourcing, important in this part of the world. Systemic bias works both ways. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although NOTNEWS is a vaild argument, take into account a few things. (I'm sure you'll cite WP:CRYSTAL, but here goes) Right now there are 5-6 dead, more in burn centers, over fifty houses destroyed in a giant fireball, hundreds of other homes destroyed. Additionally PG&E was cited in May by the NTSB for having poor inspections, in the same area. Doubtlessly some sort of controversy will ensure for PG&E, and could quite possibly end up with a shakeup of the industry. Experts on TV (and probably soon in papers) are raising concerns about the fact that there are gas lines under all of us. I find it funny that you just created an article an earthquake that killed one person due to heart attack. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it did not happen 5 minutes ago... --Diego Grez (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So. a 20-year old insignificant event has historical significance. While a 2 days old major significant event has no historical significance. You are contradicting yourself, LOL.—Chris!_c/t 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I'm not. That event happened in the middle of a "seismic swarm" that triggered that and many other earthquakes. It was/is of historical significance, and that can be proven. It is also one of the strongest earthquakes in the world and in Chile. This event, by contrast, happened just some days ago and the historical significance that these kind of events gain can't be achieved in such a short period of time. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, a disaster where a single human being died indirectly is never going to be significant in history. No matter how you stretch it.—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To User:NativeForeigner. I really think 1985 Pichilemu earthquake should be deleted. But I don't want to start the afd myself since I don't it to be seen as a retaliation.—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further convinced to keep because of the fact that there is huge depth of coverage. Just channel surfed and found reports regarding it (all about 10 minutes) on the channels of FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC and BBC. It was briefly mentioned on arirang (korean channel) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - these types of deletion discussions are often premature. It's hard to tell if it's a case of recentism or something that will end up having longer-term merit. It'd be much easier to discuss deletion in a month. tedder (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thinking about it that's the same point I'm trying to make in my keep vote: we can't tell whether it will have an impact right now, but it looks like there is a large possibility. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a notable event, and has importance to several other articles including Pacific Gas & Electric, the main San Bruno article, among others. And seriously? Consensus was to keep an article about that huge traffic jam in China last month? This is certainly more significant than that. Seeyardee (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't believe the creator of 1985 Pichilemu earthquake is the nom for this AfD! Further, this AfD is degenerating into WP:LAME. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to BBC, Korean media are reporting on it too:

윤, 혜지 (2010-09-10). "美 샌프란시스코 가스 폭발 화재". Asia News Agency.

There is no edit warring. :)—Chris!_c/t 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, as per Tedder. Also, it appeared in French [2], Spanish [3], and Chinese [4] newspapers, so it's not your neighborhood fire. If there's little left in 2 months, then maybe delete. But not now. Tony (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the event itself that makes it notable, it's the coverage of the event the makes it notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Widely covered in diverse sources. Seems likely to have a lasting effect. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very large explosion resulting in loss of life. As far as I can tell, it was not a "minor" fire, 53 homes were destroyed and 120 more were severely damaged. To be perfectly honest, why must this deletion even be proposed? Do people here really have nothing better to do than remove valid information on a current event that is receiving significant attention? I honestly believe that this whole process has become a joke and to be perfectly blatant here...it's like a ritual now. Sorry for the minor rant, just had to put that out there... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major news coverage presently, plus parallel investigations by PG&E and NTSB mean further coverage in the future. C628 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrew. I never thought that nominating this article would bring me two vendettastic AfDs to two of my articles. I sincerely nominated this article assuming good faith, reiterating the 2010 San Bruno fire now has no historical significance. How can a fire that happened 2 days ago have historical significance? I know that this will be (perhaps) achieved in the months that are coming, but... forgive me for the great misunderstanding that have put in risk two of my articles for deletion. Thanks for reading this, Diego Grez (talk) 02:32, 11 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 Transformers. The history is preserved to allow merging into a list if/when created. Overall, there is no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Haul[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in a recent notable film. Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability improved - I added a good book citation to the article that should help establish notability for the character. Mathewignash (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 10 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 22:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More notability - Added a source from an "unofficial" guidebook, should be considered non-primary. Mathewignash (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Distinct lack of reliable sources indicating notability. Thus it fails notability guidelines and GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep unofficial sourcebooks are acceptable independent sources. There are a few others in the article. Sourcing is certainly not lacking and RSes aren't lacking, it's non-trivial independent sources. There is enough of each category (independent, non-trivial etc.).Hobit (talk) 06:25, 17 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 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dune Runner[edit]

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

No sources that would indicate Dune Runner is actually notable. Delete due to lacking notability, third-party sources, and importance. NotARealWord (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Since the character does appear to play a significant role in a comic book issue based on RotF, a redirect is in order for this case. —Farix (t | c) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But, Dune Runner wasn't in the movie. Plus, there was that other Dune Runner who's unrelated. I'm pretty sure neither are actually notable. NotARealWord (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is from the comic book follow to the film. Since there is no article on the comic book, the film is the next best place. A character doesn't need to be notable to have a redirect. Nor does it need to be notable to have an entry on a list. —Farix (t | c) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Dune Runner" should not redirect to the film's article:

He didn't appear in the film. Redirects should be towards something they would be relevant to. Redirecting "Dune Runner" to the movie would be inappropriate and meaningless.
There's also the Mini-Con called Dune Runner, and it doesn't seem like either of them are more notable than the other.

-NotARealWord (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable outside of the TFwiki, where characters this minor should belong. No reliable sources and fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proposed redirect would be nonsensical if he doesn't appear in the movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:52, 17 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 The Transformers (TV series). Any content worth merging can pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbombya[edit]

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

Topic isn't really that notable. The controversy and offense caused by the subject can be covered in Casey Kasem and The Transformers (TV series) NotARealWord (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 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"

Keep Isn't the reference listed notable? [5] Its an example of an negative Arab stereotype. Dream Focus 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that source is enough for the entire article though. NotARealWord (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: the AMEU link, I feel, makes this article notable; the fictional country offended one of the voice-actors because of the overtly racist undertones of it so much so that he left. That, to me, indicates notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's not enough material for an entire article. The main article on the TV show can just note that a fictional country within the show was really offensive and caused one of the voice actors to quit. NotARealWord (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one has potential for an article, but we're gonna need to see more than just that one link. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source - Spike.com also mentions it in an article. http://www.spike.com/blog/six-most-insane/87055?page=2&numPerPage=1 Mathewignash (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The dispute is nothing more a footnote in Kasem's career and the show's production. The rest is nothing but useless fancruft. It would serve better on the show's article. Sarujo (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The important stuff could all be summarised in one paragraph. Redirect could work since there's not enough stuff for an article without resorting to fancruft. NotARealWord (talk) 12:16, 9 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 21:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There isn't much of an article right now, and I'm pretty sure the only information to add to it would be more sources. So, really, there isn't going to be much of an article without resorting to fancruft. I really can't see why this can't be summed up in one paragraph on the page for the TV series. NotARealWord (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Transformers (TV series). No independent, reliable sources able to confer independent notability. Skinny87 (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Transformers (TV series) per above voter. --Divebomb (talk) 14:07, 18 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 Sledge Hammer! . No need to retain material already in the article but this is a credible redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Sledge Hammer[edit]

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

WP:INUNIVERSE fansite article about a television character who has no sourced indication of notability outside the short-lived series he existed in. Was tagged for prod, but deprodded with no explanation or improvement provided. No need for a whole article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the show's article, trimming unnecessary material in the process as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inspector Sledge Hammer is a cultural icon of the 1980's. Entire college courses have been taught regarding this one character. Independent sources abound -- we just have to find them. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entire college courses just about this one character? Go ahead, pull the other one. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as lacking sources to WP:verify notability. The notion that entire courses have been taught on this character is not credible from my research. But I'd invite someone to WP:PROVEIT if I'm wrong. I'm quite sure I'm right though. Shooterwalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Please enlighten us, what "research" exactly did you do? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you show us some proof of those college courses first? Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I taught one. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase my question: how about you show us some reliably sourced proof of those college courses? Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to shift or confuse the issue. The issue before us is whether the article meets wikipedia guidelines, not whether one can adduce proof of a college course. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and whether the article meets Wikipedia guidelines is entirely a matter of whether you can provide reliably sourced proof of notability. So pony up. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that any argument you make about this subject's notability has to stand up to the WP:verifiability test. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turned up measly sources. None of them reliable. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL brought up a couple of alumni articles, but no mention on any open-access online syllabi. Does that mean there are no pink unicorns in the forest? Can't say. For what it's worth, most of the information in this article is already in the article about the series, from the looks. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character gets referenced.

Sledge Hammer! was a Dirty Harry parody. Rasche played Detective Inspector Sledge Hammer. According to the TV historians Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, “Sledge was the ultimate tough cop: square-jawed and totally self-confident, with no mercy for the wimps and scum who infested his fair city. That included jaywalkers and litterbugs, who deserved to be shot like all the rest.” Sledge favored reflecting sunglasses and liked to talk to his gun, a .44 Magnum named Gun. Rasche’s ability to be serious in absurd situations meant the show somehow never overshot itself. In one episode, Sledge solves a series of murders of Elvis impersonators by learning to do an Elvis impersonation himself. It looks more like calisthenics combined with a bad case of Tourette’s syndrome than like an act that would make the ladies swoon. In another episode, Sledge forces a miscreant, at gunpoint, to punch himself silly.

So, two TV historians talk about him. Sounds like a notable character to me. Dream Focus 21:31, 7 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 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. See comment below chromancerKeep. Though I was born too late to have seen him on TV, I've recognized his image, having seen it in the most random places all over without knowing what it means. For example, I once saw the image featured on this page in a post on Fark, a major aggregate news outlet here though I knew not what it meant. While by itself, this doesn't prove anything, it does hint at the cultural importance of this figure. Now that I have read this article, I can understand that the character's image is practically a synonym for the word "overkill." Anyhow this article is an interesting read, all issues and concerns on this page are fixable. —CodeHydro 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Striking keep, but see compromise below Chromancer's comment below. —CodeHydro 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All, and I mean all of the information present in this article is already in the Sledge Hammer! article. It's word-for-word. WP:REDUNDANT, anyone? No point in merging what's already been merged, and the character is not notable per WP:N outside of the eponymous television show. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 03:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise: Why don't we just redirect rather than delete? I have already struck my keep vote above after reading your observations. Redirecting accomplishes everything that a delete does without deleting the record of contributions while also leaving the framework (such as the info box and section organization) in the history in case the subject eventually does become big enough to merit a full article. Moreover, I'd like to point out that the article was created by a new user, so redirecting might be a nicer way that doesn't bite off a quarter of Safagheld's contributions. Moreover, there is actually some information present here that's not present in the main article, such as what is contained in the "Career" section as well as the organizational formatt. Redirecting would allow people to adapt the main article after the AfD closes. —CodeHydro 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chromancer. There doesn't appear to be a need for this spinoff article if all of the information is already contained in the parent article, which doesn't appear to have length issues. SnottyWong ^spout 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect per Codehydro's comments above. SnottyWong ^confess 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to the series article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just making it clear that redirect without delete is an option since some may not notice that two people are supportive of a redirect since the relist. —CodeHydro 12:15, 17 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. Being linked to from valid articles which happen to be referenced, having a possibility of expansion, and proof by assertion are all invalid reasons to demonstrate the subject's notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IWA East Coast[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 01:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 02:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP or WP:ORG, whichever one prefers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Long time no see, Ms. Nikki the Iron Lady. As the creator of the article, I'm probably biased, but let me say, please keep. The article may not meet the CORP notability guideline, however, it currently has 20 backlinks from other valid articles, Charleston, West Virginia, Zach Gowen, Jerry Lynn, Roderick Strong, Chris Hero, MsChif, Mad Man Pondo, Portia Perez, Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South, Nate Webb, Jun Kasai, Smart Mark Video, Shiima Xion, Marvin Lambert, Mickie Knuckles, Ryuji Ito, Thumbtack Jack, Masters of Pain, J. C. Bailey, Frightmare (wrestler), and some of these articles have valid references. Plus I've found other sources, not about the promotion, but referring to the promotion, Dailymail, and on Moonsauld.de and IMDB. I'm not sure if these are legit, but I hope so. - The Wifechaser (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : it has a link to another language, which denote its relevance. Jeangabin (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages. So? The article needs to denote its relevance per WP:CORP not what may or may not exist on Wikipedia. Nikki♥311 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria at WP:ORG. --DAJF (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge). Many articles link here without transclusions. If impossible, this article had better be merged into Mad Man Pondo as one section (here is not an article of "Independent Wrestling Association", cf. de:IWA East-Coast), and make this a redirect page to that new section. --Akira Kouchiyama 17:58, 9 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 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definite potential for expansion, as the promotion is definitely notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am weak keeping this article because there is room for expansion. Stuff like current champions, roster, history of the promotion, and other items need to be added. Not all articles will be full of content right away because it takes time. Rome was not built in a day. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article needs to meet WP:CORP to be kept and nobody who has voted keep has proven how it does. Even the creator of the article admits that it doesn't (The article may not meet the CORP notability guideline...). Nikki♥311 19:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of sources and none of the keep votes has put forward any policy based argument. Source it or lose it folks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 18 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 Pub Philosophy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ideas (Pub Philosophy)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable series of events. No third-party references. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No, wikipedia isn't a place to post the awesome things that happen at your pub, church, dorm room, or secret treehouse club in the backyard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinithehat (talk • contribs)
Keep I realise I am late to this but as the original author I will give a justification: Wikipedia has articles about academic philosophical organisations (eg Forum for European Philosophy which I participate in) but does not have as many significant non-academic ones. This was a first attempt at adding some. Thinking about it more this article should have more about Big Ideas as an organisation rather than as an event.CafePhilo (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made a start on thinking about how to improve this page yesterday and I suspect the emphasis and tone of the article are quite wrong and need a re-think. One option would be to merge this and Philosophy For All (an initiative of the University of London and also marked for deletion) with Pub Philosophy, which is actively being worked on. Are we in a hurry to delete this page outright before it's had much work done on it by people familiar with the subject? Helveticat (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of the article is not part of the deletion rationale here. It all has to do with notability, that is, whether an article should even be started on this topic. Has "Big Ideas" been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? If not, no amount of editing can save the article, yet the content can be summarized in other articles. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:38, 3 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 21:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Pub Philosophy which has the basic apparatus for material on philosophical circles, and delete. AllyD (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has potential. Why be in a hurry to delete? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pub Philosophy and Delete, per user:AllyD. Spatulli (talk) 19:12, 16 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 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris St. Hilaire[edit]

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

While the article claims notability, there are no reliable sources to verify that this subject does in fact meet notability standards. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Jury Impact is a fairly notable firm, but I am not sure he rates his own article. Other opinions? Bearian (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One article is the best I found. I thought there might be something if I pried away the obvious promotion (either self-promotion or more likely promotion by publicist), but the lack of reliable sources leads to a delete. tedder (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sufficent independent sourcing to merit a standalone article. Extra backside kick for creating a spam autobiography. Bonus points for leaving example.com as an EL. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:35, 14 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. Favonian (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it takes[edit]

