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

The result was delete. This is an indiscriminate list, plain and simple. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement[edit]

Casualties of the 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article in question was created to list the names of all the casualties of the 2010 Kashmir unrest. But this particular article is not of any encyclopedic value as creating a separate article to list the names of the people killed is against Wikipedia's policy for creation of new articles. Johnxxx9 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL--Sodabottle (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It works This is encyclopedic. Rename to List of victims of 2010 Quit Kashmir Movement. There are other lists of victims of clashes like List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. We are discussing this article not List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which is redirect by the way. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added a few of these names, bit by bit, to 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy, as they came up in various sources. I think that this article and its parent suffered greatly from very strong POV editing on either side, and much of the information I tried to devolve from the Koran-burning article into this one's parent (e.g. about buildings burned) has since been lost, together with the sources, but I should say that it looks like many of these deaths were notable, with coverage in major media of the area, major demonstrations about the deaths, and more protesters shot, and more buildings burned, etc. I would in fact say that in an absolute sense, these deaths are some of the most notable information I added to the Koran-burning article, and if we include that article about someone almost burning a Koran and throw out this one about >100 people killed in conflict over the sovereignty of a nation, we would be taking Wikipedia's cultural bias to an unsurpassed extreme. Please — do not dismiss these people as faceless unknowns simply because they aren't from America, and if we can't send UN peacekeepers to Kashmir, then Wikipedia should at least recruit some neutral parties to try to preserve the useful contributions of both sides to the Kashmir articles. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well we do have an article on Quit Kashmir Movement (2010). nobody is discussing deleting that. all useful info from here can be included in that article. This is just a list of non notable ( by WP standards) individuals who were killed in the course of this unrest and the list clearly fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. that is the reason the article on Casualties of the September 11 attacks does not include details of individuals--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for both names in the first row: [1] - results include apparently major newspapers such as Greater Kashmir and Tribune India.

Search for the first name in the last row: [2] - results include the Times of India, Agence India Press.

Now if you believe that Indian (and/or Kashmir...) newspapers aren't real newspapers, and Kashmir's people aren't real people, then maybe you can say this isn't notable. But if the people killed in these protests have 1/25 the value of the people killed in the Kent State shootings (Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer) then the article should stand, complete with the stand-alone list so that the full details can be provided without degrading the article. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wikireader41 has been inserting so-called anti-Islamofascist POV in many articles and indicates the same on their user profile page. So I have to question if he/she can be expected to give neutral comments about this article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well memorial lists are prohibited by community consensus per the policy cited above. why do you think we don't have one for 9/11 victims ?? none of these victims are notable except for the fact they were killed in Kashmir in 2010. Same reason we don't have a List of victims of Second World War. None of the articles you have cited are lists BTW. If you think some of the victims are notable enough to have their own articles then by all means go ahead and start them.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEMORIAL does not prohibit the listing of people killed in a notable event. It prohibits starting a page for your dead husband, wife, son, or daughter after he or she smashed into a tree on the way home one night. A page of that type, for someone otherwise non-notable to Wikipedia, akin to a roadside memorial, is not allowed here. Which is harsh. But extending it to cut out all mention of people being killed in a major and fairly well publicized civil controversy, even as hundreds of protesters defy armed soldiers to attend their funerals? It was never supposed to go that far, never. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So according to your argument List of victims of Second World War, List of victims of September 11 attacks would be legitimate articles. Closing admin please note.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, as per searches above, that many of these victims are the subject of individual news coverage. Now it is true that if we had a complete, accurate list of all the victims of the second World War, I'd want us to maintain it as a useful resource — but that's beside the point. Here there are major news articles about the deaths of these specific named individuals. Many of the people on the list would pass WP:GNG in their own right. If forced to draw a line between "few named deaths" and "many unnamed deaths", we should draw it where the media stop reporting on people as individuals, and where the only reliable sources available are sources that are involved in trying to compile complete lists. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Per Wnt - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 23 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) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners[edit]

John Wesley 300: pioneers, preachers and practitioners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable publication, the references are all supporting material in the book, NOT the notability of the book itself which clearly fails WP:NBOOK. PROD was disputed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The book is clearly non-notable. Some of the information may be merged into Methodism#Caribbean. I also have doubts about the Woodie Blackman article. StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:BOOK, which is why I PRODded this in the first place. I also have doubts about Woodie Blackman. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadads (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A review of WP:JUSTAVOTE may help in participating in deletion discussions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cindamuse (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am highly suspicious of an attempt to delete an article only 2 days after that article was created. I suggest that the author of the page be given a reasonable chance to improve the article, (not everyone comes into Wikipaedia every day or every week - some people have real lives to lead). While the book may have limited notability for most of us, it is entirely possible that, given the topic of the book, it has regional notability in parts of the Caribbean. This knee-jerk attempt to delete a book article reeks of book-burning. BlueRobe (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep the hyperbole out of this. Not having an article about a book in no way equates with book-burning. The article was fully-formed, and even at that early stage it was clear that it fails WP:BOOK Get over yourself, for pity's sake. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure you appreciate the the meaning of "hyperbole". Or "metaphor". And calm down. BlueRobe (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of how this would meet notability for books. I can find no critical reviews, or coverage aboutt he book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- This is a slim book on the history of Methodism in the West Indies. My question is, 'What else is there on the subject'. However, I would be happier with an article on Methodism in the West Indies, which might rely on this book as one of its major sources. A number of references have eben added, but I suspect they are not concerned with the book, but are references for its content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not understand your keep rationale. The references in the article do indeed verify the content of the book rather than covering book as they mostly predate the publication of the book. The book may cover a notable subject, and may be useful as a reference, but that doesn't make th book notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The book is not notable. WorldCat shows only 9 holdings, which is absurdly low, even for the most specialized interest. The article on the author needs some very serious pruning, and I am about to do it. It will be easier to judge notability after that--but he does have other books with more library holdings.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete but if I were an interested party I would request WP:USERFICATION before (preferably) or after the discussion close and then rewrite it with other sources, easily Googled, to be mainspaced under the title "Methodism in the West Indies", which as a topic would pass notability in a flash. The three "p"'s should be "P"'s of course. JJB 05:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pata[edit]

Henry Pata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Although a source has been added since I first came across it, the article is still in a very poor state, and (unless we have started to indiscriminantly allow any article that includes the "f" word) makes no assertion of passing the general notability guideline. The source that has been added is sufficient to establish that the article is not a hoax, but little more. --WFC-- 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --WFC-- 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 23:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep new research establishes notability. GiantSnowman 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. Without fully pro appearances, he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep. Played in a top level South American league (if only it stated that in the first place). Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It did say that when it was nominated. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The club where he plays is a professional club (see Club_Deportivo_El_Nacional) playing in Ecuadorian Serie A, which is described as "the top level of professional football in Ecuador". Also, not surprisingly, cited in numerous news articles --Cyclopia^talk 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To argue keep based on ATHLETE would require independent verification of the league's professional status. It would be difficult to argue general notability of a player unless it can be proven that coverage is more than routine. Undeniably you have provided quite a few links, but it's depth of coverage that we're looking for. --WFC-- 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Federación_Ecuatoriana_de_Fútbol is a member of CONMEBOL ( http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/activeCountry.html?x=2&sub=2 ). And here on the FIFA website, it appears that "Primera A" (the league) is indeed under the F.E.F. The team website indicates that the team played the Copa Libertadores several times and the Copa Conmebol twice. --Cyclopia^talk 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Pata has played in the continental competitions, that would have a bearing on his notability. But there is no assertion of that. None of the links you have provided demonstrate that it is a professional league. Liechtenstein is a member of UEFA. More reasonable comparisons with Ecuador might include Bosnia, Canada, both Irish nations and Vietnam. --WFC-- 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I understand correctly your comparison, you mean that Liechtenstein premier league is not professional,even if it is member of UEFA. Why so? I'm honestly confused. --Cyclopia^talk 13:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's confusing about the fact that professionalism is not a requirement for UEFA membership? Do you seriously think that a country with a population of 35,000 could sustain a fully professional league? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd like to see a definition of "professional league" at this point. --Cyclopia^talk 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In any case, this seems to imply that the Ecuadorian leagues are professional. I'll keep looking. --Cyclopia^talk 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to those who have questioned whether the subject has played in a fully professional league. Are you saying that this player has not played in Serie A de Ecuador, or are you saying that that league is not fully professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter. --WFC-- 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (although I should point out that unlike the majority of football editors, I do actually expect article subjects to demonstrate that they pass the WP:GNG. --WFC-- 00:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • My question wasn't actually addressed to you, as you didn't base your argument on the subject not having played in a fully professional league. I'd still like to hear from those who did make such an argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel able to answer on their behalf because I know from experience that all of the above editors tend to follow this list. But if you want specific editors to reply, you should probably invite them back to the discussion. --WFC-- 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears that this article should be at Henry Patta as that is the most commonly used name in reliable sources. He has played in Ecuador's top flight league (likely a fully-pro league, although I'm not 100% certain) and has been covered in Ecuadorean media. I'll start expanding the article a bit as time allows. Jogurney (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some more research and his career to date has been less impressive than his brother. He's been a leading scorer in the second division, but hasn't been a fixture in the first division (although he's played two seasons and scored at least one goal during 2008 per RSSSF). I think the article probably will pass the GNG, but it might be closer than I initially thought. Jogurney (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played in notable top-level league in South America and appears to meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep looking at gnews and in the links above there has been demonstration of independent coverage, independent of whether he has played in a professional league or not. I'm unsure whether it is rutine or not, but some of the articles seem to go into greater depth (however i am not sure of the respectability of various south-american newspapers). I'm glad the arguments here appeal to outside coverage and not a generic list. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill T Miller[edit]

Bill T Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Entirely unverified BLP, consisting mainly of unverified namedropping and unencyclopedic claims to fame. Google Books offers up one or two hits--but those are not available full text and they seem to be no more than mentions. Since no sources are provided (except for the obligatory MySpace page) and I can't find any, delete. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of verifiable notability established through significant coverage through reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are several websites that mention the subject, but a review shows that none are independent of the subject and primarily include closely affiliated websites and social networking sites. Cindamuse (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "BTM is currently editing a DVD of the last five decades of his thrills and doing live webcasts on BTMTELEVISION.com from his Headroom Recording Studios in Allston/Boston." Please. Not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 21 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 and redirect to Successive approximation ADC. NW (Talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital conversion with SAR[edit]

