< 5 September	7 September >

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

The result was Speedy deleted as non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Glassmeyer[edit]

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

Google searches do not support the article's claims to notability. Article was just created, but avoiding Prod route because of creator's insistence in the article text that subject is notable.Pink Bull 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support' Google gave me nothing besides that fact that he works at the school mentioned. Buggie111 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedyable; no sources support notability claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7... there's hardly a credible assertion of notability here. This looks more like a talk page ((hangon)) rationale than an actual article. Regardless, being the editor of a magazine with an unsubstantiable claim of readership and a teacher does not show how the subject meets WP:GNG. Given the article creator's username, also probably a WP:COI; this article was also speedied twice before last year, its only contributor has ever been said author, and this article appears to be this author's only contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mandsford 19:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Dnipropetrovsk fire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a non-notable event and fires occur often. Last AfD was no consensus. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable event. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, as there is no evidence of lasting effect.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - the article can be expanded, I think e fire causing ten deaths is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaen (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy says it is notable? —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Mulcahy[edit]

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

This reporter fails WP:BIO / WP:AUTHOR. There are zero RSs discussing him in the article and I could find none other than trivial mentions. Having written or contributed reporting to several New York Times articles is not the same as having been covered in articles. He was mentioned in this New York Observer article, but not discussed in detail. According to the article, he was then "assistant to assistant managing editor." I proded the article, but the prod was removed, so here it is at AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Writing for the New York Time alone is not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good for him that he writes for the New York Times, but that does not make him notable under any Wikipedia criterion I can think of. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipstep[edit]

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

Unsourced. Contested PROD. Possibly promoting TC Izlam, who has changed his name to T-Frequency (therealtciz on Myspace and The HipStep Lounge Show on Facebook). — $Jeff G. ツ$ 23:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

links to an urban dictionary entry with "6 thumbs up and 3 down", thats about it. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's stop the reverting and let the author add what they consider sources, and we can discuss the alleged sources here. Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rescinded last warning from his talk page. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was deleted a couple years ago for similar reasons as well (no actual sources and such). Wickethewok (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing that up. The log entry is here. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a non-notable term that is being used in Wikipedia for promotional purposes.--Pink Bull 07:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobaev sniper rifle[edit]

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

No mention on news.google for lobaev that is about the rifle. Suspect this isn't notable. Sandman888 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to this forum post (which by no means is a WP:RS), apparently there's no such thing as a Lobayev rifle, per se, but that Mr. Lobayev designs a few custom rifles per year. My assumption is that the title of this article actually refers to all custom rifles designed by Mr. Lobayev, rather than a specific line of rifle. Ultimately this article (and the Russian Wikipedia article from which it was machine translated) appears to be some conglomeration of information about the the individual, the weapons he designs, and his company (Tsar Cannon). Of course, there are no WP:RS, and searching in Russian also yields nothing. Ultimately, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Rock Productions[edit]

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

No non-trivial sources found. Notability isn't inherited from the two shows. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no sources and no notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources can be found by google-searching, but the secondary coverage appears to be minimal. --Pink Bull 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Sani[edit]

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

Notable for only one event. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see no evidence that this individual has sought out the public eye, nor that his activities are sufficient in themselves to place him in the public eye involuntarily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for perpetrators and he is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the subject was acquitted, I don't even think that WP:PERP applies to him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PERP, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS. I cannot find any significant coverage of the subject/incident beyond the few news reports that seem to be primarily from LGBT sources. I like to redirect when or where possible, but I don't see anything signficant to which this should point. Location (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if and when he meets NSPORTS requirements. Courcelles 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Triche[edit]

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

The only thing IMHO that might make this person truly "notable" is when he was named the Gatorade New York Boys' Basketball Player of the Year. However, I counter that with saying there are 50 boys and 50 girls every single year that earn that distinction, but just winning that award alone does not make any of them inherently notable...and neither does the fact that he plays at a Division I institution. Most of the coverage is via Syracuse University press releases. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't help that the article is full of speculation and editorializing Vartanza (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Dreamspy (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Triche is the starting point guard at not just any institution, at Syracuse University, which was #1 for a short time in the polls last year. While he did not put up impressive averages, keep in mind that Coach Boeheim does not play freshmen a lot unless their name is Carmelo. If you are a starter at one of these big-name schools, that almost guarantees a professional contract in Europe if not the NBA. He was named to the all-Freshman team, joining the likes of John Wall and Avery Bradley. I think notability is a no-brainer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time he doesn't meet even the very liberal standards of WP:SPORTS. If he does go on to play professionally, an article can be created about him at that time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All indications are that he will play for pay somewhere. Also, he satisfies WP:Basketball by winning major awards. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL (what if he blows out a knee cap or gets paralyzed in a car crash?); and what awards specifically make him inherently notable? Jrcla2 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - His accomplishments make him inherently notable, but he was named to the Collegeinsider.com freshman all-america team. Look, let's keep this article as is and if he doesn't go pro in 4 years, then renom. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - His accomplishments do not make him inherently notable. Also, CollegeInsider.com is not recognized by the NCAA as an official award giver, which is why none of their plethora of awards is included in the annual NCAA men's basketball media guide. Just because www.iamawebsite.com names someone to a team award doesn't mean they're inherently notable. Also, there's way too much "let's just keep it anyway" mentality on WP. There's a reason there are standards for inclusionism, and Triche doesn't cut it. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Collegeinsider.com sponsors its own postseason tournament and is well known in the world of college sports. The core tenet of WP:N is for significant sourcing independent of the subject, and I could easily find that on Triche. And that, by the way, trumps any notability guideline out there. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Engineering Day[edit]