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

Non-notable movie —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and then redirect to the disambiguation page Whatever It Takes. (This page is about an as-yet-unreleased film, not about any other film of the same name.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article itself says it all: "will be released sometime in the upcoming months". Let that happen, the film get some coverage, and then we might discuss the article's return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 12 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. When we get much closer to Nanjing, this may be freely recreated if this event is on the program. Courcelles 21:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diving at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 3m springboard[edit]

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

Prod contested by article creator. Unreferenced article that fails WP:CRYSTAL. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "is an event that will probably take place" Reso lute 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst indivudual events in the Olympics are notable, they aren't notable four years in advance (plus Wp:CRYSTAL, as already stated). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL and the other arguments above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL with no problem of recreating when sources become available in a few years time. Lugnuts (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 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. Courcelles 21:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Church, Longnewton[edit]

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

Not a notable church. Andrew Duffell (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Grade II* Listing. AFAIK, consensus is generally that listed buildings (esp Grade I and II*) are, by nature of their listing, notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note see Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) - Pit-yacker (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two telephone boxes on Yarm high street. These are Grade II listed... does that make them notable enough for wikipedia? I think there needs to more than just being listed to establish notability. Andrew Duffell (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the phone boxes are Grade II listed, this church is Grade II* listed. The question over whether Grade II (over 90% of listed buildings are in this category) listing is notable to qualify an article for Wikipedia is more open. However, the general consensus is that a Grade II* (or Grade I) listing generally confers inherent notability. Grade I or II* listing suggests the building is in some way regarded as one of the most important examples of architecture in the country. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Pit-yacker. Bob talk 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To be listed, the inclusion standards are higher than wikipedia's. And the nom has given absolutely no reason as to why they think this is "non a notable church." --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade II* listing places it in top 7% of listed buildings in UK. Thus notability is established. Article needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pit-yacker. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:44, 14 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 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mulholland"[edit]

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

Creating page for 69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: PROD contested by article creator. Non-notable drink, only ref is to the club that named it, bringing in all kinds of COI problems as well. Appears to have been created by one of the people who named/drinks it. I personally have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find no RS supporting notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOT. I found only one reference to a similarly named cocktail, Mulholland Drive in a blog posting hosted by LA Weekly. But the ingredients of the drink described in the blog post are different than those described in this article. Neither are notable. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:08, 13 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 21:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Valley Blackhawks[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable team. Performing a quick Google there are few sites beyond those related to the team and its rivals. A news archive search returns nothing more than 8 mentions in various local papers over the last 3 years (5 of the 8 are the local papers of rival teams). The article is and has been tagged as unreferenced for 18months. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has yet to achieve notability on the scale we need here. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 12 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. whether to merge this into Genetic Code is an editorial decision that deosn't need an admin to enforce Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Codon Table[edit]

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

Completely incomprehensible table with no context whatsoever. Without these, of no use in this encyclopaedia. No assertion of notability. No explanation of the term DNA Codon. No clue as to why this highly technical table is in wikipedia. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Later can consider editorial merge to one of the other codon-related articles. There is now context (sheesh, nom'ed within 4 minutes of creation ~~and you didn't even notify the author~~?). But also, the words "DNA" and "Codon" really do exactly describe what it is (we have articles at DNA and Codon). This codon mapping is covered in intro genetics and biochem couses. It's technical bare facts but hardly technical esoteric out-of-scope for Wikipedia. Actually it's a sister table to one in the GA genetic code article (the only difference is the type of genetic coding material being analyzed). I don't know if it should be re-merged back in there (or both tables split out?), but those are editorial decisions. The table contents themselves are recently discussed on Talk:Genetic code. DMacks (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did notify the author, actually. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad...that edit appeared before the nom itself, I didn't look prior to that. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi guys. This is the first time I write/edit a wiki page, so I will concede to your guidance on this matter. I noted the relative redundancy of the page with Genetic Code and my greater goal is actually to have a reference page for some basic bioinformatics information (i.e. DNA codons, amino acid pka, etc) that I (or anyone else working on similar things) can look up on when writing scripts or doing analyses. I thought of adding the table directly in the Genetic Code page, but we already have an RNA codon table there, which many think would be more relevant for the page since it's more of a biochemistry than a bioinformatics article. While there are DNA codon tables that can be found with google, I don't see why wikipedia shouldn't have it somewhere, since it's supposed to also serve as a place to quickly retrieve reference materials.Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genetic code

This material is definitely appropriate material for Wikipedia. It's not highly technical; I'd expect this to be covered in the first semester of any teriary biology course, and perhaps in secondary biology courses.
I think both forward and reverse codon lookup tables belong in the Genetic code article. The article describes several salient features of the genetic code, such as its degeneracy, the fact that three codons mean stop rather than encoding an amino acid, and the tendency for amino acids with similar chemical properties to be encoded by similar codons. These features are most easily conveyed by presenting the codon tables. It's also easier to understand the prose discussing these concepts when the codon tables are present in the same article. I realise the current forward table is bulky – but see Talk:Genetic_code#Codon_table_layout for a solution to that.
This article has the same problems as Codon Dictionary, which I redirected to Genetic code for reasons described at Talk:Codon Dictionary: (1) We're encouraged to provide enough background or context for a reader to understand this as a stand-alone article (WP:PCR), rather than relying on links, but it's difficult to do so succinctly and without overwhelming the table itself or simply repeating Genetic code; and (2) There's not much to say about a codon table that's not already covered in Genetic code.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Genetic code. Since essentially the same table is already there, the merge can be done by adding one sentence explaining the differences (i.e. T instead of U). -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's incomprehensible to me too but I am not a biologist. I expect it will not be so to those who are. Woeful nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge oder redirect to Genetic code. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge: this is not an article unto itself, but the content clearly belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. -- BenTels (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is as basic to an encyclopedia as anything else, indeed as basic to life on earth as anything else; as the central organizing scheme of molecular biology, an article is appropriate. There is sufficient information at the head of the table to give the context. I can & will add some additional references about he historical development of the table. A merge is inappropriate, this is of central importance by itself, just as the periodic table is--in principle, that could be merged to Chemistry, whichwould make as much sense as merging this. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is essentially the same table as in genetic code, with U replaced by T. The historical material you describe belongs naturally in that article, and that article is probably analogous to periodic table in the way that Genetics is to Chemistry. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:56, 18 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 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Tube Challenges[edit]

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

This article does not claim any notability on the subject of 'alternative tube challenges'. It's almost completely used as a fansite by people from tubeforum.co.uk, and is full of original research and unsourced/poorly sourced claims. Whereas the original 'tube challenge' is notable, an article on 'variations of the tube challenge' is best left as a section in a reliably sourced and much shortened Tube Challenge article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only references are blogs, forum postings, and personal webpages. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly Delete. Quite like the idea of this, but Wikipedia is not the place for games you made up on an internet message board. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six references, all of which fail WP:RS by a country mile. One thing to note: there are four redirects to this page. Most of these are useless, but Tube Olympics may be worth redirecting to the main Tube Challenge page. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no reason at all why this needs to exist as a separate article. Estesark (talk) 20:15, 17 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 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Xyz1881 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson[edit]

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

1) Discussion on the Icelandic wikipedia concluded that Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson was not notable enough to warrant a special article. Discussion in Icelandic
2) The Article mentions that Guðmundsson is a "director of the conservative free-market think tank Civis" - a Google search doesn't turn up anything about this think tank.
3) Being a fellow of a think tank called "The Copenhagen Institute" does not constitute notability.
4) Heimssýn, the political organisation promoting euroscepticism in Iceland, has 41 members [6] Just being a board member can hardly meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
5) The article reads: "Since 2010 Guðmundsson has worked part time as a journalist at the Icelandic daily Morgunblaðið." I don't think I have to comment on the significance of this.
6) Guðmundsson also co-founded this political organisation called "Flokkur framfarasinna". It was discussed at some length on the Icelandic wikipedia if this could warrant a special article on GuðmundssonDiscussion in Icelandic (I was originally in favor but later opposed it). The reasons why the Icelandic wikipedia opposed it was: a) This political party had insignificant membership (≤100), b) it never stood for election, c) it was dissolved only three years after its founding. While this political organisation might warrant a short article on the Icelandic wikipedia, it was concluded that there was no need for a special article on its founder. Xyz1881 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In the article, you wrote: "Guðmundsson first rose to fame in Iceland in 2001, when he co-founded a political party called Flokkur framfarasinna."[7] Do you still believe that Guðmundsson is famous in Iceland? Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, I have accepted the reasoning of the administrators on the Icelandic wikipedia who claimed that Guðmundsson was not in any way famous in Iceland. Xyz1881 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:GNG, in the form of reliable sources about (not just mentioning) the subject. All I found in Google news archive was a single German-language story that mentioned him but did not seem to be about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 13 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. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Stories[edit]

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

Another MySpace band, fails WP:BAND, contains promotional content and is unsourced. Delete per WP:V, WP:BAND and WP:NOTADVERTISING Acather96 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local band.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Dubious claims completely unsupported by WP:RS. Violates WP:V. Probably a speedy since the claim of importance is completely uncredible. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:46, 14 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 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adamson[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Has a few voluntary roles in sport in Edinburgh that get a handful of references in local press. Besides this is credited with writing a single comedy sketch on BBC One. Article isn't really referenced link to comedy sketch returns 404, other site it just a link to the homepage of one of the organisations he is involved with. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at a push, Merge to Edinburgh Wolves. We don't normally consider sportspeople outside of the fully professional sector, and I can't see any reason to treat this person any differently, given the limitation of his coverage in GNews to mentions in articles about his team. If someone does find more evidence of notability, the article needs a major rewrite for neutral point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. He may become the Walter Camp of British gridiron football... but he hasn't achieved that yet. Hope he does, then we can keep!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 12 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. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard G Smith[edit]

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

I and another admin disagree about whether it passes speedy A7, but it does seem clear that, even if it does, actual notability as an academic is somewhat doubtful. It seems to me that it would depend on the importance of the editorships, about which I presently have no opinion. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no internal evidence of notability in the article and no references, and the fact that it has been repeatedly re-created by the editor or his puppets without any significant changes indicates that there's an underlying agenda that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Fails WP:RS and WP:PROF andy (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a geographer R G Smith with cites on GS of 542, 229, 61, 52. If this is the same Smith he could be heading for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Enough highly-cited publications to meet #1, with an h-index of 15-20. Easy to get false positives, but enough actual hits if one looks carefully. Most widely cited pub with over 500 citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In that case passes WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Eric Yurken. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google scholar search gives four papers with over 100 cites each (including the 500-cite one mentioned by Xxanthippe and Eric) and three more with over 50. It gets messy below that point, and the search is probably too specific to find all of Smith's work, but it's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wos search using "Author=(Smith RG) Refined by: Subject Areas=(GEOGRAPHY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" probably eliminates false-positives. H-index is only 7, but the citation list is 90, 35, 32... with roughly 250 collective citations. This would seem to be a solid pass, given that geography is not a field associated with terribly high citation counts. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - while we have no bright line test, under WP:PROF, he would pass due to the sheer number of citations. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thats lots of cites for an obscure field VASterling (talk) 20:21, 13 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. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moorad Shipping News[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Diego Grez (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:V--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bi-weekly trade magazine. No evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 15 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 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus on Thyface[edit]

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

This article is about a book that is very recently published, and the article was apparently submitted by one of the book's authors. It's only third party source is a short blurb in an upcoming books preview in a magazine geared toward booksellers. I've looked and I have been unable to find any additional sources, so it appears that this does not pass the notability guideline for books. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per MrOllie. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Creator has same name as one of the book's authors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 19:19, 11 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 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Abyss[edit]

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

Chracter only appeared in a few episodes. The article has no sources to indicate notability and is mainly fiction summary and description of character's powers. Delete or something should be in order, cos if this guy deserves his own article, then Wikipedia should have a page on every single Power Ranger. NotARealWord (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is not notable as the character is only in 2 episodes of Kamen Rider Decade as Kamen Rider Abyss and the article has no reliable third-party sources. Powergate92Talk 22:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Abyss (character) has appeared in 2 Ep. and 4Ep. as Paradoxa. Xtreme2010 ( ~AlienX2009~ ) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the character is in 5 episodes doe's not make them notable. The article needs reliable third-party sources to be notable as WP:Notability says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". Powergate92Talk 22:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kamen Rider Decade characters in the Nine Worlds. I might just do that later this afternoon, rendering this deletion discussion moot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot turn a page into a redirect while the discussion is still going. You can make a redirect later. NotARealWord (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just end the discussion yourself and make it into a redirect on your own. I've moved all the essential information on the character already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While a Decade character, he was designed in the style of the Ryuki series.Fractyl (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is that a reason to keep? He appeared in Decade, so he belongs in a Decade character list. NotARealWord (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is not a reason to keep, as I said before the article needs reliable third-party sources to be notable per WP:Notability. Powergate92Talk 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Kamen Rider Decade characters in the Nine Worlds. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page seems to be mostly just a collection of original research violation, no real significant secondary source discussion or critical commentary of any kind whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete (or merge, but there being no third party sourced content to merge, they effectively default to delete) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really, recurring characters like Otoya or Natsumi(kan) are better suited for their own articles than this guy. NotARealWord (talk) 18:22, 14 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 one with the error in the title and keep the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. G.O.A.T[edit]

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

Recreation of deleted topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms. G.O.A.T., still a non-notable mixtape with no reliable sources Delete Secret ^account 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. One source is not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough sources, in my opinion, to keep this article. Amazon - hiphopmusicdotcom - MTV - vh1 - All Hip Hop: Review, granted the vh1 source and other sources then these appear to be simply tracklisting, but with it's coverage, sig. standard release/track information, reviews and album cover, this seems completely legitimate for a keep. With input in support, I will make the necessary additions to the article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) see the comments below. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - redid it in proper spot - Ms. G.O.A.T. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I apologize for the confusion and complication in this AfD, I rebuilt the album at the correct spot above, which I suppose should, to remain proper in the process, receive the AfD tag on it. Regarding the article that is currently listed by Secret account, with the improper naming, I would propose, because of my article creation in the correct spot, a Speedy Deletion of Ms. G.O.A.T - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One is a blog, two just offerers the CD for sale (VH1 and Amazon) and not considered a source, and another source allhiphop I know the owners who does the website (I work for an hip-hop nightclub) and I sometimes it's a reliable source, but most of time is just rumors and personal opinions and such and I tend not to use it, the only hip-hop only reliable source I use is Hip Hop Weekly and theres nothing in the article there, the only reliable source i see is the MTV source and that's the source mentioned in the article, one reliable source doesn't make the album notable. Secret ^account 22:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just saw the duplicate article which should be history merged if kept, the only other reliable source I saw from that listing that just doesn't mention that the album exists is XXL and they mostly duplicate the MTV source. None of the others are reliable like DatPff and Brown Sista. Secret ^account 22:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although some of the sources aren't the greatest, I feel at this point the album passes notability. Because of the way I haphazardly did this, I think that we can place a speedy delete on the article Ms. G.O.A.T, and either revote for Ms. G.O.A.T. (which I believe is unnecessary, but fair) or agree that it meets notability and close this discussion. Because I feel too biased by now, I do not want to place any tags without consensus, and would generally prefer if someone else did it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources are reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Keep, didn't see there were two articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The newer version, Ms._G.O.A.T., easily has enough reliable sources - a write up by MTV, and coverage by XXL magazine, AllHipHop, and New York (magazine) - easily reliable enough sources and big enough focus on the mixtape. Crateescape101 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ms. G.O.A.T.. Notable artist, some significant coverage in reliable sources. Redirect Ms. G.O.A.T to that one.--Michig (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ms. G.O.A.T.. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mixtapes and unofficial releases are not notable. - eo (talk) 16:51, 15 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. Improper nomination and intent to withdraw nom. —fetch ·comms 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoori (actress)[edit]