Analog-to-digital conversion with SAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

If you look at the article history before I copyedited it, you can see that this article was created as an essay/school project. "Our interest focuses", "We will give", "We propose", etc. The text was copied wholesale from the french version, its unreferenced, and gives no assertion of nobility. This is not a real field, and shouldn't have its own article. Nolelover 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a very real field, but the place is already taken by Successive approximation ADC. Nothing to merge, no need for a redirect either (too long name for a search term). Successive approximation ADC itself is also in poor shape, but it's manageable and so is the definition of SAR ADC in Analog-to-digital_converter#ADC_structures (the latter contains a bunch of errors, generalizing certain design conventions to a level of absolute rule, like "Successive approximation works by constantly (sic) comparing the input (sic) voltage to the output of an internal (sic) DAC"). East of Borschov 07:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:There is already a merge proposal, for anyone wondering. Nolelover 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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 merge to Starscream (Transformers). Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starscream (other incarnations)[edit]

Starscream (other incarnations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:GNG. An unhealthy dose of original research as well. Lacking in credible sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is currently being improved and has pleanty of sources. Mathewignash (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are either trivial mentions, primary, or refer to the main character Starscream (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge it needs improvement if merged. It should be to Starscream (Transformers) but if this kept to it needs fancruft taken. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with relevant character lists per Schroeder's arguments. If certain character lists aren't available, then create them. Sarujo (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge and delete is not a valid AFD outcome. riffic (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Totally baffled by this strange page. It's not an article and it's not even an independent non-article. Apparently it's a subpage of ... of ... a disambiguation page??? Hans Adler 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Starscream (Transformers), having this as a separate page is frankly ludicrous. They're the same character. It could actually be speedied under A10. Black Kite (t) (c), 00:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Starscream (Transformers) and excise uncitable content in the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Book sources and fansites are of poor quality.[3]. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to original Starscream page. Although, Beast Wars II Starscream shouldn't be here, so that section can be removed entirely. TransTech and Shattered Glass Starscream don't deserve their own sections, being fan club and convention stuff. At most, each of those two should get one sentence. NotARealWord (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge would be good addition to Starscream page. 71.255.55.63 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article was nominated by a blocked sockpuppet user. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article was nominated for rescue. Hans Adler 22:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and don't redirect to Starscream (Transformers). Excessively crufty. SnottyWong ^talk 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Um, isn't that WP:MAD? NotARealWord (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable character with so much information that it was a valid content split from the main article. Too long to merge. If the notability of the main article is proven, then the side article to hold the spell off is fine. Many appearances in toylines, comics, cartoons, etc. over the years, in many notable series. Dream Focus 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just because there's a lot of information, doesn't mean that all of it belongs here. This page has examples of what kind of info doesn't belong. NotARealWord (talk) 06:48, 24 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. No one has provided legitimate and independent coverage. To put it very simply, no notability, no article. Courcelles 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorclaw[edit]

Razorclaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested Gobots prod. I'm taking this one all the way. Delete. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based reason to suggest deletion of this article?  Frank  |  talk  21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contested PROD, sir. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying "dermatitis is a rash". It doesn't explain why you think the article doesn't belong.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding the nominators baffling refusal to give the reason for their nomination, the original PROD rationale was "No notability asserted, appears to be a few toys only". Hope that helps. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really helpful; the PROD was declined, so its original reasoning has already been rejected. That's why a deletion discussion is started. However, there still needs to be a policy-based reason to delete the article.  Frank  |  talk  22:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's fairly usual when bringing a declined prod to afd to provide the reasoning. The nominator didn't, so I did. Helpfully, one might say. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This has sources from magazines, and it's not even about a gobot. The nominator needs to relax, breath, and get a life outside random deletion nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A couple of mentions of a toy in obscure magazines does not make this subject notable. If the article was in an even remotely decent shape, I may be more prone to support retention, but it simply isn't. It's lists of trivia, masses of plot details and swathes of non-free images. Whether it's about a Gobot or not isn't really that important. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If fails WP:NOTABILITY AND WP:RS Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when people write books about characters it`s notable [4] mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Licensed by: Hasbro"—not an independent source. Deor (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Could you tell me which of the four books and magazines used as sources in this article are licensed by Hasbro? Because none of them are! The article about the Beast Wars Sourcebook is citing the critic web site which talks about the book, not the book itself. Mathewignash (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A Razorclaw toy even got on a "Dirty Dozen" list by some parent group as being inappropriate for small children because it was too violent. Must keep the page if only to spite them! Mathewignash (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- No reliable independent sources. Reyk _YO! 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources include [5], [6], [7]. Thinking something is stupid is not a reason for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Bemused Keep?. This robot has "projectile-launching attack wings, firing battle quills" and "launching cannons." Since this is a toy for pre-schoolers, it has "missiles [that] fit in hands for hand-to-hand battle!" To introduce even younger children to this brand, Hasbro markets a Playskool version called Transformer Go-Bots targeting three-year-olds and their parents. (from the Dirty Dozen citation). Nobody's using this article to market the toy. A lot of effort seems to have been expended. I'd let this live for another day for now and get the problematic issues worked on. I'd like to see the folks involved with Wikiproject Transformers weigh in on this. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete. Hans Adler's arguments below have convinced me this is not notable and deserving of deletion. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Transformers wikiproject is dead or almost dead. I'd hardly expect any improvements from them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's funny since we recently had lively debate the last few weeks on improving the sources and formatting of the articles under the project, and even started work on his one, by removing the excess pictures, adding several notable references, and removing the "toys lists". Dead? No. Perhaps we are "undead"? Mathewignash (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article page has an amazing size and looks superficially like a Wikipedia article. But it isn't. I am not sure what it is – fan fiction? pure marketing? Example: "The stage was now set for the Predacons' appearance in the U.S. title, and appear they did, shortly after Optimus Prime perished in a virtual duel with Megatron. Megatron himself had begun to descend into paranoid insanity, and Shockwave summoned the Predacons back to Earth and had them pose as Autobots, planning to have them hunt Megatron as part of a scheme to once again seize command of the Decepticons from Megatron (the UK comic rewrote some of the dialogue in its reprint of this issue to make it appear to be the Predacons' second trip to Earth). The plan did not go smoothly, however, as Megatron defeated them all, even in their combined form of Predaking. [...]" Whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. My search for actual references that could establish notability hasn't turned up anything useful other than wikis (yes, more than one!) dedicated to this "Transformers" stuff which I have no doubt will be happy to accept this page if it isn't already present there.