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

All biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is referenced; it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does not fall under biographies of living persons. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-referenced, and isn't a BLP since the subject is dead. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does have (reliable enough) sources, altought very short article. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to improper good faith nomination. With respects to the nominator, WP:BLP does not apply to persons who are deceased, and the aricle IS sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There, I think i'm done fixing up the article. That's all the refs I could find at least. Oh, and I echo Schmidt's wording. Silverseren^C 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW! Very nice work! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article will be kept because now it has everything a biography of a living needs. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:08, 12 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 at this point seems clear . DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Mismos[edit]

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

Seems to fail the criteria at WP:MUSIC. A google search turns up disappointing results. Also nominating:

:| TelCo NaSpVe :| 04:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep:This music is a little outside my wheelhouse, but if this band has released multiple albums on EMI Latin, doesn't it qualify as notable under WP:BAND#5? "Los Mismos" is an extremely difficult term to search, and there is far more coverage of their former Los Bukis colleague Marco Antonio Solis (whom even I have heard of), but they were clearly notable (indeed, famous) when they were Los Bukis, and there does seem to be at least a little coverage in English of this band under its subsequent name: The L.A. Times:"Los Bukis regrouped without Solis as Los Mismos, and have enjoyed success."[8] San Antonio Express-News: "Los Mismos: Same as they ever were"[9] (pay site, unfortunately). --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (Changed to "keep" per Michig and Bigger digger. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The LA Times article serves only as a passing mention. The rest of the article chronicles Los Bukis. The San Antonio Express-News article reports of a local performance, so certainly would have provided background of the band. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More info: Per a search at Billboard, a number of the Los Mismos albums have charted in the top 10 on the Latin and Mexican music charts.[10][11][12][13] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All those albums on EMI, high specialist chart placings, some coverage at Allmusic ([14], [15]), and some other news coverage ([16], [17], [18]). Appears to be close enough to Los Bukis ("Mexico's top-selling romantic grupo" according to Billboard, 23 Sep 2006, and both bands covered in this book) to be merged.--Michig (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources from San Antonio Express-News and the one from europapress qualify as WP:LOCAL reports. As for the book source, it appears to provide an account of the band, although I cannot view the rest of the section.
The presence of a profile of the band on Allmusic proves only existence, not notability. Allmusic has profiles for many bands, even non-notable ones by wiki-standard. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL doesn't apply here. --Michig (talk) 16:46, 10 September 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, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails WP:MUSIC and there exists no non-trivial coverage of the band. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BAND criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". EMI falls into that category by anyone's standards.--Michig (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
With participation still minimal, I'm relisting this AfD for seven more days. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC #5 and #2 (charting album) per Billboard sources [19], [20], [21], [22] and more coverage in The Billboard guide to Tejano and regional Mexican music. Albums are notable as the band is notable, and some are redirects already! Bigger digger (talk) 15:42, 11 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. Consensus is that there isn't sufficent notability here for this article. Courcelles 13:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota acronyms[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about non-notable marketing acronyms. While this information may be appropriate for an extremely brief mention in another article (although I've looked and couldn't find an appropriate location), it certainly is not notable enough for its own article, nor is it a broad enough subject to create anything other than a permastub article. Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit slack about adding the references but I have just added most of them. The subject is notable because these terms are used in many Toyota articles but there is no explanation of what they mean. Even Toyota's own brochures and marketing material often use them without explanation. So I gathered the few explanations that Toyota gave into a single article which can be referred to from other articles. Originally these were part of List of Toyota engines but TEMS and Pegasus didn't fit there, so I split them into their own article. Look for how many times TEMS and BEAMS are mentioned in other articles (note that I have edited each of those articles to point to this article but the terms were already there before me). Stepho (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that that's a reason for a separate permastub article on four marketing acronyms. If the articles which use these acronyms don't define them, then they should be defined in those articles. For instance, "The 2007 Toyota Camry was the first model to use LASRE (Lightweight Advanced Super Response Engine)." No need for a separate article, these are just marketing terms. Look at all the puffery words used in them: Super, Advanced, Breakthrough, Precision-Engineered, Geometrically-Advanced, etc. This article essentially serves as an advertisement for Toyota advertisements. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that it is too short, then I can quite easily fill it up with dozens and dozens of Toyota specific terms. I was trying to avoid that because then it would become an advertising page. Sadly, each manufacturer takes commonly used technology and puts their own name on it. Having a page that maps the marketing name to its more common name isn't supporting the brand, it's cutting through the marketing BS. Now, some of those names are just puffery - notice that LASRE and BEAMS are described as 'marketing term', cutting through the BS. Whereas TEMS and TTC are actually described as meaningful, physical items (ie a suspension feature and an emissions control feature that can be pointed to).

What makes these terms notable is that they are very commonly used in Toyota's advertising but are not explained very well. I went through my extensive library of brochures and found BEAMS mentioned (but not explained) on vehicles with 3S-GE, 1JZ, 2JZ, 1ZZ and 3UZ engines. Most of the WP articles mention that they are BEAMS engine but don't explain what BEAMS actually means. The typical reader will be confused. Isn't it the very purpose of WP to explain things? At least now the reader can follow the link to here and find out that it really is a near meaningless marketing term. Or we could just leave them in the dark...

Likewise, TEMS is often mentioned in brochures and in many WP articles (Soarer, Cressida, Chaser, FX-1, Supra, Active suspension). But in this case it really is a piece of technology that actively controls the suspension damping characteristics of the vehicle (switchable between hard sports mode and soft luxury mode). To explain it in each and every article it appears in will cause duplication, possible contradictions and probably leave gaps as each version will be probably be different. Much better to have those articles reference a common description where all the information is pooled together.

I wasn't sure if 'Toyota acronyms' was the best name for this article. Perhaps 'Toyota terms' or 'Toyota technologies' would have been better. Thoughts? Stepho (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a glossary of Toyota marketing acronyms. Or, more relevantly, no reliable sources to establish notability of these terms outside of Toyota materials or passing mentions. The lack of explanation of the acronyms in other articles is a fault with those articles that should be fixed within that article. Bigger digger (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are already used in a number WP articles. Do you seriously want me to put a full explanation in each and every one of these articles? A major purpose of wikilinks is so that you do not have to provide the same explanation over and over again - possibly conflicting each other. Stepho (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if LASRE and BEAMS etc. had their own articles. Then, we could link to them from the other Toyota articles for a wider explanation. However, in most cases, concepts like LASRE and BEAMS are not notable enough for their own articles (presumably). In these cases, the concepts should be described in the articles in which they are used, not in a random glossary article. Besides, there are only 4 acronyms on this page, and 2 of them simply tell us what the acronym stands for. Surely we could jam this information into the articles in which these terms are used. SnottyWong ^verbalize 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those articles has a link of the form Toyota TEMS. Those links have automatic redirects to the appropriate section of this article. This has the advantage that we can have a specific wikilink (ie which lead to the advantage of not having to explain thigns over and over again in each article) while also having the advantage of being able to aggregate multiple small articles (each one possibly too small to survive on its own) into a medium size article. You can see that I have done similar for small subjects such as some early, not well known Toyotas (eg Toyota AC, Toyota SD) and some Toyota concpt cars (eg Toyota RV-1). Hopefully this will also give you an idea of the quality of my edits.

For your second point, we get back to duplication of effort. They are mentioned in multiple articles, which means you are asking for multiple explanations. Anybody who has done information science or computing science knows that this is to be actively avoided - too much chance of conflicting information and too little chance of corroborating information.

For your last point, 'too small' (or 'only 4' in your words) is only a reason to delete articles that have been around a long time. New articles usually start small and then get expanded over time. I can easy add more terms if you really want me too. Stepho (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms shouldn't be in any of the articles, they're marketing obfuscations. TEMS should be replaced with "two-setting active dampers" or some such, and the use of BEAMS can be removed: in Toyota Celica "the SS-III was given a BEAMS Tuned 3S-GE engine" can become "the SS-III was given a tuned 3S-GE engine" without losing any information at all. Whether the car articles even require that much information is outside my knowledge of en.wp. There're only about 15 articles to edit, with your agreement I could start tomorrow! Bigger digger (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To some degree, yes they are marketing obfuscations. Should we cut through the marketing crap or should we leave the reader in the dark? Check out the forums to see how often the terms are mentioned. Also, enthusiasts usually wind up collecting a few brochures of their car - the older the car, the more brochures they seem to collect (I've got a couple of hundred covering 50 years myself). These enthusiast read their brochures and see terms like BEAMS. Where do they turn to for an explanation? Combine this with the fact that so many articles had these terms mentioned in the first place. Doesn't that imply that at least one editor thought it important enough to add and that a lot of other editors thought it important enough to stay?

Secondly, TEMS and TTC are real features. They have marketing names attached to them but they are real parts on the car. TEMS requires components to adjust the dampers, a computer to control these components and inputs to control the computer - this is above and beyond what is normally on the suspension (TEMS was optional on some models). TTC also requires extra parts on the car (catalytic converter being the obvious one - present for some markets, not present in less stringent markets). Stepho (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For TTC, I would like to expand the section a lot more. I have several books explaining why emissions controls were pushed for in Japan, Toyota's part in it (Eiji Toyoda, Chairman of Toyota at the time, was on the Japanese board that dealt with this), and more specifically for this article, how (and why) Toyota implemented 3 different methods (lean burn, catalytic converter, vortex chamber). Stepho (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepho, sorry, this is not the forum to discuss planned improvements, this glossary of terms fundamentally fails WP:N, and if you read it carefully I think you would agree. It seems the information might be useful to some people, is there a Toyota wiki you could add it to? This is a rhetorical question, I'm trying to draw an end to this conversation. Best wishes, Bigger digger (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the planned improvements counter your arguments to delete the article, then it is entire appropriate to discus them here - it would be too late to discus them if the article gets deleted first.

However, you do have a valid point that I need some better references beyond Toyota itself. I will search my non-Toyota literature for such references.

Something I am struggling with is the difference between not allowing Toyota's TEMS but allowing BMW's iDrive. Apart from the iDrive article being more fully developed (see my future plans as given above), I don't see a difference. Stepho (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good point, but I'm still waiting for those sources, so couldn't see the point of continuing the debate, sorry if that came across as curt, which it does to me on review! For iDrive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I can also find significant, in-depth coverage like this review and this one. Bigger digger (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<---Outdent

I should also address your other points. TEMS is no more than Suspension_(vehicle)#Semi-active_and_active_suspensions whilst the info you have on Japanese emissions controls would probably be better at the general article Vehicle emissions control, which needs some serious attention. Bigger digger (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NNCUCA. Non-Notable Compendium of Useless Commercial Acronyms. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly non-notable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability I say, doesn't have too many sources either. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, place to gather small but useful info that is otherwise scattered. Stepho (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stepho, please don't !vote more than once. SnottyWong ^converse 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Stepho's mistake. I'm the relisting editor. I think while he was placing the previous iVote, he didn't format the vote correctly; so perhaps he presumed the vote didn't count. Anyway, I've formatted his previous vote too. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake., With the 'relisting' and a pile of new votes straight afterwards, plus a bit of stress from here and some stress from work, it looked to me like votes had been taken from above and put at the bottom to make counting them easier - ie remade into a new list. I have re-read it and now understand that it simply meant that Wifione had extended the discussion period. My apologies for the misunderstanding. However, the word 'keep' with the strike-through looks like I have rescinded my vote. Any suggestions to making a single vote look neat again would be welcome. Stepho (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved my references a bit by adding some non-Toyota sources. Due to the age of this material, much of it is not online, so online searches turn up little except for forums (which are of course not acceptable as references). But I will continue searching through paper magazines and books for more.

For those who say that this article is too small (only 4 items), the VVT-i and T-VIS articles would be good candidates to merge in this one. Also note that I'm slowing building up a better picture of what each term really represents (ie a bit more than just puffery). LASRE seems to concentrate on lighter weight of the reciprocating masses (camshafts, pistons, timing chains, etc) while BEAMS concentrates on added mechanisms like VVTi. My research continues.

Digger, your suggestions are quite reasonable. I did think of putting TEMS into Active suspension and TTC into Vehicle emissions control. But past experience has taught me that the editors of such articles want to remain generic and not get bogged down with brand specific implementations. You can see that I redirected the small mention of TEMS in active suspension to this article so that it could be fleshed out without detracting from the generic article. I also thought of putting them into Toyota but that is more concerned with the company rather than specific technologies used. Perhaps I should have named this article 'Toyota technology'. My concern is have a place to put all those little bits of info that are too small to have their own article and are used in more than one vehicle/engine article. Cheers. Stepho (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, as wikt:Appendix:Toyota for Toyota terminology. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When I began this article, that would have been a possibility. But now I have added technical details (and plan to add more), so it is no longer suitable for a dictionary. Thanks anyway. Stepho (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references. Many of these magazines are not online, so progress is slow, but I am finding out new bits and pieces to add to the article in addition to just adding references. The work continues... Stepho (talk) 04:59, 14 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 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stadler Center for Poetry[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Claims are run of the mill: offering fellowships and sponsoring Poetry Month. GrapedApe (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Bucknell University. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything in the article that would really be worth merging. I guess a redirect would be okay if we're being especially charitable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 10 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. Courcelles 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Corbett[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, article is poorly sourced. The quality of the article is very poor and nobody seems to want to fix it. It needs deleting or rewriting almost from scratch, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to rewrite it as nobody has fixed the Orphan or Citation problems, from February ('09!) and July '10 respectively Minsc2634 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)— Minsc2634 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Being poorly written is not a reason for deletion and it is quite clear that the notability of the subject is not questionable in the slightest. I am sourcing the article right now. Silver seren^C 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 15 cites found on GS. Does not look good. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean by that? Silver seren^C 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has a number of sources, but they are not coverage of the subject per WP:RS, simply offhand mentions of his work, among other persons, and not in a way that suggests a high degree of notability or importance in his field. Google Scholar records 159 hits, a solid eighty to ninety percent of which are childrens' books written by the subject; the citations that do exist are informal, en passant and not constituting dedicated coverage. By these standards I'd have to assert that the subject fails WP:AUTH, WP:ACADEMIC and by extension WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 159 GS hits, 15 cites. Indicates that the subject has published much but has been noticed little. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. How many academic citations would you expect to find to works of children's fiction and primary school text books and teachers' guides? This is not the metric that we should be using to judge notability of this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with above. In this case, it seems we should really be relying on solid secondary sources (since citations and worldcat holdings may not be as directly relevant in children's lit), which do not seem to be there. Short quotes in a few newspapers and vague assertions like "has had a great deal of experience as a teacher..." are not enough. Glad to change my position if real WP:RS shows up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: looking at the results of a search on google for

"Pie Corbett" site:.gov.uk

seems to me to indicate a sufficient degree of notability in UK education circles. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I have added a number of new references to the article and i'm still working on more. Please re-evaluate the article with these new references in mind. Silver seren^C 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable poet, teacher and pedagogue. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was linked to this article from an external academic article on some issues of special needs teaching, as a convenient background bio. What do I find - WP is (of course) trying to delete it as "non-notable". What an utter farce this place is 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think it fair to say that Wikipedia is trying to delete it. An editor has questioned it's notability/suitability and then suggested it might be not be suitable and should be deleted and then there is a debate and the community (an administrator) decides. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What seems remarkable in this case is that the nominator has not made any other edits. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't notice that making this AfD was their only edit. That's...suspicious, to say the least. Silver seren^C 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unusual, nor is it essentially suspicious. AIUI, anon IPs can't create new pages, thus can't submit for AfD. It's thus an incentive for established, but anon, editors to take the plunge and register. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why would they register to only submit this article for deletion? Are they related to the subject? Do they just dislike the subject personally? It's hard for me to AGF and think that they just believe the subject is non-notable, because they would have other contributions to WP if they believed as such. That's what I think, anyways. Silver seren^C 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is suspicious. From the perspective of a genuine new editor or a casual reader, AfD is certainly one of the more esoteric aspects of WP. I rather doubt this is the way that most legit accounts start out. Still think this person is not notable though. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I only created an account to nominate this article for deletion. I've edited a fair few wiki pages anonymously before, and after I'd cleaned up the discussion page I decided to nominate the page for deletion, which requires an account. If I'm wrong at least I'm learning more about Wikipedia for the future, and it has resulted in the page improving a lot more than I could have done (if it's kept). Minsc2634, 15 September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Noteable educationalist consulted by the UK government. Reasonable case for deletion at time of nom, but article has since been massively improved by editor Silverseren. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet checked out the sources in the article or looked for any more, but I would point out that WP:PROF is not the only notability criterion, so arguments based on a lack of citations found by Google Scholar are inconclusive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering that Corbett is really not an academic, right? Silver seren^C 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, he is not really an academic in the traditional sense, and is known more as a children's book author and an elementary education expert. So WP:PROF is not the most relevant guideline here. I think there is a good case for passing WP:BIO based on the current improved state of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 15 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 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Zawaydeh[edit]

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

Notability of the subject nor the significance of his death within the context of the war is neither explained in article nor in attributed sources. Seems to be treading into memorial page territory. I acknowledge the criteria stated in WP:ANYBIO about award recipients; just throwing that out there for discussion about whether or not it establishes enough notability in this particular case. SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable memorial piece. Condolences to his family. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, memorial; notability not established. Condolences. Deiz talk 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Given the breadth and depth of coverage, it seems that he's caught some moderate media attention beyond that of the typical death in Iraq. A number of varied sources make me think this is more than just the typical local obit. I'm not sure it's lasting coverage, however. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:26, 13 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 Administrative closure without prejudice to renomination once the RfC on 3b and the FLRC discussions are completed. It's poor precedent to AfD featured content which hasn't even been delisted yet. Once the delisting process is complete, please feel free to renominate with NO time delay or prejudice. If the article is retained as an FL, of course, the discussion is moot. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, AfD seems to be the appropriate forum for 3.b concerns. This was listed at FLRC with concerns that it was a content fork. Nominating for AfD on behalf of FLRC nominator. Rationale: "This featured list can easily be merged into themain article." Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 11 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 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Crimson and the Bearded Wonder[edit]

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

Non-notable indie film with no third-party coverage, no sources and no notable individuals attached BOVINEBOY2008 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Shot for $6000, it's pretty unlikely that this will receive significant attention or become notable in any way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic with very little sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. Oh, it's possible that a low-budget indie might eventually get enough coverage to show notability per WP:NF... but it ain't happened yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 12 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 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feiticeiros de Taquara Place: O Filme[edit]

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

Internet film with no notable persons attached and no notable third-party coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This Portuguese internet film is getting a little blog buzz... but as of yet, does not meet the requirements of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 12 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 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward "DreadEd" Campbell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward "DreadEd" Campbell

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

The article fails to assert the notability of the subject, and none of the sources are independent of the subject (myspace, and a self-created record label). The subject's main claim to "fame" appears to be membership in the band FatalFear, a non-notable myspace band that I have also nominated for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. There are no reliable third-party sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Some of the article seems to elaborate the truth, headlining at a major music venue? --Salix (talk): 08:01, 13 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 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FatalFear[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and none of the sources given in the article are credibly independent of the subject: myspace, facebook, some blogs and a self-created record label. Passing mention in a blog hosted by Metal Hammer magazine does not seem to qualify as "significant coverage". Furthermore, the article was created by User:Dreaded209 (recreating an already deleted entry?), apparently band member Edward "DreadEd" Campbell which I have also nominated for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. There are no reliable third-party sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have though metal hammer magazine, notes as being on the tour of a world famous band and the fact the article has been edited by so many independant people including independant websites, would be proof enough. Perhaps your one of the people affected by the vocalist outspoken nature online (as he speaks out against religious persecution, racism and appearance based culture regularly all over the internet using his real name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.234.181.119 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I'm sorry, but almost none of the websites listed in the article are credibly independent of the subject. They are all either myspace pages, blogs, dead links, or otherwise promotional hype, and appear to be very much outside of what is ordinarily considered to be acceptable sources. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only coverage by a source that can honestly be said to be independent of the subject is trivial passing mention in a blog hosted by Metal Hammer. This is not "significant coverage" as would satisfy the notability guideline. If the subject is as notable and important as you seem to think, it should be a trivial matter to find ample independent sources (e.g., published articles and interviews in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone). Finally, although it doesn't matter for the deletion debate, I don't see any evidence that "the article has been edited by so many independant people". Rather, what I see is evidence that single purpose accounts have been the exclusive contributors to the article, and this is often a sign of a conflict of interests, such as using Wikipedia as a platform to promote one's own band. Wikipedia is not a free advertising venue, contrary to your plea in this post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I would also like to point out that wikipedia is not an advertising website. Articles on wikipedia are meant to display information giving a neutral point of view on the given notable subject. The pages sourced are a lot of myspace, last.fm, and blog pages; the sourced are definitely doesn't meet wikipedia standards. The articles have format and opinion problems throughout. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:24, 12 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 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Recluse (Plan B song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG: Allegedly a single but still unreleased, not charted, no covers by other notable acts, no awards, no video, no media coverage (one of the two refs in article is to a recording studio which apparently did an e-mail interview with the artist). No reference, RS or otherwise, for release date. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL Nowyouseeme talk2me 08:58, 11 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagna Cat[edit]

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

unknown notability Melaen (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 unremarkable website. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced article about a website with no indication of notability. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only reference is to the site itself. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete web content with no claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single real source, not any level of notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day and aricle fails notability criteria for websites. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:58, 10 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 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert M. Petersen[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to be especially noteworthy or well known in his field. Seems to fail the WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - there is some indication that this has been the subject of a PR effort at one time; but there is no evidence of notability here, nor any assertion of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and OrangeMike; fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources to support inclusion. TN X Man 15:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better info is included. Perhaps Dr. Petersen has won some awards or been named head of some notable medical associations? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has worked at some notable institutions in the past, but not in a major/notable role. Publications are minimal per PubMed. Nothing much found at Google News. If we judged doctors as we do sports figures he would be a keeper, but sadly, Wikipedia has much higher standards for doctors and academics. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark it as a stub. He has won a "Forty Under 40" award and has a mention at http://www.animalaches.com/hospitals.html. He really seems notable but just doesn't have the mainstream sources right now. (Yes, I changed my mind.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) He has been honored in the U.S. Virgin Islands. http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2003/09/30/hope-high-cancer-center-groundbreaking-1 GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not clearly established. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR for relatively obscure MD VASterling (talk) 20:22, 13 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 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Data Vision[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Created by a COI editor. Of the "references", one is a pdf file which does not mention Vista Data Vision, and the others are links to web sites which use the software: not one of them is a source about the subject. Essentially a spam article for a non-notable product. PROD was contested by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, potential spam, and lacks sufficient sourcing to establish notability. The Army Corps link is a good start, but discussion in additional at least 1 additional reliable print source is needed. Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Google News and Books draw a blank. Google Scholar has 2 hits, but one looks like an incidental mention, and the other is not independent. According to the article this has been around since 1991, which raises the possibility of historical or technical importance. The article is refreshingly concrete in the detail it goes into about how this program is actually used and works. But I'm not finding multiple significant sources here. Would be open to persuasion that this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I previously PRODed the article for the same concern. ialsoagree (talk) 17:16, 10 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 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorbeast[edit]

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

Disputed prod. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to indicate real-world notability. NotARealWord (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - The sources don't seem to meet notability criteria. Possibly merge to List_of_Beast_Wars_characters, but the subject would have to be mentioned at the target of course per the principle of least astonishment. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to say possibly redirect to List_of_Beast_Wars_characters after mentioning the subject there, pardon. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He was on the Fresh prince of Bel Air! Gotta keep. Mathewignash (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Razorbeast appeared as a toy Will Smith played with on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, even doing voices for the toys." Referenced to the episode. That's the sort of trivia that would be removed from most articles. If that's the best you can do... J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's real world notability OUTSIDE the fiction, as the character is being referenced in another TF show. Shows it's popularity and notability. Mathewignash (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not really a "reliable source" - please see the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed on the article when it was deprodded. When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. —Farix (t | c) 17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - I just added a non-primary book source for the character. Mathewignash (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which you have used to cite basic information. That does strike me at first glance as a decent source, but a good source with which to reference character lists- it hardly, in this case, demonstrates the individual notability of the character. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite recent addition of source, it is not enough to highlight independent notability, and thus fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary notability is having been used as a prop in one scene of a sitcom. Sorry, not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:50, 17 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 as a copyright infringement JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Shaadi Nahi Ho Sakti[edit]

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

Delete No sources, and no evidence anywhere of notability. PROD was contested with the edit summary "notable, I used to watch", which must be one of the worst justifications for keeping an article I have seen for a long time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 12:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. No references. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that a Speedy Delete as copyvio of This. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability does exist, & it was a serial being aired on Sony entertainment television in 1990's. Please follow http://www.setsyndication.com/show_details.php?ct=3&sw=241 ( Abu Torsam 02:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you very much for that link, which was clearly where the article was copied from, verbatim. I have deleted the article as a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 13 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 11:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depth Charge (Transformers)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable character, no evidence of real-world notability. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other Transformers AfDs; no notability outside of the fictional, in-universe treatment. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even worse than most of them, with pure babble like "Many fans consider Depth Charge to be a Triple Changer, despite the term not appearing on his toy box. His box did state that he features "three mode conversion" however." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article cites interviews with the voice actors. Major character. No reason to flush it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mege to List of Beast Wars characters. When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. This character in particular had a significant role in the third season of Beast Wars along with the antagonist Rampage. —Farix (t | c) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Considering there is a page about the TV show that Depth Charge was on that has a short bio of him, merging would seem to be the minimum, since there are links to this page and they could go somewhere. Mathewignash (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't seem to be any reliable sources for this character that can be found, and as such the article fails GNG and notability guidelines. Skinny87 (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the WP:GNG because there is no evidence that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:51, 17 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 deleted as a copyright infringement JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Duniya Hai Rangeen[edit]

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

Delete No sources, no evidence of notability. PROD was contested with no explanation except the single word "notable". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE as copyvio of This. An administrator needs to take action against this article's creator. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be immediate copyright checks right down the line for this editor's contributions... Contribs. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did I mention Speedy Delete as copyright violation loudly enough? (see above) Carrite (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A totally useless article which no one would be interested in reading. Bhavitgoyal (talk · contribs) 8:42 p.m 11th september (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514[edit]

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

notability, lack of Petebutt (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a notable accident for the following reasons -

The aircraft suffered a complete and total loss of all electrical systems. It was not the case that an electrical failure left some basic systems operational, they lost the lot.
The loss of electrical systems impacted on fuel management and the operation of hydraulic systems.
Although flaps were not available, a successful emergency landing was made.
The airfield that Flight 514 landed at was closed, and not marked on aviation maps.
Despite the high-speed landing and subsequent runway overrun, everybody survived.
This was the first (and therefore worst/most significant) accident suffered by the airline.
There have been calls for the crew to be honoured for their actions in the accident.

Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in the news [23]. Subject is somewhat similar to Hudson River Miracle. Offliner (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable accident. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the nominator is a member of the aviation project, it appears that the wikiproject itself is split on articles like these. Whilst I'd normally argue for articles on developing/breaking news for deletion by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, the latter notes "(accidents) are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance", and as Mjroots noted, the event (and article) certainly stakes more than one claim of significance. Therefore, keep. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The loss of all electrical systems on Tu-154 is rather unique - I believe it never happened on Tu-154 before. The case received substantial news coverage and the pilots may even be awarded for their actions, which would be another recognition that it wasn't a mundane event. C1010 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is as notable as Flight 1549. The fact no lives were lost makes it not notable. IlkkaP (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly unusual incident, extensive media coverage, comparable to US Airways 1549. C628 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable and verifiable sources establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:for the reasons already stated by others.Eregli bob (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mjroots--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, meeting WP:GNG with the sources. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 13 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 11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Shackelford[edit]

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

Does not appear notable mark nutley (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is the magazine edited by the subject, and not even any particular issue or article of it. A Google News Archive search doesn't turn up anything helpful in terms of additional sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam piece, with little evidence it meets CREATIVE or BIO. Searches came up empty. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any useful sources either VASterling (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Roscelese (talk) 01:18, 15 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. Snowball delete of original research. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a male/female Dragon?[edit]

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

WP:OR; WP:MADEUP; non-notable. I originally tagged this as db-G3, then PROD, but original author has contested this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up on a schoolday and original research, there are no sources--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR.--Yopie (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment all dragon thru the history or even new books about dragons are "makeup", all Fantasy is makeup stories and so are ALL Sci-Fi (Sci-Fy), this article is hard work by 3 people we have read and study many books, and we cannot find this in any books (That we have read) thru the history of mankind and people have ask the question, “what do you call a female Dragon?” You can make search on the net and you will see that the question is out there. We now have the question answered. I even trying to get Ann McCaffery to support this and I will try other writers of dragon books (Fantasy and Sci-Fi) to support this.
RealBigSwede aka RP Hagge

I can't see how this article is useful realbigswede all it is is original research and nonsense--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause it is orginal reaserch, I have done it! It have taken me long time to do,

Lerdhenerd, are you calling all fantasy Nonsense? if so, you are realy stepping on many people toes. People that read and "live" the dragon life are Huge around the world.