In spite of its humungous size and the heaps of work that must have gone into the page, it doesn't even make an effort to prove notability. The sources mentioned on the page are as useless as what my independent search turned up. Why didn't anyone stop these kids earlier? Hans Adler 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: Maybe some of this stuff can be described in a list of all of these, um, whatever they are. That's how we deal with Lego sets, for example. With some luck you can find sufficient reliable sources to justify a short paragraph and a photo for a few representative ones of these things. (Probably not more due to fair use restrictions, but I am not an expert.) Hans Adler 23:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Hans Adler. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - More fanboy-cruft to sift though. Game guides, toy guides, fan forums and the like are not reliable sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. The shows themselves are the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't do biographies on fictional subjects, as this wouldn't present them from a real-world perspective. That several parts of the site still don't follow the Pokemon consensus (including such bastions of fancruft as our coverage of CSI, Lost and The Sporanos) is not an argument to exacerbate that problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, and we only have articles on fictional subjects when there's something other than a fictional biography/in-universe trivia to present. J Milburn (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another unreferenced advertizing for another Chinese plastic toy. If an unsigned rant from an advocacy site [8] is the most "reliable source" of the bunch, it is unsourced. And it's still a cheapo plastic toy, probably with hazardous dies and fumes in it. East of Borschov 02:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination rationale is sound. Stop trying to disrupt running AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Prod being removed is a reason to move to AfD, but it is not a rationale for why the article should be deleted. Obviously, the nominator hadn't even read the article, which makes it clear the sunject is not a Gobot. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's disingenuous - a prod notice being removed means that one editor disagrees with deletion - therefore its prudent for the original prodder to bring it to AfD, with the same rationale, to get community consensus. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The orignal PRODer did not nominate this article for deletion. Black Kite PRODed it, and then I added some references and removed the PROD, then some unrelated SOCKPUPPET nominated it for deletion along with about a dozen other pages, all of which he incorrectly identified as Gobots, before being discovered and blocked (for having a half dozen puppets!) Mathewignash (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I think it's time for you to start accepting that it simply makes no difference for this AfD whether this page is related to Quashluxers, Transformers, Quaintblubbers, Targomulzers, Gobots, shoes, human input devices, newspapers, palm trees, insects, or whatever else. The question is not whether this topic belongs to one television series or toy range that is unknown to virtually every adult who is not raising a child in the US, or the other.The question is whether the topic is notable, and we have criteria for verifying notability. Do you have an idea how many individual toy soldiers Elastolin produced in Germany c. 1920-1945? They were immensely popular, and of course there was advertising for them and they appear in collector's catalogues. There are several online communities for them even now that most children who originally played with them are pensioners. Do you think it would be reasonable to have a separate article for every one of them? I don't. And since notability is not temporary precisely the same rules apply to your favourite toys. (To clarify: I have nothing to do with Elastolin toys and only know about the topic through my research for Pigeon photographer, an article that depicts one of these toys.) Hans Adler 08:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You should read before you post. The statement was made above about the original proder making it a nomination. So I responded that the nomination was not made by the original proder. It was made by a sock puppet who was making seemingly random nominations based on a movie quote he linked to me, a rant about "gobots" in a movie he liked. If you let this stand you might as well allow a random number generator or monkeys to make deletion nominations on Wikipedia then argue "well, a monkey nominated it, but other editors voted on it, so it has to stand." Mathewignash (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't interrupt an AfD on an article that obviously needs to be deleted just because there was something wrong with the nominator, or the prodder, or whatever. If some borderline lunatic admin tried that stunt, they would certainly get into trouble, and I guess I wouldn't be the only one trying to be the first to re-nominate the article. You have nothing to win with this line of argument, except perhaps a few more days for this page and an even greater incentive for a lot of editors to clean up the entire mess. How many more "Transformers" are there? Hundreds? Thousands? It's mind-boggling. Three to ten sounds like a reasonable range, but of course we will have to discuss each page's notability or lack thereof separately. Hans Adler 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A removed prod in itself is of course no valid deletion rationale, but complete and utter irrelevance of a topic is, and if it is as obvious as in this case a detailed rationale is not necessary per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. If articles are immune to being proposed for deletion just because the nominator doesn't understand them, then I have a few pet topics to write about. I have no idea what "transformers" or "gobots" are, and I don't have to, to see that the article is written in in-universe style, doesn't offer a single encyclopedic fact that would be discernible from the article without extreme pain, and doesn't cite a single reliable source of the type that would contribute to notability. I can also search for "razorclaw" and "transformers" and verify that nothing remotely useful to establish notability comes up without having an idea what this is about. That's how Wikipedia works. If it was different, there would be no way of getting rid of separate articles about the various types of screws (separate articles for different lengths and diameters, of course) used in the fabrication of late-20th century Vietnamese hand looms. Or indeed of articles on "razorclaws". Hans Adler 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Predacons True, it is not notable. This does not mean we should DELETE THE HELL OUT OF IT instead of REDIRECTING TO THE EXISTING ARTICLES THAT MORE OR LESS COVER THE SUBJECT. --Divebomb (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason for choosing that article? There is predacons, predacon (Transformers) (to which predacon is a redirect), and also List of Predacons. None of them has any information suggesting that this, um, topic, is even notable. Hans Adler 20:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that page covers the Generation One subgroup known as the Predacons, which this character is a part of. (BTW, we need to merge some of those pages.) --Divebomb (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would rather think we need to redirect them all to Transformers, as there is no evidence of notability of the topic. Hans Adler 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noooooo. If anything, Predacons should be redirected to List of Decepticons, and Predacon (Transformers) to List of Predacons. --Divebomb (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Decepticons"? It's getting more and more absurd. Neither Decepticon nor List of Decepticons makes any claim of notability, either. Hans Adler 12:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually the Transformer named Predacon is NOT a Predacon. It's just his name. He's a Decepticon. Mathewignash (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then the article needs to be rewritten. Because I fail to see how the primary antagonists of a 26-year-long franchise aren't notable. Unless, of course, Wikipedia has majorly cranked up the notability requirements while I wasn't looking. --Divebomb (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Certain editors have done EXACTLY that and have been deleting articles based on "lack of notability". We lost The Ark, The Nemesis, Energon, Beachcomber and couple dozen other articles already, and more are nominated for deletion like this one. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I removed the excessive images and the toy lists today. Should improve the article. Mathewignash (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having read both the discussion so far and the article itself, I find myself no wiser. Why is being a 'Gobot' so damning? Does one need a degree (well, they give degrees in everything now...) to understand Transformers? "Actually the Transformer named Predacon is NOT a Predacon. It's just his name." That sank me. (Presumably he's not a Gobot.) Personally, I've never seen the point or attraction of Transformers, and nor has any kid associated with me so far. (Warhammer and HeroQuest are quite another matter...) However, they do seem to have an appeal, or the manufacturers wouldn't keep making the damn things. Why is there thought to be a need for a separate article on this lot, and why is it thought to be non-notable? (Two questions for the price of one - pick the one you prefer.) Please don't leave me so confused. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - As to the Predacon is not a Predacon thing, Hasbro owns the trademarks to certain words, and uses them periodically for different things to prove they are still being used, to protect them legally. They have used the word "Predacon" several times in the past. Back in 1986 it was "The Predacons" was the name of 5 "evil robots" who turned into animals, this page is about the leader of those five robots. They have have also used the word "Predacons" years later to describe a different group of "evil robots" in another TV series called "Beast Wars".... then years after that, probably to keep the name active on their trademark list, they made a character for the Transformers: Armada series whose name was "Predacon", but he wasn't a member of any Predacon "group", he was a Decepticon! This article is primarely about the first one, the notable one, the lead bad guy from a TV series, named Razorclaw, who was leader of the "Predacons". I know it sounds like a Monty Python sketch - do you mind if we call you Bruce? Anyways this isn't the only example... There is a group of characters is called "The Insections" in one series, but in another series there is an individual whose name is "Insecticon".... in one series there is a group of characters called "The Dinobots" and in another series there is a character is named "Dinobot". Hasbro's legal department keeping the names in use is at fault. Mathewignash (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think... So, this 'character' is a (?)faction leader? Must look into these things. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, leader of the original Predacons from 1986. If he was to be deleted I'd recomend a direct to Predacons, since that page mentions him by name as the leader and gives a short couple sentences about him. Mathewignash (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources seem available, in article or online, that would confer independent notability, thus it fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment- Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [9] are unreliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It's a good thing that the magazines and books cited by this article are reliable sources then. Mathewignash (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Character has had multiple incarnations across several series. The character has also been the focus of several stories itself. --Polaron | Talk 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but HOW does that contention address notability? Notability has to be established. The contention that there is complexity in the infoverse is interesting, but is it compelling? Is it encyclopedic? I'm convinced the fanboys may obfuscate enough to keep this around (kind of like every single Lego kit deserves an article), but I've been convinced by the arguments that this is something that deserves to be deleted and placed on the appropriate fan site. My opinion (which originally was Bemused Keep but is now this is not notable for an encyclopedia entry) now informs me that this is fanboyadulationcruftcruft. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be from the sources cited on the page - GameAxis Unwired - July 2007 - Page 99, Alvarez, J.E. (2001). The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.. p. 48. ISBN 0764313649. Figure King magazine issue 150 page 24, Toyfare Magazine April 1998 AND http://www.lionlamb.org/dirtydozen2004.htm | The Dirty Dozen - Violent Toys, Video Games and DVDs to Avoid in 2003-2004 Mathewignash (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On the merits, Delete; there isn't enough here to show that this particular character is notable enough. A redirect or merge might be worthwhile, if a good target is found. On a procedural note, though, I have to say that this appears to be one of the laziest nominations I've seen; if you're going to delete an article, at least take the 2 minutes necessary to figure out whether it's a Go-Bot or a Transformer. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Agudelo[edit]

Richard Agudelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Notability not established by reliable sources, with article lately being used for promotion, evidently by its subject. JNW (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a completely honest and open representation of Richard Agudelo and there is not one mistake in it. I would appreciate a proper unbiased review of the facts stated here. Many Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricagu (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Does not appear to be a notable artist, and article reads like a vanity piece. Not quite eligible for ((speedy)) deletion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is blatant ad copy, with its subject edit warring and refusing to discuss why several reams of advertising aren't appropriate. The first comment here, added by the article's author/subject, does not address the issues raised. Şłџğģő 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ricagu has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Şłџğģő 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ricagu has had his 48-hour block restarted for sockpuppeting. Şłџğģő 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability seems peripheral. Sure, his photos have been used in some notable places, but it's incidental, as there is no evidence that the photos themselves were noteworthy. -- Atama頭 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Atama. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention[edit]

Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

An IP user flagged up this article as possibly being promotional on my talk page.[10] Looking into it, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (others might do better, I only found event listings), so I think that the suspicion of the IP was correct - this is promotional copy for a non-notable event. Fences&Windows 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The various mentions of this event in other articles may also be promotional. Fences&Windows 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows up by searching without a hyphen, yielding 41 results of what looks like the same promotional editing.75.4.193.237 (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, gets mentioned in passing, but I see no significant coverage. I'll miss it when it's gone. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie Hair and Beauty Academy[edit]

Jolie Hair and Beauty Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Searched for RS, couldn't find any; not subject to A7 speedy because A7 not applicable to schools, including trade schools TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged it for speedy as there is no indication of notability, and it's been tagged for lack of references for nearly two years. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just when you thought you couldn't find an article about an institution less likely to meet WP:ORG or WP:V ... there it was.  Ravenswing  03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyride (Transformers)[edit]

Joyride (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Another obscure, non-notable Gobots character. Is wikipedia run for the benefit of fifth graders? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - This page has no Gobots on it. The nominator is ignorant and should read the articles before posting nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a dead YouTube video and a dodgy websites are poor sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Joyride worked with a task force under Nightbeat and Getaway during the Age of Internment, in hopes of capturing and studying one of Megatron's cloned warriors, the Aerospace Extermination Squadron. I can't think of a better rationale other than, perhaps, that it is simply not notable. Hans Adler 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. The shows themselves are the source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lost and CSI both have extensive coverage in reliable sources, this doesn't. Also, A big cookie to Hans Adler for literally making me laugh out loud. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hans Adler presented a gem of a rationale. Lots of "age of internment" noise, no demostration of notability. Rubber ducks are cool, these things aren't. East of Borschov 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Autobots. --Divebomb (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that page should exist, either. No reliable sources other than two patents for toy cars. A patent does not establish notability. Autobot is no more help, the only source possibly independent of the manufacturer being a strange website. Hans Adler 20:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the group article Powermasters. Without an appearance in any TV series, this character is not particularly notable. Another option would be to merge this with Ranger (Transformers). --Polaron | Talk 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Either would be reasonable, but keeping this is a non-starter. Two sources, both unreliable, and I can't find any other useful coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groundshaker (Transformers)[edit]

Groundshaker (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable Gobots article. Fails GNG and all wikipedian standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedurial Keep - This page isn't about a gobot, and the nominator seems to be oblivious.Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's called a joke, humans have been known to do them from time to time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Does it really matter whether it's a Gobot? J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Poor notability and sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- no real notability asserted or demonstrated, sourcing is very poor. The creator and defender of this article really needs to learn the importance of proper sourcing. Reyk _YO! 22:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found a source [11]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently a comics-only character, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The same holds as for this Razorclaws(?) thing, except in this case not even the fans seem to consider it that notable. Or is it just more recent? Anyway, we don't need an article on red 2x4 Lego bricks, or on individual Lego sets, and we don't have such articles. It's a pity, actually, because I would like to read them all. But then it isn't, because they are simply not notable and we must draw the line somewhere. There are special wikis for this kind of thing. Either take it there, or at least cover many of these things together in a list, giving each a paragraph or so. That way it should be much easier to find a source or two that establishes notability. Hans Adler 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome to pretend I nominated it if it makes you feel better. Unless there's a big change, it'll end up deleted, there's not really any reason to drag it out. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The one source find above appears to demonstrate existance, not notability. Mathewignash - attempting to end the deletion process for two different procedural reasons is unlikely to be as effective as bringing forward good reasons why the article should be kept. --Korruski (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or Redirect to Micromasters - Not really notable, but should be redirected to that page. --Divebomb (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that page should exist, either. It has only one reference, and without seeing that it's hard to form an opinion. According to Amazon it's directed to children of age 9–12, and the reviews are not promising. Hans Adler 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the group article Micromasters. The character is not independently notable in any Transformers series that it appeared in. --Polaron | Talk 17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was the #2 protaganist in the Dreamwave Micromasters comic book series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 21 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. Even though this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warpath (Transformers)[edit]