plus we have in here articles about dragons, from China, Europe, Japan almost from every country in the world. -- RealBigSwede (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no i'm not calling all fantasy nonsense, this article looks like a conversation between two people talking about dragons, and the article name isn't really sensible as an article name.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what would you like the articles name have? I was thinking that if someone is typing in the question on a search it would come up, I'm total open to ideas, but I think this is for other people that are reading Fantasy would love to have this as a reference. I would not even be surprise that we are soon going to see this in fantasy books. This is very serious for us in the fan of fantasy reading. --- RealBigSwede (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look you seem to be a newish user (think i saw your username on list of new users special page), my only advice is read the policies catfish jim has given here and the five pillars before editing again, wikipedia is not the place for articles like this--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ I'd have my male/female Dragonite destroy this article. This article fails WP:OR, and obviously was made up by someone, somewhere in one day. It doesn't matter whether what do you call a male or female dragon, but rather, how this this is encyclopedic. An essay written by one person in one sure doesn't seem to be notable. Even dragons would think this article isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a collection of essays. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the way you are talking then we should delete every article that have something about dragon in. The information that we have put together is NOT an essay, we have worked hard with this and we do not aprisiated that tone. We are not a bunch of cooks. This ia part of the Fantacy world. and Article like this is and should be part of the Encyclopedia. Even in Encyclopidia Like Encyclopidia Britanica starteing to inserting words that are slang.

and YOU maybe don't care but it is people out there that are asking the question.-- RealBigSwede (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we all are newbies and that should have nothing to do with if an article should be aproved or not. You still did not answer my question to you, Leadhenerd. -- RealBigSwede (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-indent) I have answered your question, read up on policies, and becareful next time you make an article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete - classic example of WP:MADEUP at its most naive and useless. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blog-like gibberish, complete Wp:OR. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Take offence of some of your posting... for us That are in to Dragons this is not "Blog-like gibberish". If this is supoce to be an Discussion you are not most of you have posted rude and mean comments, That is not a way to have a discussion. I'm in talk now with some writers and If I can get them to indorce this. and someone have already posted that they was looking for this information.--RealBigSwede (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I called it gibberish because it is written with extremely poor grammar, using odd tenses and sentence forms. It is essentially unreadable, and difficult to discern what the topic actually is. Getting notable writers to come to the Wikipedia and say "I endorse this article" is likely not going to happen, but even if it did, that is not how notability is established here for articles. You need to find reliable sources that discuss the subject (whatever that may be) of the article. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for RealBigSwede Do these terms (R'ulouk; R'ulauk; R'rulouk; H'eiks; H'eika; H'eiksis) appear in any reliable third party source... i.e. did you find them in a book or did you or your friends make them up? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent unsourced original research. If there were terms for male and female dragons, the appropriate place to mention them would be in the Dragon article, just like terms such as "stallion" and "mare" are mentioned in Horse and "bull" and "cow" are mentioned in Cattle. The article says that after reading many books about dragons, still no real name was found for what we call male/female dragons. So if the terms used in this article didn't come from a book, they are probably original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We made them since no word did excist that we have found so far. But they are done in the tradition of many Fantasy books and the spelling on name of places, name of dragons, names of people and so on. we spend many hours to put this together.. this was not just a spure of a moment and then put together. We was very seriose when we started this.--RealBigSwede (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes we did the reaserch. and Yes you are correct Metro that is what we are trying to get people to understand..--RealBigSwede (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed this case, thne this runs afoul of the Wikipedia' oriignal research policy. As such, this will never be acceptable as an article here. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not Wikipedia's role to make up terms for different genders of dragons and then try to get fantasy authors to use them. Rather, the people who write fiction and mythology about dragons should originate the terms and get them into use, and after that those terms can be put into Wikipedia. If Anne McCaffrey, Robin Hobb, Christopher Paolini and other fantasy authors all used the same terms for male and female dragons, that would be worth mentioning in the Dragon article, but the terms here like "r'ulouk" and "h'eiks" are apparently not used anywhere outside Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is the same as when Asinow made the robot laws, he use then one time in an article he wrote and later many other start using them. here we have the same Idea make a rule and others will start using them. and I would say I'm the writert that have posted them for all to use. what is Einstain would hade the "rule" since you are the orginal person that say E=M² we can't publish it.--RealBigSwede (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. Asimov didn't just create the Three Laws of Robotics and expect them to get listed in encyclopedias because he thought they were a great idea that science fiction writers ought to use. He used the three laws many times in various stories, and the laws have been referenced in many other works as well, which is why Wikipedia has an article about them -- the three laws were already well-known before Wikipedia had an article about them. By contrast, the terms "r'ulouk" and "h'eiks" are apparently words you have made up recently, and they shouldn't get listed in this encyclopedia until they attain some recognition outside Wikipedia first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So many words for so little content. Made up. Merge the thimble-full of essence to Dragon. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the author is one of our younger contributors, so I will say nothing about the contents and merely state that the topic does not appear to be encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can we get Bishzilla to eat this article? Or G3 speedy it as a blatant hoax? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Seriously. Someone another 19:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a place for people to invent new words and then try to convince other people to use them. Even if every major fantasy author decided to use these words from now on (pretty unlikely), that would still only merit a brief mentions at dragon, not a whole separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The original author has essentially confirmed that this is OR. I don't blame him he just wasn't familiar with Wikipedia policy, still we should not keep this article. --Deathawk (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen more blatant disrespect of some of them so called admins, while some of you are real good make your case nicely while others are just rude and mean. Here you coming and SPITTING on people that are working hard on a subject!! I get the feeling that some of you love to rip and spit into people that are sincere and that makes you feel great and important! Just remember this if it was not for people like me, You would not be here! I think you need to show respect to others that comes here.

Deathhawk showes respect of others, Thanks!
StarBlind must be blind since he like to be very rude, I probably older then you “kiddo”
Ellen of the road comments like that should make your lose your right to even post comments
Christhedude Thanks for showing respect and give an Idea what could be done. Thanks.
Carrite Is and other rude person.
Metropolitan90 Thanks for understand and for being a real administrators.
Tarc First You are rude then Great. Thanks for your Last post I like it.
Catfish Jim and the soapdish a real great person that can post and make people understand, THANKS!
Lerdthenerd The best of the people I had the pleasure to meet in here with great encourage and with a will to help to educate, not ripping and pretending to be a better the "all the lowlife" THANKS You are a shining star!! THANKS!
Some of you have made me uderstand that this should be a part of the Dragon section and I will except That

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Careers Network[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero GNEWS hits. Speedy was declined since "listed on LSE is a bare assertion of notability". Nanodance (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Nanodance (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an e-recruitment software supplier set up in 1995 to provide an integrated software platform for employers to recruit via the Internet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nanodance. No indication of notability given. Danski14^(talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not enough notability to be included. Also there's no sources expect one link to its websites. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced of the notability of the subject, but would like to point out that the nominator's statement that there are no Google News hits is contradicted by the 23 such hits found by simply clicking on the word "news" in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 14 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 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus debating society[edit]

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

Another student debating club with 120 members that is not notable and has not received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CLUB and as it is unreferenced WP:V. Codf1977 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no significant coverage found, unsourced except for its own website. It is the oldest debating society in the Netherlands, but that still makes it only 20 years old. BTW while looking into this article I took at look at its category, Category:Student debating societies, and probably half the clubs listed there should be candidates for deletion under Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fully support cutting a swathe through these non-notable undergraduate debating clubs (note Codf1977 has been doing a fine job of that).--Mkativerata (talk) 06:39, 17 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. There is a clear consensus that the album is not notable in its own right, and the content has been suitably merged elsewhere. Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's God[edit]

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

Rationale:This article should be deleted because the article fails to comply with WP:NSONGS; song failed to chart, article has insufficient context, no indication of importance or relevance, really no hope of expansion Nowyouseeme talk2me 05:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Song doesn't have to chart to be notable, yet the song has multiple sources, enough that I'd say is plenty sufficient. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins - User:CloversMallRat is the creator of the article. Nowyouseeme talk2me 22:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; song failed to chart and doesn't cover as much info on the song as lots of others do. While it does have 5 sources, I still don't think that means it should warrant an article. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't really need its own article, content can easily be merged into Jo Dee Messina. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content merged to Jo Dee Messina; not appearing on an album there's no real other merge target. The song is not notable as it didn't chart. If Clovers had his way, nothing would ever be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Untrue. For one thing, I created this when it was sent out to radio and had a possibility of charting. Likewise, I felt it should remain its own article, because the album its on has yet to be released, so (as you said) it couldn't be merged to that. However, I merged the rest of the info to her artist page. CloversMallRat (talk) 06:07, 11 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 11:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Fernandez-Peña[edit]

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

This article was deleted before and now recently has been recreated and is not much different from the previous one. This Spanish voice actor seems to lack any notability other than being the voice of Spanish Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story 3. This article only consists of one sentence, a rather short template, zero sources or references and only 2 external links (his page on IMDB and the Voice of Spain website). Therefore this article seems useless in any way since it lacks any verification or any other info. trainfan01 20:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even assuming everything in the article is true, it doesn't add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 15 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. —fetch ·comms 00:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Largest empires

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

This article is fundamentally Original Research. Furthermore, this cannot be fixed via article clean-up, because the fundamental concept always will be original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following is the detailed explanation I posted on the article's talk page about 1 week ago:

So, normally I'd just take the article to take an article I thought violated policy to AfD, but this is a particularly tricky article. My concern is that the article is now, and will always by definition be, original research. Two things point me to this conclusion.

1. The very long intro section clarifying how difficult a ranking of this type is to make. This whole section is pure OR--it's not a discussion of how other sources have found it difficult to define the size of empires, it's actually a discussion about how we, here, on Wikipedia, find it difficult to define the size of empires (or, even, what exactly constitutes an empire). That section reads to me as exactly the sort of thing I would expect to read in a scholarly article covering this same topic, not in an our encyclopedic reporting of those scholarly articles.

2. The fact that we have an ordered list, but the specific order is based on multiple disparate sources. To me this is a clear violation of WP:SYN. We're treating all of the different measuring systems found in the various sources as working from similar premises, similar methodologies, and similar definitions. But we have every reason to suspect that that is simply not true, as that simply isn't how academic research works, especially in analytical (as opposed to experimental) research.

Thus, I believe that this article is a definite violation of the prohibition on original research. I further think that there is nothing we can do to make it not OR, unless we could find all of the information in studies that used identically methodology and measuring devices. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Excellent analysis about this list being inevitably OR and SYN. I tried to fix the list in the recent past, but I soon found my best and in fact only weapon was to delete whole chunks of material altogether.

You hit the nail on the head: Any such hierachical list lives from applying an order to the referenced numbers, but given the vast array of different sources, authors and methods, any such sorting is bound to remain purely subjective and thus merely reflecting the views of the latest editor who bothered to edit it. Ironically the best-researched figure in the list is also the one which reflects most the epic failure of this list: there are 27 different estimates on the population of the Persian Empire, only to have 26 of them being ignored in favour of an alleged most "preferred" number.

Soon, inclusionists who are prepared to ignore the impossibility of such a listing for the 5th time will flock in and vote through the article on the grounds of the topic being notable alone, but mark my words: as interesting as the topic may be to our quantifying age, this article is destined to be indefinitely tagged as pseudo-scientific compilation of random numbers — because, the way it is set up, it cannot exist in another way. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure I understand the problem. Surely the purpose of this list is not to obtain a ranking (...and the winner is...). Do the objections of the nominator also apply to, for instance, List of largest cities throughout history, List of countries by homicide rate, and United States military casualties of war? These articles are based on fewer sources, but nevertheless the information presented has been obtained from various sources that do not necessarily use the same definitions and methods. But, surely, that is also true for other non-listlike articles, such as Philosophy, or Cuisine of the United States. --Lambiam 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because List of largest cities throughout history actually consists of three different estimates which are put side by side without preferring one over the other on unclear grounds. Not sure what you mean with that "the purpose of this list is not not to obtain a ranking", because it exactly does that. What is it then? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article, as far as I see, is to present a list of the largest empires in world history. Obviously, you can't do that without some measure of largeness, and as there are several reasonable measures, such as area and population, it presents both. One could also imagine having separate articles, like we have List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita next to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, but somehow I doubt that would satisfy you. It should also be possible to present both in a multi-column list, sortable by different fields.