Warpath (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This page isn't about a Gobot, and the nominator seems to be going around nominating articles based on some Gobot-hate spree. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - So anyone has the temerity to nominate an article to delete is must because of pure hatred of fiction. Nothing to with the fact the article, has a severe lack of reliable third person sources. The only source is WP:FANSITE, and questionable notability. Notability isn't inherent. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in this ONE particular case, he is going on some gobot hate spree. He's nominating a bunch of articles and calling them "gobots". Mathewignash (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep another primary character from the first 2-3 seasons of the TV show. Sources [12], [13]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only 'reliable source' that I have found is a book consisting entirely of Wikipedia articles. [14] This is not quite what usually goes by that term. Hans Adler 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Who nominated this page is totally irrelevant for the question whether this stuff belongs into an encyclopedia or not. Hans Adler 09:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Standard fictional biography, just like any character from Lost or CSI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- the nominator is a sockpuppet of Torkmann, but this should not detract from the fact that the nomination is accurate. As Hans points out, the sourcing is hopelessly inadequate. Reyk _YO! 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment BANNAD SOCK PUPPET NOMINATION - This whole deletion nomination was created by a banned sock puppet, and should be ended based on that, a REAL nomination could then be made if someone legitmate wants to make one. Mathewignash (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Nobody knew Donald was a sockpuppet when this AFD was started, and several people have made good-faith comments based on the merits of the article so a procedural close is now out of the question. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources improved - I just spent a couple minutes looking online for some sources for Warpath as a notable character and added them. Mathewignash (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs and marketing websites do not establish notability. It's hard to tell what kind of website IGN is, but it doesn't look like the kind that would prove notability. As there is still no evidence of notability, I see no reason to change my !vote. Hans Adler 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC) PS: I just saw that the IGN thing is a press release. They don't count anyway. A lot of publications publish almost every press release you send them. Hans Adler 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important secondary character who has had a couple of stories focused on itself. --Polaron | Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean we are supposed to keep the article because it's about a fictional character that appeared in several primary sources? I don't think that's a valid argument. Hans Adler 20:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What do you expect from inclusionist fanboys the argument is always it it exists so therefore it's inherently notable. Wikipedia's policy on verfication clearly states

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:44, 22 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 Quarl ^(talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Worst Summer Ever[edit]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Worst Summer Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Book will be released next year; too far in the future, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Derild4921☼ 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Da'Fuck? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. There may not even be a 6th book in the series and even if there is there is no reason to assume that it will have this title or follow this plot. As soon as a new Wimpy Kid book comes out we get a slew of idiotic articles created with speculative titles and content concerning the next book. It always turns out to be pure bullshit. The real plots are never revealed in advance but people just make the stuff up. We must have deleted at least half a dozen pointless hoax articles about alleged titles and plots for the fifth book before the real title was revealed. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% a hoax. The 6th book is "A New Life". It comes out next year. Silverseren^C 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for that? I suspect that you will find that "A New Life" is actually a just variant of "My New Life", which was one of the most persistent hoax titles suggested for book 5, and hence either yet another hoax or maybe a misunderstanding born of the confusion created by previous hoaxes. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, it's just what I heard. But I am fairly certain that this article will not be the title. And, even if it is, there are no reliable sources available to prove it (or even unreliable ones), so we should delete regardless. Silverseren^C 04:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G3. Pure nonsense. -68.219.240.190 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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 speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of floods in Bangladesh[edit]

List of floods in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I was hesitant to nominate this page for deletion as I'm sure a good list of floods in Bangladesh could be created. However, I think that the current article has no useable content and there does not seem to be anyone currently interested in creating such a list. The article was previously proposed for deletion about a year ago. At the time, I saw that the article had no actual content, but instead just consisted of links to non-existent sections within the article. The article creator hadn't edited it in over a year and there were no other substantive edits. I nominated the article for speedy deletion as having no content, but User:DGG declined the speedy nomination and the prod. However, he had mistakenly thought the links in the article went to actual content, rather than being to non-existent sections of the article (see here). When I pointed out that it actually had no real content, DGG changed one of the links to go to an article on flooding in Bangladesh in 1999. However, I think that just made the article more confusing, as there is now one good link mixed in with over 100 links that look blue but go nowhere. I informed Wikiproject Bangladesh of this list here about a year ago, but my post got no replies and no one has edited the article since. As there are only two floods in Category:Floods in Bangladesh and not enough content at Floods in Bangladesh to split out into a separate list, I don't think this article could be made into anything useable until someone knowledgeable on the subject decides to do work on it. Since I don't think the content in the current version will be useful once someone does get around to creating such a list, and as keeping the article around would wrongly suggest we have a list of floods in Bangladesh when we really don't yet, I think the current article should just be deleted. Calathan (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per criteria A3, as the article has no content besides links to non-existant sections. Yoenit (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Meets speedy criteria, nothing but links elsewhere. Two years was ample time to make it into something useful. GregorB (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Yoenit is right - this meets A3 and has had long enough. Nolelover 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a useless and incomplete list, with no real content. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, per A3. The topic is important, and some day someone will take some time to write it. Right now, it's a blank page, and there is no point in keeping it. --Ragib (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A3 per above—Chris!_c/t 03:02, 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 redirect to Lindsay Lohan discography. Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lindsay Lohan songs[edit]

List of Lindsay Lohan songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Already covered by Lindsay Lohan discography. Contains rumor and un-officially released songs as well. Issues with reliable sources. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom note: Discovered during NPP, Proded (and contested). Bringing to AfD as next step Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's useful, educational, entertaining, and well sourced. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take a look at the Sources. I believe that Livejournal is not a reliable source. Most of the content is already present at the above referenced main source. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous keep was from a, now indeffed, sock puppet. Closing admin take into consideration. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete, nothing but an unsourced and silly list of songs which may or may not be related to Lindsay Lohan. Lists of this nature consistute WP:INDISCRIMINATE and anything not already covered in the Lindsay Lohan discography is not worth coverage and most certainly NOT worth an independent article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. No definition of what is meant by a "LL song". A performance, and song writing, an official release.... MrMarmite (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lindsay Lohan discography the list is not needed but looks like a plausible search term—Chris!_c/t 03:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Chrishomingtang. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Chris. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 22 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 Fra_Diavolo_(1933_film)#Earsy-kneesy-nosey. Content already merged Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earsy-kneesy-nosey[edit]

Earsy-kneesy-nosey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article is about a game/joke in a Laurel and Hardy film. I'm a big fan of the duo with hundreds of edits in their articles but I can't see how this game is notable so I have sent it to afd. The joke was a one off and not used in any other films. It just isn't important in the L&H world. The article was created by an established editor who declined a prod a couple of years ago. I have looked for cites but there are just a few trivial mentions, this can't change. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If no references could be found, the article does not meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As creator. Hektor (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I note you have added two references to the article, that the joke was made on film isn't disputed, the notability of the subject is, the references don't add anything because they're trivial. The joke isn't actually notable enough to be mentioned in the L&H mainspace so it doesn't need its own article. Szzuk (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Merge and Redirect Per precedent for other such, as a now sourced plot device noted for its use by Stan Laurel in Fra Diavolo (1933 film), let's merge this to that film and set a redirect. As the article's author has shown, this comic device used by Stan Laurel is now part of the enduring albeit minor record of early film and comedy history. Is it earth-shattering in importance? No. But the comic device did not die in 1933 and still is of interest even after 75+ years.[15] The project is best served by placing the information where it has its historical context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. I have merged. Szzuk (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I just gave the merged section some tweaks for tense and context.[16]. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and it reads better after your tweaks. Szzuk (talk) 22:30, 19 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Nettles[edit]

Bonnie Nettles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:Notability. According to the article she seems to have been the tragic love interest of the notorious Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult. However there does not seem to be much known about her besides that. The information in the article could be included in his article, or in the article on the group. Wolfview (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article's subject satisfies WP:NOTE, as it has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". This includes: Discussion in over 200 results, in search of books, over 60 results, in news archives search, over 40 results, in search of scholarly academic articles, 29 results, in search of LexisNexis, 105 results, in search of NewsBank, and 37 results, in search of Westlaw. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked out some of those and they seem to be saying what's in the article already, which is her importance to Applewhite. I don't see anything about her being notable on her own. Wolfview (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Significant discussion is given in multiple of the WP:RS secondary sources listed above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added two references, though I have to go to class right now. I'll get back to working on it later, but it seems quite clear to me that the subject is notable, as being the reason for the creation of the cult in the first place. Silverseren^C 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being "important" and being "notable" (In WPspeak). President Obama's liver is extremely important, but WP is probably not going to have an article on it. Also what information is going to be in this article that will not also be in Applewhite's?Wolfview (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't compare a person to someone's liver, even if that liver belongs to the President. If you look at Applewhite's article, you'd see that there really isn't all that much about Nettles in it...at all. There's really only a few sentences and then the article continues to discuss things that Applewhite did, as that article is about him. The extended information about Nettles in this article (and the other information that can be added to it) would not fit being merged into the article about Applewhite, as it would give undue weight to information not about the subject. The notability of Nettles is established from a myriad of sources, you can't deny that. Silverseren^C 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've rewritten the entire article and formatted it. Silverseren^C 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is much better. I still favor delete because she is only notable in relation to Applewhite and the group. The information in this article would have to be repeated in both of the other articles. Why make readers read the same information multiple times? Also if the others had not commited mass suicide 12 years later no one would be talking about Nettles. She wasn't notable during her life. Wolfview (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the recent rewrite. The article as it stands now appears to show the requisite amount of coverage to meet WP:BIO. If consensus is against keeping this, at the very least it should be merged into the group's article. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While her early death means that she was not directly involved in the events that made the cult of which she was a co-founder notorious, she was nonetheless instrumental in its creation. It's a frivolous comparison, but I think of the Marx Brothers; Gummo left show business before the brothers became movie stars, but he's still notable... Robertissimo (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey_Meziane[edit]

Tracey_Meziane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No indication of notability. Could find nothing in Gnews or database search on the subject. Appears, based on simple google search, to be at least partially autobiographical.

• Delete I couldn't find anything to indicate notability VASterling (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I just realized I forgot to sign this when I created it. To keep things on the up-and-up, I'm the nominator. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na. Someshwar[edit]

Na. Someshwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Television personality who fails WP:N. Unsourced, advertising. Article is partially copied from this [17] article. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP who fails WP:GNG. The only "sourced" material is a copyvio of the aforementioned website. Maybe merge some content into DD Chandana or Thatt antha HeLi? Nolelover 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nolelover. It's possible that some mention might be appropriate in the article on the show, but this isn't enough sourcing or notability for a BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:04, 22 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 discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD G3.[18] (non-admin closure)—Chris!_c/t 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mung & Truffles[edit]

Mung & Truffles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find any results on Google, no references or citations. I assume that this article is a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That would be a highly elaborate hoax. There are some YouTube clips that look like the real deal to me. GregorB (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhh, those are still pictures from Chowder. Don't be gullible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete hoax, a kids' show set to premiere this fall would have some reliable sources by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, 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. I'm sympathetic to the view that discussions concerning redirecting/merging should generally stay on talk pages but in addition to the nomination, we have two delete !voters with WP:NOTDIC concerns. However, the nominator has pointed out that the material may be "encyclopedic" (I hate that word) by recommending targets that it can be merged to. Therefore, this page will likely exist as either an article or a redirect and there's no consensus for the delete button to be hit at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muad'Dib[edit]

Muad'Dib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Redirect to List of Dune terminology#M, which adequately defines the term and its uses in the series. This "article" merely overblows the concept and this "topic" on its own does not and never will satisfy WP:Notability. Most of this information is also covered in some way as part of other articles anyway. — TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote the List of Dune terminology entry:

Muad'Dib – "The adapted kangaroo mouse of Arrakis, a creature associated in the Fremen earth-spirit mythology with a design visible on the planet's second moon. This creature is admired by Fremen for its ability to survive in the open desert." In Dune, Paul Atreides takes "Muad'Dib" as his Fremen name, which takes on greater significance when he is perceived as a messiah.

I feel like that says it all. Do we really need a whole article about that? Seriously? — TAnthony^Talk 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear, Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character, so the analysis of the messianic nature of Muad'Dib is analysis about Paul. Why two articles? The alternative uses of Muad'Dib are ancillary and do not merit their own article, rather they can be (and for the most part already are) incorptated into Paul Atreides.— TAnthony^Talk 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Muad'Dib is a term with multiple applications within Frank Herbert's Dune universe. Dune is not only about ecology, but also about power of religion. Some say that the ambiguous vocabulary was intended to generate discussion; it is completely up to each individual reader to interpret.
  1. . The stub is supported by references. Not bad for a stub.
  2. . Similar Dune term Kwisatz Haderach, is not considered for deletion. Many other items in list of terminology have main articles (a, b00, b01, b10, ... list goes on). I would agree though that some terms have much deeper meaning and notability than others.
  3. . The stub has following foreign language siblings: Español Français Norsk (bokmål) Polski Português Русский Maybe English Wikipedia also could use one. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying the article is unsourced, it could have 50 citations but the actual material doesn't meet the requirements for an article to exist. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists regarding your Kwisatz Haderach point, that's not really a strong argument. That topic is actually somewhat flimsy and should probably be merged into Bene Gesserit. And the sister articles are no doubt just copies of this one, doesn't mean a thing.— TAnthony^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have also still not explained here or on the article talk page how you think this stub could/should be expanded into an actual article. What would the additional content be? Analysis of Herbert's themes about religion in the series should go into Dune (novel) or Dune (franchise), analysis of Paul as a messiah would be a great addition to the in-universe article Paul Atreides. "Muad'Dib" in an of itself is not a topic.— TAnthony^Talk 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anthony, thank you for pointing to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, agree also translations are not proper arguments for AfD discussions. We could argue about what "Muad'Dib" means as topic, it means many things, not always directly related to Paul. Objective test is coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So I guess citations used in Muad'Dib provide such litmus test indication. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a stub, it's redundant, and to the extent that it is not, it's closer to being a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, it doesn't belong. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and it's sure as heck not a Dune dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be a Dune encyclopaedia, though. Interestingly, there's no entry by this name in The Dune Encyclopedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks like a good beginning of an article, not like a dictionary definition to me. DVD 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination makes no argument for deletion. The article's sources demonstrate the notability of the topic and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am completely stumped how this can be viewed as an article worthy of existence. "Muad'Dib" is a fictional mouse and a character's name in a novel. This is indeed an overblown dictionary entry, and I'd love someone to explain here how they think this could really be expanded into an article.— TAnthony^Talk 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is already an article. We have no minimum size requirement but it seems quite feasible to expand it further and deletion would disrupt this, contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is how would it be expanded? What else is there to say? This "topic" is covered in its entirety elsewhere.— TAnthony^Talk 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it isn't. The entry in your List of Dune terminology is significantly smaller, not so well-sourced and lacks many significant details. The overall size of the list article is 34K which is getting too big and so should not be increased further. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What significant details? The list entry leads the reader to Paul Atreides, and the plot stuff is already, or can be, detailed there. The etymology is actually OR, because it represents editors making the connection between real-life Arabic words and Herbert's fiction, essentially drawing conclusions. And STILL no one has tried to explain why we need this article when we already have Paul Atreides. I believe that article explains that he took the name of a mouse which was also the name of a constellation. All fictional, by the way.— TAnthony^Talk 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no OR because others have previously recorded the connection between real-world Arabic and the language of the book. For example, one of the sources cited in the article states, "The nickname that Paul chooses in the story is Muad'dib, and is said to be the name of the desert mouse who comes at night in the moon light. Although the English pronounciation of this word calls for a long "i", there is an almost exact word in Arabic like it (Mu'adib), which means "private tutor" or "teacher". It used to be that the Caliphs, the rulers of the Muslim world, would hire a Mu'adib to teach their children. The practice seemed to be common for other strata of society as well.". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That source is some kind of term paper that doesn't meet the requirements for a source, but I've used it because it pretty much states the obvious. I've left the etymology because Herbert himself references "instructor-of-boys" and so the definition of "Mu'addib" is interesting and a likely source. But I've brought this discussion off topic ... why do we need this article again??— TAnthony^Talk 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand this nomination. In order to redirect as proposed by nominator, the page need not be deleted. As point 4 of WP:BEFORE notes: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". In any case, do not delete the page but either keep or redirect.  --Lambiam 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly redirected but was challenged by a single editor, and a call for discussion on the talk page attracted no other comments. As far as I know, a redirect is an acceptable result for an AfD.— TAnthony^Talk 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is a reason to speedily close the discussion — "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute that I am trying to subvert; I don't think this article needs to exist as its own topic, but obviously a redirect of some kind is necessary. All the sources in the world analyzing Herbert's religious themes do not change the fact that Paul Atreides and Muad'Dib are the same character. Notability for "Muad'Dib" is notability for Paul. I don't think this article should exist when the potentially lengthy analysis of the messianic plotline can be incorporated into Paul Atreides, it's more logical home. And whatever details about the mouse and the moon and the constellation that aren't there can be added.— TAnthony^Talk 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anthony, let's observe File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg. Your central points were explicitly refuted by multiple angles. Wikipedia is about collaboration, do you think it is possible to reach some kind of consensus? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no argument for deletion other than it being a stub or a dictionary entry. We have plenty of those here and the article in question itself does have secondary sources indicating some measure of notability. --Polaron | Talk 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourced, ties-in to real world language, multiple instances inside the Dune universe that need to be disambiguated (Paul, the mouse, the shadow on the moon, the constellation)Hasteur (talk) 16:33, 22 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 Discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD A7 non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley wolak[edit]

Bradley wolak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is an undisguised self-promoting puff piece. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ancient Greeks in Macedonia[edit]

List of ancient Greeks in Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is nothing but an exhaustive list of two hundred names (cities and individuals), with no references and sources, and it's rather confusing: does it include people of mainland (southern) Greece who lived in Macedonia, does it refer to Greeks including Macedonians as opposed to other Macedonians tribes who were of Illyrian or Thracian origin, does it imply that the Greeks were foreigners to Macedonia and the Macedonians were not Greeks? This list is unsourced, bares no importance and actually drives readers to ambiguous conclusions. Note that the article was created under a different title (List of other Greeks in ancient Macedonia), which was changed later and gave a whole new meaning in the article. It cannot be merged with the List of ancient Macedonians, since it doesn't list native Macedonians. It could be split in several articles like "List of ancient Atheneans in Macedonia" or "List of ancient Epirotans in Macedonia", but they seem redundant too. - Sthenel (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteSince the two countries were right next to each other a person from one being in the other is not remarkable. You might as well have a list of New Yorkers in New Jersey. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that we don't talk about the modern Republic of Macedonia, but Macedonia (ancient kingdom), part of the ancient Greek world. - Sthenel (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the ancient Greeks themselves didn't think Macedons were Greek... 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, see here. A Macedonian (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has Macedons claiming to be Greek, and Romans calling Macedons Greek, not Greek contemporaries of Philip or earlier calling Macedons Greek. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not good enough for you? Ok, see here then. And please let's stop this here, this is not a forum. A Macedonian (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sthenel. The title is misleading, see Steve Dufour's above comment for instance. Or at least rename it to the first title (List of other Greeks in ancient Macedonia). A Macedonian (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from its ambiguity, what is the point of this list? What possible encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Constantine ✍ 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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 Runes of Magic. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runes of Might[edit]