List of largest cities throughout history indeed consists of data from different sources put side by side in a multi-column format, but this is possible only because of the extremely limited number of sources used: just three. If the article had not confined itself to this unmotivated selection of sources, we might have seen very different estimates; for example, for Nineveh the sources consulted give 100.000 and 120.000, but the book Nebuchadnezzar by Geneviève Tabouis estimates 300.000, and a number as implausibly large as 600.000 is given by many sources, while some think 100.000 is too large. In my opinion the limited number of sources is a weakness rather than a strength of the article. I mentioned several other articles which are based on many more sources, in which the results are not presented "side by side", and so your reply does not apply to those. --Lambiam 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The complaints above are insufficient reason to delete as it is our clear policy to retain articles for improvement rather than delete them because of some supposed imperfection. The claim that the article cannot be worked upon without OR is incorrect. Firstly, there are plenty of sources which are cited such as Taagepera's notable analysis. Secondly, the use of simple arithmetic to rank estimates is not OR, as is well-established by precedent here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that we should preserve and improve. I'm arguing that it is fundamentally impossible to do so in this case without violating WP:OR. Specifically, I'm arguing that comparing numbers of this type from two different books is not actually just simple arithmetic, but a form of original research which is, in fact faulty. Maybe two examples might help. If Source A considers an empire's largest point to be the one at which it had complete and definite control over all points of its empire, while Source B considers an empire's largest point to be the one at which it had staked the most claims, even if those claims were not well held, then comparing the numbers between these two sources and then ranking them produces a flawed result. Alternatively, if Source C measures an empires size by making estimates based strictly on census data, while Source D measures an empires size based upon interpolations from theoretical population densities and farming methods, then there is no way for us to compare the numbers. This type of fundamental difference in quality and methodology in the different sources is inevitable, because the list, by definition, will contain empires which are relatively recent and for which fairly accurate data can be determined, and empires which are lost in antiquity and for which all data is derived. So while we can use simple arithmetic to compare a few numbers and then rank them, when we do so we're actually doing a whole bunch of implied research about the scientific comparability of these numbers. This is why the article List of empires, which order the empires based on an arbitrary standard (alphabetically in English) is not original research, but a hierarchical ranking must always, and improperly, be OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fundamental problem because we can present the rankings and statistics of each source separately - in distinct, sortable columns, say. There seem to be enough comprehensive analyses such as those of Taagepera and Maddison to make this approach quite feasible and so your fundamental argument fails. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our policy which is explicitly tolerant of imperfection. Rome Wasn't Built in a Day. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm! --Vinie007 11:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the arguments for deletion quite unconvincing, as they would seem to apply equally to many fine articles whose content is based on multiple disparate sources. --Lambiam 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may need improved and deletion would remove a valuable resource. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems a shame to lose an article that has obviously had a lot of work put into it and that I personally found quite interesting. Would it make people happier if the word 'largest' was removed, as this seems to be the biggest issue? It could just be a list of empires with size by area and population (those figures shouldn't be too difficult to source).--Ykraps (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a list entitled List of empires. If the info could be formatted properly (i.e., so that it fits on the screen), then conceivably the info could be added there. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to combining the two articles providing we don't lose any information. As long as the facts and figures are there, people can draw their own conclusions as to which was the largest; if that's what's important to them. Lists of this nature are always going to attract debate. The list of largest buildings for example. What is a building? How do we measure its size: height, volume , floor space? Do we think these articles should be deleted?Ykraps (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and useful resource. The counter-argument that it takes insufficient account of conflicting views is an argument for article improvement and expansion, not deletion. We could and should have extra columns for contrary opinions, mainstream-vs-fringe views, mean-vs-outer limits arguments, etc. Lots of excellent list articles like this in Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, but that is not at all what the concern is. The concern is that it's OR/SYN to combine the data in such a way that a hierarchical list is created. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can it be synthesis to simply order sizes in a descending list? I didn't bother going on about that point as I see no merit in it. There's no reason why such a list can't be generated and no reason why other lists based on other criteria can't be generated, in either the same article or other similar list pages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "How can it be synthesis to simply order sizes in a descending list?" Quite simple, because there is no established view on the order whatsoever, therefore any order which forces some entries above/below others is pure synthesis. Basically, the editor(s) can, will and must choose the order to their liking by selecting the figures to their liking (and ignoring others). What, for example, keeps me from downsizing the Persian Empire to 10 million people or upgrading it to 80 million? This inherent problem cannot be solved given the huge spread of the data, the complete lack of consistent criteria by which the most disparate sources are used. Colonel Warden above obviously has not understood the basic flaw, most probably because he did never work on such a list. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, lists like this always involve multiple intracacies of source evaluation, criteria, scope, comparison criteria, etc. This applies just as much to "established" lists such as population. What I personally would like to see would be a sophisticated timelined-moving chart at different points in history, like the ones in books or what used to be (?) Microsoft Encarta (don't know if that's still around) but I suggest that would stretch Wikipiedia. In the meantime, why not build on this? Delete is effectively throwing hands up in surrender and as this is an important topic worth covering, I reject that approach, as apparently do most others here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There might well be a lot of work to be done, but the argument against is based on the assumption that the synthesising is of the 'bad' variety prohibited under WP:NOR. I think this has always been a misnamed policy because all articles rely upon 'good' synthesis of one sort or another under WP:V. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems similar to List of rivers by length, which also arguably involves synthesis and original resource and has a "very long intro section clarifying how difficult a ranking of this type is to make", yet is an interesting and useful page. Personally, when I see pages like these on Wikipedia I take it for granted that the rankings may or may not be absolutely correct--that it is probably impossible to make an absolutely correct ranking. Nevertheless I find it useful to have a list of "largest empires" or "longest rivers" that is "close enough" for getting a sense of things. Do these pages involve synthesis and original research? Maybe. Is it impossible for them not to involve synthesis and original research? Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure. Is the gathering together of the world's largest empires or river useful? Definitely. Is it important that the ranked listing be absolutely correct? Not really. Should these pages be deleted? Definitely not. Pfly (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am aware that consensus will probably be against this deletion, but I really want to try one more time to express my initial point, which almost no one is addressing. Let's take Gun Powder Ma's example of the Persian Empire, which independently reliable sources report with a population of between 10 million and 80 million. Looking at the current list (List of largest empires#Largest empires by population), and assuming no other changes were to be made, that means it should be somewhere between tied for 11th, and significantly below last, as the current "last" number is 48.4 million. This means that if 10 million is correct, one could argue it shouldn't even be on this list, as it's not one of the "largest." Now, the fact that we have contradictory sources is not normally a problem--in a standard article, we would include both sources, and report both numbers. But in a ranked list, how would that be possible? We literally cannot choose where to put it on the list, or even to decide if it belongs on the list, without choosing one reliable source over another. Any choice we make will be OR, because it will be us saying "Source X is correct, source Y is incorrect." This is not about it being difficult, it's about it being impossible without violating OR. I'm not throwing my hands up--I'm saying this list cannot be done according to WP's policies. To me, there are only 3 solutions possible given WP policies. 1) Delete. 2) Delete, but move all of the relevant data into a non-ranked list (such as List of empires). 3) Keep, but make a separate list for each source. #2 seems like both the most work and the most "correct"--I'd recommend moving the article to someone's name space who actually wants to take on the process of transferring the data and reformatting the table at List of empires. #1 seems like the solution if no one wants to volunteer to actually make an article that meets policy. #3 seems ludicrous to me, because we shouldn't have an article that is essentially a copy of a variety of original sources (i.e., Subheading 1 is "Source A's ranking of empires by population", #2 is "Source B's ranking of empires by population," ad nauseum), especially since such an article wouldn't even really be that "helpful." Obviously, the result of this debate will be decided by consensus, but even if the article is to be kept, I would strongly appreciate someone providing, either here or on the article's talk page, a clear explanation as to how we will make non-OR based decisions about how to maintain a hierarchical list in the face of sources that disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I still don't think these arguments are sufficient to warrant deleting the article. Gunpowder Ma makes the point that he/she could upgrade the Persian Empire to 80 million. What's to stop me changing the list of tallest buildings by selecting a different definition of a building. For example the OED defines a building as a structure with walls and a roof, this includes the CN Tower which at 1814 feet is now 2nd. But why would I want to? As long as the article is clear about how the ranking is obtained and transparent about any doubts over figures (which it is), what's the harm? To talk about deleting the article is setting a precedent that could endanger all ranked lists in Wikipedia.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps if it was not for all these deletion attempts some editors would have more time to improve the article. It is certainly notable and useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopaedic and useful. It won't necessarily be original research forever: there could be a source which also lists empires this way. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the compelling reason to delete. Moncrief (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles and lists require some degree of judgement, and this is not unreasonably OR. I mention this is the 5th nomination after four successive keeps, some almost unanimous.The last one was only 12 months ago. I would regard a sixth nomination as abuse of process. This one is not, because a much more extended argument is made than previously & it's not unreasonable to ask for reconsideration under such circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR indeed, and a playground for nationalists, too. Konstock (talk) 11:02, 17 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) 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flustrated[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Special:Contributions/69.181.249.92. Have contacted anon to supply a reason for deletion but it is actually pretty obvious: Dictionary definition with no further added value. Pgallert (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for completing the nom. For future reference, the deletion rationale can often be found on the article's talk page. That's where the AFD instuctions for non-registered users say to place it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I am rather flustrated with this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my edit summary was meant to say "delete", not "deleted". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, double whammy neologism/dicdef. Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though it is a real word, (discussed online, to be added to Merriam Webster), Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's why we have Wiktionary.Danski14^(talk) 18:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 11 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. Redirect created. Mkativerata (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Dynamics[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Google search throws up nothing useful (this article, official website, myspace, false positives and unreliable sites), Google news gives a few hits for the term, but none related to the subject of the article. Was created by someone with a COI and has been tagged as unreferenced for nearly three years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass General notability guideline. Charting on the UK dance chart doesn't really mean anything here. Mattg82 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion yet, but why does the above charting (if true, unable to verify that so far) not mean anything here? WP:NM does state "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." (Emphasis mine). Arakunem^Talk 18:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They only charted on the UK Dance Chart and not the mainstream UK Singles Chart which the guideline refers to. The dance chart doesn't get much attention in the media. Mattg82 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rhibosome. I found an article Western Suburbs Weekly ("Dynamic mix of funk" on 24 July 2007) and a short review in The Cairns Post (29 March 2007). Not enough yet for their own article. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After digging more, I can't find anything to support the claim of charting, UK-Dance or otherwise. The closest thing I can find is a blurb on his MySpace which says that in addition to his work in Flow Dynamics, his other works have charted (which I also cannot independently verify). So we're left with a couple of minor references as DuffBeerForMe has mentioned. As for a re-direct, my first assumption on seeing the name was that it was related to Fluid dynamics. A redir to Rhibosome seems ok if it is a plausible search. Arakunem^Talk 14:17, 15 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) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vowell's Market Place[edit]

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

Self-contested prod. Relatively small supermarket chain with unclear notability. Independent coverage exists and is provided in the article, but it is only local. Weak delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough major sources. The only two references available are the local online-only paper called the Demopolis Times (which has no Wikipedia article), and the local TV station WAPT, an ABC affiliate, which ran a minor text article on its website. They were both covering the announcement of the change of land use (written before the new store was built).--124.168.9.22 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Small local grocery chain. I found two additional Reliable Sources [24] [25], but both are simply announcements of the opening of a new store. No significant coverage found anywhere about the chain itself. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 15 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. I closed because it seems that my nomination was a mistake. (non-admin closure) Access Denied 09:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines)[edit]

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

Seems like advertising a legal bill. It doesn't really seem to fit under any CSD criteria, so I'm putting it here. Access Denied 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it advertising, or is it an attempt to write an article about a bill that has sparked national debate in the Philippine Star, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Manila Bulletin, and the Manila Standard? Uncle G (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Uncle G. This is the equivalent of the American Health care bills. There are 3 bills with their own articles. If this bill on the Philippine RH bill is deleted, I will suspect systemic bias. Klughilton4 (talk) 08:23, 10 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) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Pierce[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP with one source that, naturally, does not meet WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR on all four criteria and WP:GNG categorically, as well. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either. tedder (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, severe deficiencies in sourcing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't exactly cut it either. Hey Tedder, good to see you again. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' fails WP:NOTABILITY, cannot find any significant coverage on this article. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 03:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable author with no significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not notable). Also in existence is Pierce's own website, but to add that to the article's one source would still leave out sources written by a third party. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hoping to find prominent lit-mag contributions, but only found a piece in The Pedestal VASterling (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is this article hosted by The Guardian. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 14 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 as copyvio (G12) by Fastily. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Martin Famous German Shepherd Breeder[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to put interviews. If an article is to be written about the person it should be about the person not an interview of him. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 02:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- possible copyvio, not an article. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - a copy of this site, http://www.bmk.org.uk/martin.php ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:05, 10 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Hodgson (entertainer)[edit]

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

WP:COI Self-Promotion account only. Username same as the article. Confession0791 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the speedy is turned down, my delete vote here may be relevant: delete for lack of notability (the nominator's reasons are, in themselves, not sufficient)--I can find nothing for him or his band. Drmies (talk)
Speedy Delete - there is no assertion of importance in the current article and like others I could not find anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:10, 10 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 Armageddon. Its clearly snowing and the canvassing is going to make a broader consensus unsafe Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon theology[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)

The consensus at Talk:Armageddon#Merge discussion was to merge this into Armageddon, but the original creator reverted the redirect. This article is a mish-mash of stuff from other articles, and there is nothing of value here that is not already in the Armageddon article. In fact, there is nothing here that demonstrates from reliable sources that there is such a thing as "Armageddon theology". St Anselm (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armageddon. I did the merge, which had no objections at the time. I see no reason for this to exist as a separate article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There's no good reason for a second article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much a content fork of material covered at Armageddon and Christian eschatology. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per nom. No reason for second article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original author of the article. All that is required for an article at Wikipedia is that it has the ability to expand, which this article does. In addition, it is well referenced and inter-wiki linked. Deleting articles that meet these criteria harms Wikipedia, it does not help it. Just for your interest, the article was never merged, it was only redirected; however, that is irrelavent as this topic deserves it's own article. WritersCramp (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving no objections to a merge proposal, a merge of the then article was in fact done in April this year. The current article is a WP:POVFORK containing more material, some of which is covered in other articles such as Dispensationalism, and some of which is WP:OR. Most of it is not worth keeping, but any reliably sourced material not already in other articles should of course be re-merged. Since a merge already took place in April, we can't delete this article's history. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- There is material here which is not in Armageddon. It seems to me that there are as many views of the interpretation of this and Christian eschatology generally as commentators. It is all specualtion, but probably can be provided with good academic citations from leading theologians. How much should be merged to Armageddon and how much to Christian eschatology is a matter of judgement. The article is not large enough for us to need a separate sub-article on the Christian view of Armageddon, which is what this article is trying to provide. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WritersCramp - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per SK 2.4: "clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". There seem to be numerous scholarly sources such as Belief in" Armageddon Theology" and Willingness to Risk Nuclear War and nobody seems to want the article deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that any reliably sourced material should be in Armageddon, not in a POVFORK. And since there are !votes for deletion here, SK 2.4 doesn't apply. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW, it does not appear that there is any likelihood of this article being deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of wikilawyering is becoming disruptive. Just because an AfD appears to be heading towards consensus to Redirect or Merge (or generally anything other than Keep or Delete) does not qualify it for a speedy keep or snow close. You've been voting this way on a lot of AfD's recently and it is not helpful, nor will it ever actually result in a speedy keep. Redirection is a form of deletion, and is a perfectly valid result, as can be seen here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Please stop disrupting AfD discussions. SnottyWong ^confess 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors that are voting to delete the article should not be editing the article to gain support. Wait until the consensus is determined. WritersCramp (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags should not be removed until problems are fixed. And the dead link doesn't make for a suitable reference. And why on earth remove the BBC citation I added? -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: +tag spamming article by Radagast to get people to vote for a deletion is against the rules. In addition, most the +tags are not required because of the inter-wiki link, again confirmation that you are biased. The +tags should be removed until an impartial consensus is made. WritersCramp (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume good faith. And why do you think I'm trying "to get people to vote for a deletion"? I didn't !vote for deletion myself, but for merger/redirect. And there is no policy to support removal of the maintenance tags. Also; Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.-- Radagast3 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please revert Radagast biased +tag spamming of the article, before I go 3RR. Thank you. WritersCramp (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article's author has individually notified a dozens of editors about this AFD. I'm not going to call this canvassing or vote stacking per se--it appears that the author has picked people associated with the rescue squadron, but has done so broadly, so I'm assuming good faith. Just a head's up. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Headsup about what? There is a +rescue +tag posted on the article! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's a rescue tag then there should be no reason to individually notify members of the ARS. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Dozens" of editors is an understatement. He has notified well over 100 editors (including me) about this AfD. I have started an ANI thread about it at Wikipedia:ANI#Widespread canvassing by User:WritersCramp. Closing admin should be aware that over 100 editors (a disproportionate number of which are ARS members) were inappropriately notified about this AfD. SnottyWong ^prattle 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Snottywong, yes, but I'll also point out to the closing admin that the author appears to have chosen somewhat indiscriminately--I'll not point out any particular editors, but some of the people s/he chose to contact individually (me, for example, since I'm comfortable pointing out myself) can hardly be considered primarily inclusionists. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Armageddon article is a good starting place for an overview and theology on it would eventually turn it into a book. Even though we associate the name we give it here with Christian beliefs and it is starting with that corner of the quilt it is inevitable that it will someday encompass "The End of the World" in all it's other names from all the cultures which have one. There are many well-developed schools of religious belief on this rather interesting topic but since there is so much more than religion in the topic of Armageddon people should have the option to continue reading about detailed theologies or not. Also, it is possible that some of the various schools of religious belief will eventually grow enough to become new articles after a few years in this one. A clear path from Armageddon to it's religious aspects to specific theologies will need room to grow naturally without causing more headaches. (And having the Rescue Squadron show up shouldn't be seen as a threat, interference or merely political. I am here because I am an ARS member familiar with the religious side of this and know how big it could grow.)Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing the topic of this article with that of End time, which is already an extensive article treating (and linking to) the "many well-developed schools of religious belief on this". Deor (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Armageddon, then protect the page. After the previous merge, this is effectively a content fork at this point; and there's no need to duplicate here what's better treated elsewhere. Deor (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - which probably just means restore redirect. If this is the outcome and it isn't accepted, the page will have to be protected. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armageddon. This article is a content fork, and has already been appropriately merged before the disruptive actions of the article's creator. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and then protect the page. It's an innapropriate fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Armageddon. I have not been following this article but was canvassed by WritersCramp presumably because I am a member of the Article Rescue Squad who might be biased to side with the article's preservation. However, after reviewing both articles and the sources for Armageddon Theology, I do not see that this article needs rescuing since it has nothing to offer that is not already present in Armageddon. While there are a number of journalistic pieces on Armageddon Theology, Armageddon is already a theological article and already provides the context for whatever expansion might be envisioned by those who wish a separate article. Since the term "Armageddon Theology" receives only minor mention in Armageddon I suggest a new section Armageddon#Armageddon Theology (Note caps) be added there, focusing on the nuclear war scenario with suitable sourcing from the press where the term appears to have been coined. This would not be a merge since the media coverage is unexplored in the existing article. 76.23.245.128 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nothing much to preserve here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and I object to being canvassed by WritersCramp to support this rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Canvassed as well. Oh, and this is the first AfD discussion i've made myself be involved in that i've voted such. But, hey, canvassing is bad, m'kay. Silver seren^C 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the page to a redirect; literally everyone commenting wants this and WritersCramp has since been blocked for disruptive editing. I think this can be closed now. HalfShadow 16:36, 11 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) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonar (Transformers)[edit]