Runes of Might (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This was originally tagged with Speedy Deletion A7 as non-notable. However, I think there's enough doubt cast by the author's suggestions that it's a regional version of Runes of Magic that it shouldn't be speedied without discussion. I'm really not sure whether it should have its own article, whether some of its content should be merged with Runes of Magic, or whether it really should be deleted - so I've brought it over here for a Deletion Discussion and to seek knowledgeable input. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Runes of Magic The argument seems to be that because this is a variant it will eventually be clearly separated from the original version. However, that's putting the cart before the horse in terms of it needing an article, there is no guarantee that will be the case. According to the publisher: "We’re game publishers. We don’t develop our own games, instead we host games, localize them, remove socially unacceptable content like gambling and sex and make the games more region friendly." Not only is a separate article not needed right now, it seems likely that will always be the case. It can always be mentioned (but not given undue weight) within the Runes of Magic article. Someoneanother 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi there, First of all, i would like to thank you for your consideration and opening a discussion page on the article. I understand the given reasons for deletion and copy-right issues, I might be wrong with the way i created the page and i might need to rewrite the whole article with my own words, if the article is not deleted in the future. The reason why i think Runes of Might needs its own article is that even though Runes of Magic and Runes of Might are the same game, Runes of Might differs in some way. The game follows strict rules on language and graphics, because of the region its played in and the players it has. The company had to change couple of things within the game for example; anything with Christianity like crosses, quests including eating pork, drinking alcohol, or gambling are all either removed or changed. The game is played in Middle East where it has to meet the region's restrictions. Because the religious views come first and magic is haram, the name of the game is changed from Runes of Magic to Runes of Might. Even the story is changed from the creation of myth to ongoing fiction world. Anything (the quests plus the storyline) including or mentioning the name of God is removed to respect the expectations of the players in Middle East, especially The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, there are only six classes in Runes of Might and the last two are soon to be released. The name of the two classes, the priest and the mage, is changed due to the fact that they have conflicts with the religion. The game is also played in PVE (person versus environment) only, and the PVP version is expected to be released soon. The game can be played both in Arabic and English. It's Arabic supported and translated. All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the game itself is exactly like its original version however differs at the same time. I know it's situation is critical, and very hard to convince the admins/editors about the reasons behind. However, even though if it's found that a new article is not needed for the game, I understand and respect your business but expect a permission to edit Runes of Magic page to add a new paragraph on Runes of Might. There are two more versions of the game played under the name of Runes of Magic. Runes of Might is not the only one with a different server. Thanks in advance, Dilara. Violadelesseps (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A seperate article is justifiable if Might has received significant attention from secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect ... and mention in it in the other article if they're basically the same game with few or no differences. SharkD  Talk  04:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this is the version of the game that is played by the Arabic-speaking world, then that includes a lot of people, so I think it should at least have a section in the Runes of Magic article. But of course, it depends on what sources there are out there - English language ones would be ideal, but sources in Arabic are certainly acceptable - and I think it is the sources available that should decide whether to merge some content, or to keep a separate article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tole-rant[edit]

Tole-rant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This neologism appears to have been created by a single website. While the goal of the website may be noble, it is not clear that the site is yet notable. Even if the site becomes notable, this article is a coatrack, purportedly describing a new word while actually reporting about the new website. Claims that the term has gaines currency based on its entry in the Urban Dictionary are specious, as the definition given at UD matches the definition given at the website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, most sources are not RS and the only RS (Guardian) just mentions it in passing. Roscelese (talk) 21:56, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rain (London)[edit]

Hard Rain (London) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND, should have been speedily deleted but cult status claim defeated A7 nomination. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per my original speedy deletion nomination. All the references listed are user-created websites and thus unreliable. Also the Spanish version on Wikipedia is similarly poorly referenced. -- role^player 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find a good reliable source. 96.45.189.199 (talk) 18:53, 21 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. WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep, but there are indeed reliable sources to prove some of the material in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys[edit]

Danger Days: True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete - Little to nothing is known about the album. The band memebers have not been confirmed, and the situation involving the presumed drummer (who recently quit the band), is unclear. No drummer is listed in the article as of now. There is no artwork, track listing, and the November release date is subject to change. The title was announced just yesterday, and there is very little to warrant a new article this soon. And, I might add, the band themselves have not confirmed anything yet according to NME Magazine here. Friginator (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The title has now been confirmed on the band's YouTube page, but the article title is still slightly off. It should read Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys, but the two "the"s are missing as of right now. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – Delete – If the title was actually confirmed I would suggest just a simple redirect for the time being until notability is established. All of the sources[19][20] describe this title as rumored and/or unconfirmed, and Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation. Online retailers are horrible sources of information. There may be enough information to write a reasonably detailed recording history section on the upcoming album by My Chemical Romance, whatever the title ends up being, but unless someone takes the time to do so this article should not exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Revising statement: The band has now released an album teaser that confirms this title [21]. There is still not enough information for a full-fledged article yet, but it would be nice to keep the namespace for anyone searching for this album. So now I vote redirecting to My Chemical Romance. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect as article fails notability criteria for albums and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TenPoundHammer's Law can applied as well, because title tracklist and relaease date of the album was not confirmed by the band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 05:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The title has just been confirmed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lyA42Y6ug&feature=sub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayiirah (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The title is slightly different, making the article title incorrect. According to the YouTube comment (which is what we have to go by at this point), The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys is the name. Friginator (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The article does meet the notability guidelines. Reprise Records, the band's label, has confirmed the name to MTV (see here). – Zntrip 07:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than a confirmed title to meet the notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there is a very high probability that this album will be released in the near future. It's name has been confirmed by the band, the band confirmed the album is complete, a marketing campaign is in the works, and a November release date has been reported by multiple independent sources. Also the band itself meets the notability guidelines. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." By these standards the album is notable. The nominator's main reason for nomination was basically that there isn't enough information about the album. But it seems a bit ridiculous to me to delete an article that will grow to substantial size within a few weeks. We could delete it now and remake the article in a couple weeks, but what's the point? The evidence for imminent release of the album and of the notability of the article are both overwhelming. – Zntrip 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines you are quoting make it quite clear that this article should not exist yet. Specifically in the quote you provided it states that the album must have significant coverage through reliable sources, it must already have been released, and even then it says the album only may be notable. Two paragraphs down the guideline outlines how to handle future albums: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." "It's best not to create a page on the album until you've got something more to say. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere; it's not going to hurt you to wait". It should also be noted that the release date was provided by an online retailer. Just for kicks, Google "August 31" "Screaming Bloody Murder" "Sum 41". You will find a number of sources that claimed Sum 41's new album Screaming Bloody Murder will be released on August 31, a release date that was traced back to Amazon.com. However by this date the album was still in production, and has yet to see an official release date or confirmation from the label. It looks like most of the larger media outlets like Rolling Stone and Spin were wise and have since retracted the statements, but others from medium sized publications like Exclaim!, Chart and AltPress are still around, and I am not entirely sure what Tower Records is selling to people. Fezmar9 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring some of the basic facts that I had previously listed: 1) the artist has confirmed via their official Web site that the album is complete; 2) multiple sources have listed November 22 as the release date, such as the print edition of Rolling Stone; 3) a marketing campaign is already under way; and 4) the name of the album has been officially confirmed by the band and record label. This is sufficient evidence to conclude that a release is likely to be imminent. There is also enough to establish that the article is notable. What I quoted does not preclude the creation of an article until the album has been released. The article also satisfies the conditions you have listed. The last sentence you quoted does not apply at all since this article is not solely the product of idle speculation and does not have the title My Chemical Romance's next album. – Zntrip 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring some of your "basic facts" because there needs to be a lot more before this article needs to exist. I'm fully aware of everything you listed, it's just not enough. There either needs to be enough officially confirmed basic information for a start class article (at least a confirmed title, release date, track listing and cover) or enough information for a reasonably detailed article. For example, ten months before the official release of Radiohead's In Rainbows the article (here) contained a detailed multi-paragraph page with a lot of information. It had too much information to have on Radiohead's article, thus a separate article was warranted even before a title and release date were known. I fully acknowledge that this album, will meet the given guidelines at some point, but that point is not right now. If the information that's currently in this article were merged with My Chemical Romance, literally nothing would be lost. Also, as of yesterday (here) that last line directly applied to this article, as 90% of it consisted of unsourced song titles. And by removing this speculation there is even less to be said of this album. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though the Album has not been officially released of yet, the album still exists, and has for a long time. There have already been trailers of the album ([22]) which also appears on the official band homepage. On top of that, there are multiple confirmed tour dates, named "Danger Days, world contamination tour" ([23]) which directly relates to the name of the album "Danger Days, the true lives of the fabulous killjoys" thus verifying its validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.209.203 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The album is close enough to release that deleting and rewriting in a month would be a waste of time and resources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.28.53 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The album title and tracklisting has been released, as well as with a release date. Why waste time making it again? Jakisbak (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Everything has been confirmed by the band, but while we're not here predicting the future, it's actually not a requirement that the band themselves releases the information if it still comes from a credible source. Given that the band has subsequently done so, don't you now think it was in fact a credible source? --121.214.3.206 (talk) 22:37, 23 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. Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, What does facial hair have anything to do with a president? I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. The other ridiculous titles provided by the "delete" !voters are simply examples of WP:WAX and straw man argument; the difference between those and this article is that this article has significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure[edit]

List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The subject of the list combines two subjects which have only a trivial relation. The fact that some presidents had facial hair during their presidency has no influence on anything, and isn't discussed seriously in any source/ The only sources given are an unreliable website, and one "witty" book. If anyone would have studied whether presidents with facial hair would have been more likely to start a war, seduce an intern, or otherwise do anything relevant and notable, the subject might have been notable. As it stands, it is a trivial item collected by one author in a book. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a topic of some interest. I have heard it discussed a few times over the years. Wolfview (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT and WP:INTERESTING are not valid reasons. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - incredibly specific, unencyclopedic list. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if it were an important list, the same information can be got from the pictures at List of Presidents of the United States. Roscelese (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Falcon, above. It could easily be Googled should one desire to know the answer. Unencyclopedic. Saebvn (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia. Most of the presidents on the list lived when facial hair was common for men of middle age and up, so there's nothing controversial or even interesting to be learned from it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial and unencyclopedic—Chris!_c/t 03:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree entirely with Falcon that this is "incredibly specific", essentially looking at a group of 43 American men, picking out one characteristic that some of them had, and turning into a list. One could do the same with a list of brown-eyed U.S. Presidents or a list of Presidents who smoked tobacco. Even expanding it beyond U.S. Presidents to include world leaders who wore beards (Fidel Castro, King Hussein of Jordan, Otto von Bismarck, etc.) I don't see much point to it. Mandsford 13:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is covered in numerous sources including Media literacy: thinking critically about visual culture, Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Predicting Elections from Biographical Information About Candidates, The American Presidency, etc. The claims above that the matter is trivial, not encyclopaedic, notable and the like are therefore counterfactual. If we wish to generalise the article to cover other countries, then sources such as The sociology of philosophical knowledge will provide even more good material. Our editing policy mandates that we should build upon contributions in this way, rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't see how those references invalidate the above arguments. If having facial hair was relevant to an individual president, then it should be added to that president's article. I'd consider changing my vote if sources could be found that indicated for every listed President the historical relevance it had. Otherwise, I still think this is unencyclopedic. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your personal opinion of the topic is irrelevant per WP:UNENCYC. The references supplied demonstrate that independent, professional authors consider the matter worthy of note and that they have found publishers for this material. Per WP:N, this demonstrates the notability of the topic and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the references indicate that a good article could be written about the impact of Abraham Lincoln upon 19th century grooming, or even about the so-called Golden Age of Facial Hair, none of them support having a stand-alone list of which presidents wore a beard, mustache, "friendly mutton chops", sideburns, etc. A quick google search shows that there have been many published, reliable and verifiable sources about presidential trivia, some of which no doubt include a list like this, but one of the primary guidelines for writing is in WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." Whether something is or isn't encyclopedic is, of course, a matter of opinion. Whether something is "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" that is free and that anyone can edit is a relevant question under WP:IINFO. Mandsford 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You misunderstand the point of WP:TRIVIA, which is that we should not have sections in articles which contain miscellania - unrelated factoids which did not fit into other sections. The point you confuse this with is that made by WP:IDL, which is an argument to avoid. This information about Presidents is not trivial in any sense because the information is tightly focussed and the details are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I second that. Less alphabet-soup would help - it would be better to discuss this article on its merits, while applying close readings of policies and guidelines if needed, than to quote abbreviations without making it clear how this article is an instance of them. TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. As a general rule I don't think that pointing out policy gets us anywhere. Zell Faze (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Warden's definition of "trivial" is clearly different than most editor's. This article is equally trivial as List of US presidents who wore boxer briefs during their tenure. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem here is that people are defining it as "trivial" based on "I find it banal and uninteresting" coupled with "I do not think this is important, in the grand scheme of things". But many things are subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important - but not necessarily unencyclopedic. Source-work is the issue, not subjective opinion. Your contention about boxer briefs is absurd - other writers haven't written about the boxer briefs, so we have nothing to summarize or cite. The reason we don't have an article on List of US presidents who wore boxer briefs during their tenure is not because it is subjectively banal, boring and not particularly important; it's because there are no sources no cite or summarize. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear keep - I'm confused at all the deletion arguments here, this list shouldn't be contentious in its own right since (a) the criteria for entry are clear and the number of entries finite, (b) the idea of facial hair on presidents is itself notable - not just that it's noteworthy on the articles of individual presidents whether or not they have facial hair, but that a standalone article can be justified, (c) per WP:CLT this is far better dealt with as a list than a category or navigational template since it isn't sufficiently defining a characteristic (NB this is not the same as non-notable, notability is largely a source issue) for a navbox and requires annotation (e.g. beard? sidebeard?) not possible for a category. This may surprise some folk here, but actually there is scholarly study of hair-styling and appearance! Politicians don't look the way they do at random (although some stuff is beyond choice: witness frequent study of whether being taller makes you disproportionately likely to win elections). Consequently it's not fair to call this stuff genuinely "trivial" - though people are quite welcome to deem it "subjectively banal" or "on the grand scale of history, not particularly important". TheGrappler (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unimportant aside: I think that this article is partly suffering as a result of a horrendous title! The advantage of this title, I suspect, is that it is so unambiguous, but to be fair "List of United States presidents with facial hair" would have been specific enough for a reasonably intelligent reader to have grasped the idea. TheGrappler (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are you kidding? A man's facial hair is a statement. Maybe even a reflection of the timeframe. Although I feel the table has some shortcomings, so I have adapted it to suit Wikipedia. Although I feel this is going to be "a close shave". --JHvW (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – not even a close shave. This is at the negligible end of trivial. Occuli (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On the whole I find this discussion quite interesting, probably for all the wrong reasons. First of all, there seems to be an awful lot of quoting from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These were made to make Wikipedia more reliable and more consistent. But within WP it is frowned upon to enforce these rules without adding to the content. And let's be clear, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (it has a policy of no original research, more or less trial by Internet), it frowns on the quotation of books (that cannot be viewed on Internet) but allows a good many things that people with a little sense would find reprehensible. Wikipedia is in principle a repository for facts and trivia that can be found on Internet, making it an interesting but dubious source of knowledge. Now lets look at this list. The contributor who posted the list originally, is now banned. The list was probably started as a joke. The contributor will no doubt be amused that it has already survived one round of voting. But does this list have merits? Yes it does. But the list is too small to be significant. That is why I have added some significant facts (which can be seen in the article). What conclusions can we draw? Well it seems to be a fact that presidents with sideburns are more often depicted on metal currency. If you look at Mount Rushmore it seems that presidents with facial hair seem to be a significant portion of important presidents. If you include sideburns (this is a matter of opinion on hairstyle, but we are not allowed points of view, so we have to rely on sources that can be quoted, and it seems that the sources have definitly got something to say about facial hair) presidents with facial hair seem to be significantly important. We live in a time where our lives seem to be governed by lists and statistics. Lists can help us sort through the scruf (thanks to the contributor who pointed this out to me) and get to the nub of things. Is this list trivial? Probably, but it can be the starting point of something interesting. How much space does it occupy? It has been pointed out that the title itself would make most people refrain from accessing it, how much more do you want from a list? And somebody has said they would change their vote if facial hair was pointed out to be relevant. It probably is, in the context of time. It has been argued that Jack Kennedy won the elections because he was better looking than his opponent. How about facial hair (given the context of time and place)? The contributor who started this list should be applauded and the list kept because it is what Wikipedia is about, starting something, other contributors adding, working together to see if anything is to come out of it. The fact that it has an underlying current of humour does not make it less valuable. There are lessons to be learned from this list, so again I say keep it, if only in the Department of Fun. --JHvW (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, because if it did then people like you would look at the "evidence" and conclude that presidents with facial hair are more "significant" than those with none. Has it ever occurred to you that facial hair on men is pretty common? Perhaps it was even more common back in the times of the presidents who are depicted on Mt. Rushmore? You can't look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that men with facial hair have a 50% chance of becoming the president of the United States. I don't want to be insulting or uncivil, but I don't think I've ever seen a more moronic conclusion, or one that violates WP:OR more egregiously. I've removed that content from the article. SnottyWong ^chat 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting that you know difficult words like egregiously but are not familiar with the concepts of irony and sarcasm. --JHvW (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that your !vote above and your addition of the Mt. Rushmore picture to the article were an attempt at irony and/or sarcastic humor? Please confirm, so that we can discount your keep !vote above, have you blocked for intentional vandalism and violations of WP:POINT, and have you topic banned from making any further attempts to be humorous. SnottyWong ^gossip 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you know the difference between facetious and faecesious? --JHvW (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The anti-bearders are ruining wikipedia. As for the delete suggestion, "It could easily be Googled should one desire to know the answer", the same could be said of much content here on wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do you have any actual reason for your keep opinion? Fram (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a notable subject. Its not something many wikipedia editors may have a personal memory of now, but this was a big topic of public discussion in the late 19th century and even until 10 years ago, it all flows from Lincoln's success with a beard in 1860([24]). See:[25] (Knight-Ridder syndicate story, 1996, "Facial hair unacceptable for presidential politics"), [26] (Dallas Morning News, 2000 story, "Presidential hair a no no?"), [27] (1996 USA Today story, "Best presidential criterion: Hair"), [28] (1984, Miami Herald, discussion of last presidents with facial hair), [29] (1991 Richmond Times, "VICTORY IS UNDER THE CANDIDATE'S NOSE"), [30] (2004, Business Wire, "America Looks for a Clean-Shaven Face in the Presidential Race"), [31], (1969 Hartford Courant, "Five Bearded Presidents In The Courant Portfolio"), [32] (1986 AP syndicated article on presidential beards), [33] (1948 AP article discussing list of bearded presidents and Dewey), [34] (1944 NY Times article, "Saga of the mustache"), [35] (book section), [36] (book discussion). This is a perfect example of a topic article that sounds crazy at first glance, and someone will nominate for deletion, but an editor with knowledge of the subject can explain why its actually important. I hope I have done so, and you can consider withdrawing the nomination. If so, I will expand the "list" with a discussion of why presidential beards have been a notable subject.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of your links are about presidential candidates, not (or only tangentially) about presidents during their tenure, which this list is about. If a list is as narrowly described as this one, the sources should also be as narrow, and not about something related but different (like all the Dewey references in them). Fram (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misdescribing the import of the articles, which demonstrate that being a president (and obviously a candidate prior to that) with facial hair has been a notable subject in American history. This kind of deletion discussion is why experts get driven off the project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-encyclopedic list of trivial information, although men with beards are better looking and smarter than the clean shaven. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do you not mean Keep? If given the choice between two equal candidates (on program) would you not prefer to vote for the one that is (and I quote) better looking and smarter than the clean shaven? --JHvW (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, I said delete and meant it. Given what I know about history of elections, given a choice, I'd most likely vote for the taller of the two, IIRC, that's the most significant factor statistically (but it's been a looong time since I've looked at the issue). My thinking is that this list is trivial information. Now, if you took all of these sources and wrote an article about facial hair and how it has been viewed relative to US elections, you'd have something I could get my handsome hairy self to endorse. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for making this point. It is a point I have tried to make earlier but it has made some of the participants in this discussion very angry. As I am not eligible to vote in the United States elections I do not consider it a priority to do a significant analysis of facial hair on incumbent presidents. But I am sure that it looks good on you as you seem proud of it (and probably rightly so). --JHvW (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, 5 minutes after I posted this remark, someone posted the statistic I believe you were referring to. --JHvW (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia-writing project, not a kindergarten. Even if "US presidents and facial hair" were a valid, notable topic – and so far I have seen no convincing argument for that either in the list itself or in this discussion –, even then there would be no need for such a stand-alone list any more than for List of mushrooms that turn red if you cut them or List of cities that contain the letter Y or List of notable persons who are believed to have lived at the same time as Socrates. Hans Adler 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see straw man. You offer no evidence to suggest that these other topics are as notable as the matter of presidential hair and so the comparison lacks any logical meaning. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not my fault if you can't see the common principle: They are all formed from random combinations of topics that are themselves notable, they are all bound to have been discussed in this very combination in one source or another (in specific contexts), and they all don't make any sense at all for stand-alone articles. Formally: The list is about a random intersection of features. An article about facial hair of US presidents would not be notable either because of the random intersection of no less than three topics (facial hair + head of state/government + US; even two topics would be bad enough). The sources that have been presented do not represent significant coverage any more than the sources that do exist without any doubt on the following topics justify sex life of Bill Clinton or war crime accusations against George W. Bush. If you want to discuss facial hair of US presidents find a context where it fits, don't just invent a silly article title for such a bit of trivia. Hans Adler 17:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia contains plenty of material about Clinton+sex and Bush+war including Clinton sex scandal and Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. There's nothing random about these topics: they excite interest; professional authors write about them; and so they are notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles that exist make sense, the articles I mentioned don't. That was the point of my argument. You seem to believe that whenever someone wants to add a tidbit to Wikipedia they are entitled to do this under the first topic that comes to their mind, however far-fetched and unencyclopedic it is – and that consequently deletion discussions are always about the content of articles. They are not. They are basically about article titles. Some newspapers probably have written about facts from Bill Clinton's sex life that are not or only tangentially related to the Lewinsky affair. Within reason they can be mentioned in Clinton sex scandal. But you can't write an article that attempts to list everybody Bill Clinton ever had sex with, and other details of that nature. Similarly, the war crime accusations against Bush came close to being notable, but didn't quite make it. Consequently they didn't get their own article. So they are merely mentioned in efforts to impeach George W. Bush and any similar articles. (Or should be; I haven't verified they are present.)