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

Fanboycruft. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A work in progress, but has a source from a published book to get notability started. Mathewignash (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per many other AfDs, no notability, no mentions outside of fansites and toy catalogs and the like. This work is better suited for the transformers wikia project. Tarc (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split the different characters along the series they are from, Merge the characters into the series character lists they are from, and Covert the page to a disambiguation page. When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always best to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources means this minor character fails GNG and notability guidelines. Should stay on TFwiki. Skinny87 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete characters of this low level of significance are best suited to a fansite or fan wiki. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 15 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. Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top One Percent Society[edit]

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The news coverage is extremely thin, except for a few brief mentions in 1993. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in reliable sources is needed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, this does not seem to meet it? Hoeflin seems to have made up a bunch of things like this, see Mega Society etc. They aren't inherently notable just because he made them up. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also can't find any decent sources for this, and have to make the obvious point that anyone truly qualified to join this society would be intelligent enough to realise that it's a scam for collecting testing, joining and subscription fees. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Membership is free of charge. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:30, 15 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. Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Page[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, sources in article fail WP:RS. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Article is (deliberately?) vague of what 'The Wisdom Page' is actually about or why it's notable, but it seems to be essentially claiming it's popular. Unfortunately, Alexa shows that it actually isn't, with a rank of 1,714,690. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability (web). --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 15 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. no clear consensus to delete but, looking at policy, I do wonder if, in these BLP sensitive days, subguidelines to make unreferenced individuals notable are actually sustainable anymore. This probably needs a meta discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brayden McNabb[edit]

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

Expired prod that should have been deleted but an editor removed the prod because I forgot an edit summary. Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally and fails WP:NSPORTS can be recreated when/if he achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was on the 2009-10 WHL Eastern Conference All-Star First Team, which could satisfy point four of the NHOCKEY criteria. Not sure if this is enough. Patken4 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not that that "could" satisfy WP:NHOCKEY; it explicitly does satisfy criteria #4. "Achieved preeminent honours (... first team all-star ...) ... in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association or the Western Hockey League ..." Ravenswing 13:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said "could" was because the all-star teams were broken up by conference, not league. So in the WHL, you would have 12 first team all-star members, not the usual 6. I didn't know if there was another list that further split this group of 12 into a first team and second team. Regardless, given that you agree, Keep. Patken4 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I went back and forth on that one. Either way, it still needs multiple independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Remember that meeting NSPORTS isn't a guarantee'd keep. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Not only was McNabb named to the 2009-10 Eastern Conference First All-Star Team,[26] he also won a gold medal with Team Canada at the 2008 Ivan Hlinka Memorial, played in the 2009 Under-18 World Championships, and was selected to the 2009 CHL Top Prospects game.[27] Moorsmur (talk) 04:06, 6 September 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) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moorsmur. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moorsmur, its close but I think there's enough to keep, esp since we keep deleting players only to redo the article a couple years later once they're in the NHL.Bhockey10 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could always recreate or restore the article in the future that's not really a valid reason for keeping an article. Secret ^account 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Once he establishes notability we can then create an article about him. See WP:RS and WP:Notability. EnabledDanger (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust Djsasso judgement on hockey players, he doesn't meet the reliable sources we need to create an article. Also fails WP:ATHLETE but that's an essay, not policy. Secret ^account 02:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Moorsmur. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:19, 17 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) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixmaster (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in a recent notable film. Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't be more notable than Devastator —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability improved - I added a good citation from a third party book that should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 22:38, 9 September 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) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one thing that looks like a reliable source (USA Today) is just a mention in a list of other characters. Nothing to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ignash, - DK's The Ultimate Guide is so not a "third party" source, being a Hasbro-affiliated publication, written by Simon Furman. Plus, the book had spelling mistakes. NotARealWord (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand why there is such animosity towards these pages. True, fancruft needs to be regulated, but only up to a point. A lot of this stuff can be sourced. "No indication of notability in the real world"?? It's in a movie, several cartoons, books and toys. It just doesn't seem right that we allow stub articles for minor-leauge baseball players, but not informative, referenced articles on Transformers characters. Granted most of the sources will be primary, but I think policy there can be stretched a bit. Danski14^(talk) 18:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm guessing the animosity is due to so many Transformers characters getting articles unnecessarily. If you check here, a lot of articles on non-notable characters somehow got launched. They also somehow escaped deletion for quite a while. So, a lot of space on Wikipedia was inapropriately filled with TF fancruft. NotARealWord (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem appropriate to invoke ignoring rules for these characters when they have no real-world impact. Can't WP:verify notability of this topic as a toy, as a movie character, or a cartoon character. We have plenty of articles about toys, but not ones that have had no significance. Wikipedia is not a catalog of all toys. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yet another minor Transformers character. No convincing assertion of notabiloty, and the sourcing is inadequate. Reyk _YO! 05:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More notability estabished - I just added a non-primary book reference that should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That book is a toy guide. If it doesn't say much about the subject of the article (Mixmaster), then it doesn't establish notability.Bali ultimate's argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source) is about that kinda source that doesn't give much coverage to the subject. NotARealWord (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the many and varied references in this page, MixMaster is a noteable enough character on his -own- to keep as an article. I know, he's part of the group 'Constructicons' but he's done other stuff. Lots42 (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there is a reliable reference in the USA Today news article, it isn't much more than a passing mention; and given a lack of other reliable sources, this doesn't seem to pass GNG or notability guidelines. Skinny87 (talk) 09:52, 14 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) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grindor[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in a recent notable film. Mathewignash (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing of use in the article, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gamespot, IGN, published writer Ben Yee's review? various PROFESSIONAL web sites. "no reliable sources?" Mathewignash (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source added - Transformers Animated: The Allspark Almanac by Jim Sorenson & Bill Forester page 61 ha a paragraph on Grindor. Mathewignash (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:48, 11 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Established more notability - I just added a third party book source talking about Grindor. That should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Ignash, DK's The Ultimate Guide is so not a "third party" source, being a Hasbro-affiliated publication, written by Simon Furman. Plus, the book had spelling mistakes. NotARealWord (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources that establish independent notability for this thing in the realityverse. This content is wonderfully suited to wikia or the Transformers wiki. They'd love this stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali ultimate. Secret ^account 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no material verifiable enough to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Hopeless fancruft that does not even attempt to establish real world notability. Reyk _YO! 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some references from an official guide that they use to make more money for the franchise, but this isn't independent enough to be able to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-poorly source no notabillity. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure that I can add anything that hasn't been said already by those above. But to reiterate: no reliable, independent aources, and it fails GNG and general notability guidelines. Skinny87 (talk) 09:24, 14 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) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elita One[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in a recent notable film. Mathewignash (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elita One appears in a number of different Transformers universes. So is a obviously important enought to have been included in them and therefore worthy of an article.DeadDave666 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadDave666 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:48, 11 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little better than some of these, it doesn't assert notability per se but does assert a measure of uniqueness in being a female Transformer. Not so unique that she's been substantially covered in reliable sources though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there's something significant about being a female transformer, then there would be a source that could WP:verify notability of this as a phenomenon. I looked. Found nothing. Wikipedia WP:PG policies and guidelines call for third-party sources for facts, or else information should be removed. (See WP:V and WP:N for this requirement.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A character doesn't need to be notable to be merged into a character list because notability does not directly limit article content. Nor are third-party sources required to verify the character's role in a work. Primary sources are reliable sources to verify that much. —Farix (t | c) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, independent sources. Fails GNG, thus delete. Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 14 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 mixed bag. Delete on both of the Stephen the Great memorials, redirect on the others, any content worth merging can be pulled from the page histories. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen the Great Monument, Drochia[edit]

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

Probably most cities on earth have a fair amount of public sculptures displayed on their streets. Some of these are notable, but nothing really stands out about these. Certainly, they haven't received coverage in reliable sourcing, with forums, satellite photos and the like being used to source the articles. They're all less than 20 years old, meaning no inherent historical value can be claimed for them. And none of them are by notable sculptors. So I don't really see evidence of notability at this point. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak to the others, only to the first:
I haven't found a single source for verifying this, yet. I thought that I had, but it turned out that the sources that I found were mirrors of current and earlier versions of ro:Drochia. (The source cited in support of this content appears to be an out-of-date mirror of the ro: Wikipedia's article.) That latter, sadly, doesn't given any indication of what source this part of its content can be found supported by. The nearest that I've come to a source so far is a source stating that a monument will be erected (and even that is short on detail and basically supports a single sentence in Drochia and no more — just as in the ro: Wikipedia in fact). Whether what was planned was what finally happened, I haven't found a source to confirm. I haven't found anything that supports treating this subject any differently to how the ro: Wikipedia treats it, or indeed for supporting this content at all, anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article about the Drochia monument, which doesn't even give the name of the artist/designer. Move and redirect the article about the Bălţi monument to Gheorghe Postovan, where the monument would support the architect's notability. The articles about the Doina and Ion Aldea Teodorovici monuments (neither of which name the artist/designer) should be merged to an article about Doina and Ion Aldea Teodorovici~~, which should itself be a merge of the articles on Doina Aldea Teodorovici and Ion Aldea Teodorovici~~.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the separate Doina and Ion Aldea Teodorovici articles, and added refs from the monument articles. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:56, 11 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 per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RNA Mirage[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, no significant coverage in neutral third party sources. Galactic Traveller (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally media dont write entire article for building unless some activities like terrorist attack/fire etc. But its 40flr building and quite land mark on worli skyline, see RNA Mirage Pic1 Pic2 Pic3. also it been showed in many movie(bollywood), ads etc as skyline of Mumbai. In India 40flr building is still notable. Also it has some nice shape than usual square building which make its pretty notable in skyline. I also added reference to article. KuwarOnline ^Talk 11:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From your userpage I can see you live in Mumbai, so you may have some emotional/nationalistic feelings about a project in your city/locality. This can be proved from your comment "its 40flr building and quite land mark on worli skyline" and "In India 40flr building is still notable". This is English Wikipedia, an international project, not Hindi Wikipedia or Indopedia. So notability should be judged from a global perspective. Considering the international standard, this building is nothing but a humble dwarf. And you still failed to establish notability. Out of the four references you added, the first is an advertisement for the project and fails WP:RS. The last is a nationalistic website without any editorial board, hence it fails the criteria of WP:RS. The only source which meets the criteria of WP:RS is the TOI article, but then again the article about about projects in Mumbai, not about this building, and it has only a brief coverage about the building which looks promotional for the purpose of making potential home buyers aware of the project. This interview looks like a weak source. So are we going to keep an article only because it has received a brief promotional coverage in the city section of an Indian daily? I don't think it is enough to establish notability. And your argumentation "it been showed in many movie(bollywood)" is irrelevant, in that sense we should have articles about all the buildings shown in Hollywood movies. Cheers. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Galactic Traveller: Please be aware of WP:NICE, there is no need to use offensive language. --Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuwar: your explanation claims three potential areas of notability: architecture (buildig design), urban design (skyline) and popular culture (film), yet no evidence for any of these is provided. --Elekhh (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of architectural notability at this stage. --Elekhh (talk) 23:26, 3 September 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, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into "Tallest buildings in India" etc. It's somewhat interesting and probably notable information that the 4th tallest building in all of India is 40 stories tall. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source it or lose it folks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 18 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. Per substantial coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hulburd[edit]

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

Campaign-style profile of an unelected political candidate with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Was previously tagged for prod; references here are entirely to his own personal campaign site and to trivial, non-substantial coverage which mentions him, but fails to be about him as such. Certainly he can come back if he wins — but until then, simply being a candidate is not a valid encyclopedic claim of notability. For the time being, delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My preference is to regard major-party candidates for national-level offices as notable. That said, his chances of winning are quite low, so that preference is not terribly strong in this case. Ray^Talk 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify my own position on this, I obviously wouldn't question a major-party candidate for national or statewide offices such as the presidency, a Senate seat, a state governorship, etc. — for one thing, the scope and volume of coverage that such a person will get in the campaign is likely to establish notability, and for another, a person is highly unlikely to win a major party's nomination for such an office without already being notable enough for an encyclopedia article anyway. But I don't think either of those conditions applies to a candidate for the House of Representatives in an individual congressional district (or to a candidate for a seat in a state legislature), because the person simply isn't relevant to anybody outside that one congressional district unless and until they actually win it.