If you insist on adding a tidbit to Wikipedia it's your job to find an article where it fits, and if none exists to come up with a new article about an encyclopedic, GNG-passing topic. If you can't think of a suitable topic, ask someone else for help. But it's not OK to come up with some nonsense title for an article and then insist that that's a reasonable topic when it quite obviously isn't. When the best source for a topic unrelated to media literacy is an "activity" in a book on media literacy [37], and everything else is specific examples, then there is obviously something wrong.

In short: If your first impulse is to create a stupid, narrow article, resist it and think of a suitable generalisation that is notable. Then write an article about that and put your pet information there. Hans Adler 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your position thus seems to be that this material would be best presented as part of a larger article on a wider topic. That is a reasonable option but it is irrelevant to the question of deletion. Per our editing policy, we would enlarge upon the topic by renaming the article to increase its scope and/or merge it into a larger article(s) such as President of the United States or Facial hair. Such actions would use ordinary editing functions, not the delete function. Our licensing terms require that we keep the history of the original contributions when we rework them. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you misunderstood me. The topic is not notable. It fails WP:GNG. There is no need for even a complete encyclopedia to discuss this topic. However, we are discussing many topics that are not notable simply because it makes sense for filling in details, or enhancing the reader's understanding, in an article on a somewhat related notable topic. I was giving you and other editors who are prone to writing about non-notable topics advice on how to sneak them into Wikipedia with a lower risk that your work is deleted and a significantly lower risk of polarised discussions such as this one. But this advice does not affect my argument why this article must be deleted. Hans Adler 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest reading WP:Notability again. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication that this is a serious topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia so fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG does not use the word serious nor does it suggest in any way that topics have to be po-faced. But are you suggesting that these presidents were not serious - that they grew their hair as a joke or what? Please explain how this is not a serious topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am saying no such thing, I am saying that no one is taking seriously the subject of presidents with facial hair, none of the links you posted above shows that the subject has been covered significantly by others more in passing when discussing hair in general. Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your observation seems quite counterfactual. The first source that I presented above has a section heading of The Hairy President and discusses this topic at length. This is not a passing reference and we have many other sources of a similar detailed kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my !vote, that ref not withstanding, the subject lacks significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can't blame wikipedia editors for not being alive in the 1860s-1930s but I guess no one remembers Grace Bedell, who was fairly famous in her day for convincing Lincoln to grow his beard (when she was 11 years old). Whether presidents had beards or not was considered a significant and notable topic for discussion for a long time in American history, its just out of lack of knowledge that one would simply conclude the topic is not notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those trying to delete this seem to be arguing that the article shouldn't exist because they don't like it, and personally don't think its worthy of being in Wikipedia. Not how things work. There are plenty of sources talking about the facial hair of presidents. Dream Focus 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously don't understand the meaning of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG. There are also plenty of car accidents of tennis players, see "tennis player" "car accident". That doesn't mean it's a notable topic. Hans Adler 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG defines what is meant by "significant coverage": It "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source.". Sources which address the subject in detail and as more than a trivial mention have been cited. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Having facial hair is not really a defining or notable characteristic of a president, and while it may be interesting that presidential facial hair has largely disappeared in the 20th & 21st centuries, that can be said of upper-class rich men in general. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it used to be considered a very notable characteristic. E.g., as I added to the article, political commentators have actually claimed that Thomas Dewey lost in 1944 and 1948, in part, because of his facial hair. I also added a link to a recent research paper that discusses presidential facial hair and has the hypothesis that "after women got the right to vote facial hair became a political liability for men."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. trivia. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to you, Professor Tarc, but the hundreds of articles on presidential facial hair that are easily found (some of which I have now added to the article) make it notable. There's no question that there's an element of humor in much of the commentary on the issue, but the fact is that whether a president or presidential candidate has had facial hair has been the subject of huge amounts of press for the better part of 150 years. Just because it hasn't been a big deal for the last 20 years doesn't mean its not notable, it just explains why it was nominated for deletion, i.e., ignorance of the history.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your incorrect statements about the reason for the nomination to yourself. Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure. Feel free to create an article about the topic you are defending here as a self declared expert, but please don't mix things related to but separate from this article with the actual subject of it. Fram (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly everything you have listed, discussed, given as example, ... is about facial hair during elections, while this list is about facial hair during their tenure." LOL, are you kidding me? Your nom sucks, but you're cool, its all good.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep the topic has received indpedent coverage regardless whether it is considered "trivia" or not. Either we abide by policy or let emotions run their course. Sandman888 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TheGrappler's rationale (and in addendum to one of his comments, see Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have bookmarked that page so that I will notice when the inevitable fourth AfD of that other abomination comes. As I said before, the way to deal with such trivia is not to build for every bit of them a separate pseudo-article; the trick consists in finding an encyclopedic topic in which it can be covered. The present list and that other thing together could be the core for an article that discusses all studies that have been made of the various traits and features of US presidents through the centuries. Hans Adler 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if you were to make such an article ("... that discusses all studies that... "), it would be split into parts due to WP:SIZE... and we'd end up right where we started. Thank you for your WP:IDONTLIKEIT sarcasm about the "abomination", but not really, because WP:SARCASM is amazingly ineffective around here. Have you noticed? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to develop that other page to such dimensions that it must be split, then do it, don't just talk about it. That was implicit in my point. Subpages of articles about a notable topic are automatically seen in a much more favourable light than bizarre articles that come out of nowhere. (I am not sure that would be enough in this case, since the topic is so unencyclopedic that it only belongs in an encyclopedia as an example for something, and you seem to have in mind a complete exhaustion of the example space.) As a simplified example, in an aspiring encyclopedia that so far consists of 5 articles, say – house, mountain, flower, ship, writing – resist the urge to create an article list of reasons why one should not pick one's ear with a sharp instrument. Start an article ear instead. If it gets unwieldy, put some material into subarticles, possibly creating proper ear maintenance as one of them. And if that again gets unwieldy, split again and create something like list of dangerous practices related to hearing. Hans Adler 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is common that the early drafts of articles are unsatisfactory. Our editing policy explains what is to be done in such cases. It does not advise complete demolition but, instead, recommends that we improve the articles, retaining and reworking the material. The top-down method that you propose is neither our editing policy nor a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) you might like to read the 3 prior Heights of... AfDs, before calling it an abomination. (2) The article you are looking for is Ear pick. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep "It's unencyclopedic trivia" does not a well-reasoned argument make. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic of Presidential facial hair, in general as well as in relation to a specific president. Definitely a notable topic. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And "OMG it's reliably sourced!" is never an adequate response to concerns of trivia. Sourcing alone does not make a topic notable or article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete many arguments for keep claim this list WP:ITSUSEFUL, we can verify that Presidents had facial hair but that is not the same as it being notable. what next List of British prime ministers with facial hair during their tenure, List of First ladies with brown hair during their husband's tenure LibStar (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be uncivil, but did you even read what I said above? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and disagree. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure many people read it. Some of us happen to think that WP:TRIVIA applies here, we discuss things because we do not always agree. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many people here clearly haven't read WP:TRIVIA as it is quite irrelevant to this matter. The article in question does not contain a trivia section and, even if it did, it would not be a reason to delete the article as that guideline just advises reorganising the information to present it better. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disgree that it is irrelevant, since the article is itself a list of trivial information. I am, however, heartened to see that some improvements have been made, and hope that the article will evolve into something more substantial, thanks to your and Milowent's efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't read WP:TRIVIA, have you? Here's a quote "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations.". At AFD, we are not concerned with style, only with deletion, which is the exclusion of information. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We disagree, but I see no reason to argue with you about this given how the afd is proceeding. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: contra Slithman, it's unencyclopedic trivia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first link you provide is not a policy or guideline but reminds us that personal opinions are irrelevant here. What we require is argument based upon policy and the evidence of independent third-parties. The second link you provide is WP:TRIVIA which is quite irrelevant, as explained above. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment when someone makes a massive effort to rebutt everything and not improve the article you do wonder. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while y'all have been fapping in here, i did expand the article some and add sources. Yet the fact that books, news stories for 150 years, and research papers discuss the issue seem to be irrelevant to the "trivia" crowd. Thus, the Colonel does what he can here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Milowent is indeed doing great work on the article and this recent addition from the NYT is especially impressive. I touch my forelock in respect. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I've struck my delete !vote, with some actual text and references, I feel it's worth keeping. (Nuujinn strokes beard and nods head) --Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Col. Warden. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think there is a notable topic in here somewhere, but wouldn't this be better as a prose article rather than a list? The majority of the coverage seems to be about the importance of facial hair in relation to Presidents, candidates and elections, as opposed to Presidents who had facial hair during their tenure. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this really shouldn't be a list article, it should be something like United States presidents with facial hair, and the list can be kept only as a subsection. The silly gallery can be replaced with portraits of the hirsute chief executives.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Keep. It seems like a silly list to me, but I'm persuaded by the Keep arguments, in particular Milowent's several sources that make it very clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Milowent and others. There is a great deal of sourcing here, and it indicates that the subject is notable. Yeah, it's trivial stuff in the broad scheme of life, but it's awfully well-documented trivia. I concur, though, that a prose article would be better than the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have moved this to List of United States presidents with facial hair during their tenure. Regardless of its final name, "States" should be capitalized. TJRC (talk) 15:33, 23 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.