It's important to understand that a federal office doesn't automatically equate to a national office. The presidency is a national office, because the candidates are directly accountable to every voter in the United States, but a candidate for the House of Representatives is only accountable to voters in one single congressional district out of 435 nationwide. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All he has won so far is an uncontested primary. The article is heavily footnoted so it looks impressive, but most of the refs are duplicative or self-referential. Most of the press he has gotten is routine political handicapping, with a few mentions in stories about his far more notable opponent. Per the consensus at WP:POLITICIAN that is not enough to qualify as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the candidate reaches the threshold of notability. I have seen Hulburd on a bunch of the local newscasts and it looks like there is a lot of stories outside the congressional district in the national political press and on cable news shows. This article was created a few months ago but deleted fairly quickly, now there seems to be more news stories being published every day, can anyone else help keeping this article up-to-date? Rjbmesa (talk) 22:52, 6 September 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, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article shows significant coverage in RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like Hulburd keeps getting more national coverage from RS, here is link to interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball: http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/quayle-s-opponent-sizes-up-midterm-fight/17yj6stme Rjbmesa (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically agree with Bearcat except that I do extent it to major party candidates to the HofR, for they get substantial regional attention-- & especially in a year like this when the balance is uncertain, each of them matters nationally also. I certainly would not extend it to a state legislature. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 17 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DynDNS[edit]

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

Advertising, content not suitable for an encyclopedia Bryanahughes (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site is notable, and one of the best known dynamic DNS provider. As you can see on Google Scholar, DynDNS is often cited, as the way to have a dynamic DNS address in IT and computer science articles. --Dereckson (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bryanahughes, the AfD promoter, is a new account created only to nominate this article for deletion. --Dereckson (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many commercial entities are listed within documents on Google Scholar. This AfD submission is purely based on the Wikipedia commercial advertising policy. Perhaps my understanding of Wikipedia's advertising policy is not accurate, however you will note discussions on this article prior to AfD submission from others that indicated it as advertising. --Bryanahughes (talk) 19:28, 8 September 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, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dereckson. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I guess some software parses this, my first time here.) It seems a little strange to want to delete this article entirely. There aren't many articles here about dynamic DNS providers. In fact there are only three. DynDNS is mentioned in a lot of books [28], so it seems worth including in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what is meant by the article being an advertisement. Any article about an entity advertises it. This article seems fairly factual, i.e. not empty marketing speak. I'm not sure the awards section is really necessary, but I would not delete the entire article. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad-faith nom by new account. —I-20 the highway 04:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Notability guideline states that an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. But this article does not explain why the company is notable and does not include the relevant citations. It is just a short history of the company with a list of services and awards. Gezzed (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) — Gezzed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep In my view the notability guideline should have less weight for an online encyclopedia than for a paper document where space is limited. NPOV and others are equally strong however. In this case there is a fair amount of useful factual information in the article, which indeed I just did find useful in researching the protocol for a networking application. The article is no worse than many others for small companies, and causes no harm, so why would you delete it? --Rhanbury (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, unjustified AfD. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above comments. --Od1n (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (same args as Dereckson). I've been knowing this service for several years, even tho I'm french :) DarkoNeko x 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; satisfies notability as per Dereckson. Also, DynDNS access comes as part of many BT Homehubs/ Voyager routers as part of their dynamic dns solution for home users- so reasonable exposure Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 20:31, 16 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) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Pospisil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig Pospisil

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

This is a non-notable, the article reads more like the writer's curriculum vitae than even the merest biography. A search for any real news outlet (non-trade publication) mentioning him draws a blank. Vinithehat (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are non-trade publications not valid? Those are the organizations that cover the theater world. They would seem to be real news outlets. Furthermore, I have listed listed references from the Los Angeles Times and NPR.

And if my article in flawed, why is this article valid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Braun. The sources in this article are from the author's own website. Or this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flannery. This one has no references whatsoever. And this article is very similar to the one I created, but also has no references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jude_Ferrante. Why are these articles for no more "notable" authors not being considered for deletion? I ask because I did research on similar authors and tried to create this page in line with what I found for those. How can I make my article on this author better, in your opinion?

something of note: Go to the LA Times website and search for "Craig Pospisil" - 0 results. The LA Times reference in the article is not hosted by the LA Times and does not include a date of publication, section or page. It is a Calendarlive publication. As for NPR: the interview referenced is with Lawrence Feeney, not Craig Pospisil, who is only mentioned in the interview. The interview, mind, is focused on the A train plays, as is the Calendarlive article. The remaining "references" mostly just make mention of Craig Pospisil; they do not write about him. This is one work of minor note (a strictly local production, especially considering its nature - this does not create notability. Vinithehat (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep From reading the article I got the impression that his work has only been produced in very minor venues; however, a search of Google News Archive [29] finds 10 pages of items (in real newspapers, not trade papers) about his plays being produced here and there - especially a play called Months on End which seems to have been very widely produced. One of his plays even got a brief mention in the New York Times. The article needs improving to reflect this type of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MelanieN. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While trade publications may be obscure, if they are edited by an independent source they do meet our definition of reliable sources, and satisfy our notability requirements. EnabledDanger (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:MelanieN. But it needs a rewrite. Spatulli (talk) 13:42, 10 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) 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Farrell[edit]

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

Editor removed the Prod without an edit summary. Article was previously deleted as a G11. The only non trivial source I could find is a link to The Chester County, Pennsylvania commissioners website [30] NN locaL politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN.—Sandahl (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I only found trivial coverage, mostly in local news. One county commissioner of a county of population less than 500k is not sufficient for passing WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found quite a bit of coverage in the regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer (was WP:BEFORE followed?), and added several references to the article. County commissioners aren't automatically notable, but I think he makes it, partly for being the first African-American elected to his position. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While MelanieN's efforts are greatly appreciated, I don't think that that particular achievement alone is grounds for notability; the coverage is thin and the only independent source that says anything about him (as far as I can tell) is the 1999 Inquirer article. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a county commissioner whose sole achievement seems to be having been the first county commissioner of his ethnicity in that particular county. While I am loathe to delete political biographies, this one doesn't seem to pass muster. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 10 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination by another user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Evolved[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One reference, possibly unreliable and little information. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be an article previously deleted. Superchrome (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The use of the past tense in the article implies the label now isn't extant. The one blue-linked artiste's article makes no mention of this label in his collection. All the releases mentioned at discogs are in 2006 - implying that either I may be right about current existence or that discogs are a bit out of date. (They do mention the Apparat release - indeed the whole article is a minimal paraphrase of that discogs 'article'.) Discogs cannot be regarded as a reliable source here on Wikipedia, as it is "a user-built database containing information on artists, labels, and their recordings" (quoted from http://www.discogs.com/help/about-discogs.html). Peridon (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the ban on the initiator of this AfD, I still feel that little notability is shown - and apart from the unreliable (by WP standards) external link, nothing is referenced. Peridon (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note This AFD was started by a sock puppet of a banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PokerStars Big Game[edit]

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

TV poker game. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poker After Dark has a Wiki article and it's basically the same show in the same time slot, just on a different network. Also, I appreciate that it has a Wiki page since I heard about the show, and came to Wiki looking to learn more info about it. It would suck if this option weren't available to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4Life (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's on FOX (okay, it's aired in the wee hours, but still) with top poker players participating, e.g. Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu. It may not get a lot of notice in the non-poker world, but there appears to be plenty in the poker community.[31][32][33] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it aired on Fox. But it aired in that grey area of time-buy where Pokerstars.net bought the timeslot to air it under a paid programming arrangement, and lots of networks and other unnotable organizations partake in this practice. There needs to be a major finding of sources for this to meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brand new show, airing on FOX with a large amount of notables. Covered by Card Player Magazine, PokerNewsDaily, the www.examiner.com, and ESPN go. I believe that should cover any doubts regarding notability. Valoem ^talk 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would source the article out, it'd probably cover the doubts regarding notability. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like a show I'd like to watch, but this smacks of paid programming. No demonstration of notability. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links by Clarityfiend above are interesting but don't resolve what is for me the big question: is this paid commercial programming or a "legitimate" national TV show? Carrite (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitmate TV show, if the links from Clarityfiend weren't enough you can watch clips on Youtube. Just because it is in the paid programming slot time does not mean it is paid programming per citations. Valoem ^talk 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, the show also airs nationally in Canada on Rogers Sportsnet. (Don't ask me how poker became a sport.) Reso lute 21:12, 10 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 Afro. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-master (comb)[edit]

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

Non-notable product, one mention on Google Books. Originally prodded as a hoax, which it isn't, just very obscure. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some article on the Afro style. Second merge target could be Comb, where it can join Afro pick. Borock (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Borock's advice. -Bonus Onus (talk) 02:49, 15 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) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note that this is not a nomination to delete content so it is a separate consideration from all the other AfDs. This is more procedural because the article title is a violation of WP:SYNTH because it invites a connection between three disparate topics that are only connected by the original research of Wikipedia editors. Normally, this could be handled by WP:PROD, but because it has already been nominated for deletion twice, the correct procedure is to AfD the article.

Content has already been successfully spun-off to the following three articles:

I suggest moving the edit history of this article, which should be preserved at Wikipedia since the content is good and preserved to Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina. The article name, "Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" should be deleted from Wikipedia as an obvious invitation to make an originally researched collection of disparate ideas. Moreover, the name itself and it is not a natural search term so the redirect should not be preserved. Attribution can be made in edit summaries at the other two articles to satisfy the requirements of the licensing. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing left to keep if all the material is moved out to sub-articles and other articles. I will dispute, however, that the article is any more of a magnet for original research than any other article. I personally went to great lengths to insure that every contention in the article is sourced to a book in print of durably archived reliable source on the Internet. I also doubt that it matters whether the search term is unnatural, as we have many articles at "unnatural" titles with redirects incoming from more natural (but less encyclopedic) titles. Someone searching for information about claims of divine retribution or global warming in relation to this disaster would have come to this article one way or another, while the information was in it. bd2412 T 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- The issue was not that the content was original research. The issue was that including these three ideas together is a kind of synthesis lumping. There is no relationship whatsoever between levee-breaching conspiracy theories and divine retribution proposals. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history will have to be kept somewhere accessible and linkable from the various spinoff articles. That having been said, delete the present title per valid OR concerns. So long as all the material is preserved, there's no need to have an "article" that is just a bunch of ((Main)) links. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming someone doesn't revert the bold divesting of the article, a dab page would probably make the most sense. –xeno^talk 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except it really doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic (or common) search term. Are people going to be looking for "alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina" very much? I just don't think that this is a reasonable disambiguation and, in fact, the disambiguation itself may require a bit too much in the way of original research to determine which ideas rise to the standard of "alternative theories" that "regard" Hurricane Katrina. For example, "global warming" isn't an "alternative theory" at all, though attributing Katrina's strength solely to global warming is a nebulous proposal. What about people who think that modern meteorological explanations for storms are incorrect? Obviously, they take exception to the "mainstream explanation" for hurricanes in general and Katrina in particular, but I think most reasonable people would see a problem including them on the same page as these other ideas. There's just too wide open a door for this grab-bag topic and essentially no reliable sources that I've seen which connect these disparate ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does get a handful of views. Whether they're coming from people typing it in, or the link from the template (which you've since removed), or direct links, is unknown. –xeno^talk 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains (or contained, before it was split out) material that some people would be interested in reading. I'd like to point out, also, that the reason this article was created in the first place was that people with agendas kept trying to jam all of these various claims into the main Hurricane Katrina article, which was leading to substantial disconcertment. I and a few other editors made a serious effort to put these various theories somewhere where they could be documented, well-sourced, and framed in a neutral tone. bd2412 T 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Fringe ideas need to be dealt with carefully. We do not want to create coatrack articles. We can cover notable fringe ideas in their own articles, but I think we must avoid creating one "garbage can" article where we toss in a bunch of notable, or non-notable, fringecruft. If these ideas cannot stand alone as an article, or find a suitable place in another article, they should not be in Wikipedia at all. One cannot make a notable topic by merging together a bunch of non-notable topics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would say that they are individually notable enough to stand on their own, given the rather high profile figures and media reports of both the global warming and divine retribution claims. Seeral editors have tried to work in a section alleging the use of weather control technology, but this has failed for lack of any notable person or reliable media outlet discussing it. I am not wholly adverse to the remaining pieces being separated, but if they are individually capable of being maintained as articles, why not put them under one heading? bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no content here as it has all been moved to other places. I agree it should be deleted, possibly speedy under the appropriate criteria for content-free article pages. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the name is prima facie inappropriate. However, the history needs to go somewhere. I suppose it could be merged with supernatural attributions article, but some kind of redirect or dab (not necessarily at the current page title) would be more appropriate, imo. –xeno^talk 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit history could be preserved by moving the current page to an archive of Hurricane Katrina, which would save it from being tied to any particular spinoff article, since the global warming and divine retribution articles have equal claim to it, as does the blown-up levees section now on the page about the general levy failure. bd2412 T 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - While I do understand and sympathize with the rational for creating this article, the idea was flawed. We should not create "dumping ground" articles for crap that does not belong in some other article. In this case, the result was a hodge-podge article that lumped all sorts of disconnected material into a single article that did not have a proper topic or focus. I suggest that the "Katrina was God's wrath for the sins of the world" claims (currently spun out by SA into Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina) should be merged and re-worked into the article on Divine retribution, which places the claims in their proper context (as modern examples of a time-honored religious take on calamitous events). The conspiracy claims about the levies and what not should either be ignored per to WP:UNDUE, or should be worked into an article specifically about Katrina conspiracy claims (assuming such an article passes WP:FRINGE). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Blueboar says it eloquently. Compendium of hooey. Where the edit history is kept is not an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the valuable content has now been moved to Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alternative theories exist for everything, and although they are occasionally notable enough for the Encyclopedia - They are not de-facto notable. Most of what was attempted hardly merits a footnote. None of it, either individually or in the aggregate, comes anywhere close to meriting an article.99.141.241.60 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blueboar summed it up well. All of the relevant content has been moved to the appropriate article, so deletion appears to be the way to go.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now proposed to merge Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. Since the development and spread of alternative theories such as divine retribution is essentially a social phenomena, perhaps this article is best merged there as well. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah... attributing a disaster to God's wrath isn't a social phenomenon... it is a religious phenomenon. I think the problem here is focusing on claims about the event. After all, those who view the world through religious eyes see most natural disasters and other calamitous events as examples of divine retribution. Katrina was hardly unique in this. To understand the claims made about Katrina, you have to understand how the claims fit into a religious pattern. You need to discuss the claims in their proper context, I think they should be discussed in the Divine retribution article, and not in an article that is focused on Katrina specifically. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious phenomena are social phenomena. In any case, there is nothing that prevents the merging of portions of this material to two articles. Also, some materials outside of the religious aspect were initially covered by the general article; both the levee conspiracy theory (as a point of contention in the wider conception that the government was wifully unhelpful to minorities) and the upsurge of interest in global warming can be characterized as social effects of the hurricane. bd2412 T 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is this: I don't think we should discuss religious claims in any article that is focused on an event... we should discuss religious claims in an article that is focused on religious belief. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina is the article on the event. Social effects of Hurricane Katrina is already an article secondary to the event which has spurred the effects discussed. bd2412 T 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But the "Social effects" article is focused on effects that occurred because of Katrina... while the religious claims reflect a religious belief as to what caused Katrina (or why Katrina occurred). That is different kettle of fish entirely. Basically, I don't think mentioning the religious claims fits the topic and scope of the Social effects article, while they do fit the topic and scope of the Divine retribution article.

In any case... all this is best discussed on the talk page of the various articles. I think we agree that the article entitled Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (the subject of this AfD) should be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 14 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) 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Helm[edit]

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

Prodded; I did find a source that gives some degree of verification, but I have no idea whether the awards listed are notable. I'm sending it here without a recommendation one way or another about deletion, so others can figure it out it. The book is clearly notable, but he's only one of the four authors. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently has no article on the ACM Programming Languages Award, and it would really help if the creator specified which ACM we're talking about (presumably this one, but I need to make sure), as currently I cannot find any coverage of this award under that name. As for the AITO Dahl-Nygaard Prize, the prize itself doesn't seem notable, even though several of its recipients are.

As for googling this name without specifying an organization, we have to keep in mind that a former US ambassador to Iran with the same name is getting a lot of coverage, and that means a lot of false positives. I would say Delete and create a page on the diplomat. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 September 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) 23:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fellow has not been significant enough to have secondary writings about him, so ditch it, non notable, as they say per GN... Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with Blanchard that a page on the ambassador of the same name is probably appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 10 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.