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

Declined A7 due to non-fit of speedy criteria. Asserted to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above no indication that this does or will ever meet WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Vacation[edit]

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

Delete: This article does not specify why this film is remarkable. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info: ~~Copyvio, text lifted directly from imdb.~~ P. S. Burton (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio has now been eliminated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Article currently under work to address issues, as sources have been found under its original and Chinese language titles. Will report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF and per ongoing article improvements. This 1990 film has had international distribution under several different language titles and has been crtitically reviewed for years in multiple languages. Even as recently as a few days ago, the Manila Bulletin made note of this 21-year-old film and its similarity to a recent hostage situation in the Phillipnes.[1] What began as THIS unsourced stub is now a somehat better article. And yes, there's more available for further improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a nice save that establishes notability in reliable sources, but what are those huge quotes in a foreign language doing there? Bigger digger (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... and to answer your question... it's a neccessity per WP:RSUE: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote." So I did. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continued at Talk:Fatal_Vacation#Foreign_text Bigger digger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Glad I could save this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. As the nominator has pointed out, most (but not all) of the fictional metals on here are on the other list, which simply describes the items without making judgments about whether they are "super metals"; Concerns about sourcing and OR apply to the other list as well, where it appears that the community is addressing them. What, if anything, should be merged (the participants disagree on whether there is anything "worth merging") can be discussed at the talk page there. Mandsford 02:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional super metals[edit]

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

This list is redundant to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, and the term "super metal" is far too broad in scope to allow this to be a useful list. It's original research to claim that x is a "super metal" without a source indicating so, and the list has sourcing issues. Claritas § 09:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basic remake of the other article with. Maybe speedy delete per A10? Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A10 is only for recently made duplicates. Claritas § 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per nom. No need to have two lists, no need to have unsourced information, but note that per WP:NNC, sourcing that meets WP:V, including primary sourcing, is sufficient to keep an individual list entry. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources don't actually say that item x is a "super metal" in most cases. It's a matter of interpretation which is essentially unverifiable. Claritas § 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Inherently original research. Unsourced and probably unsourceable, and there is no usable content that can be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge aas suggested above, to form one better article. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. It is all original research. Primary sourcing should not be sufficient. It isn't in any other fields of the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG, Jclemens, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:CHEAP. DGG's and Jclemens' comments seem common sense to me. Many lists have been deleted or merged in the past; the ones that are merged tend to be sub-lists or more obscure. Deleting such a list will eliminate its history and sourcing, but merger would save those. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm of the opinion that this is a perfectly valid page, and I see no reason to do anything to it really.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost completely unsourceable per WP:V, and is potentially infinite, since the list's criteria for inclusion are extraordinarily broad. Individual elements of the list are almost all WP:OR. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 00:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-laser[edit]

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

An article about a non-existent device with no proposed purpose. User insists on putting a half-baked substub into article-space. I have strenuously invited the creator to work on it in userspace, at User talk:Chrisrus/Anti-laser, but I have not been successful. -- Y not? 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several reliable sources that have picked up on the idea: Wired, New Scientist, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep Notable topic per its sources. Stubs are accepted, if not always encouraged. AfD is not for forced expansion or article clean-up. I feel an expansion tag would work in conjunction with notification of interested wiki projects (addition: which was done by the creating editor prior to nomination).--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. It needs a clean-up, not deletion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by WP:Use common sense. One person, or one research team, said something might be possible and if possible might be useful. Newsmedia reported this to the public. There is really no information for an article, even if there are reliable sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Use Common Sense applies to this AfD. I've read it over and don't see anything here where this article harms the project for existing with sources. The news media did pick it up, but it was also published in a scientific journal, and to be fair the news media we are discussing here are primarily science news media, some more popular than others. The combination of publication of the paper in a reputable journal and mass media coverage within the public-interested niche press seems to give the concept legs as both something that has captured the public's imagination AND a scientifically sound concept of interest to academics. Beyond this, in exploring the article laser I have found that the formatting of that article is based upon content forks to smaller articles. Even if the information regarding anti-lasers was suggested as a merge to laser the MOS for that article seems to dictate that anti-lasers would end up a stub content fork anyway.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article does not harm WP or anyone else. I just think that when nothing definate is known about a topic it's hard to have an encyclopedia article on it. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball could also be invoked. Anyway if people want to know about it all they have to do is google "anti-laser." Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your same argument could hold true for Tachyon particles or any other theoretical physics item. An anti-laser isn't really a "device" it's a concept and having been published in a reputable scientific journal it's a concept that has some weight in the scientific community. WP:Crystal says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I feel this doesn't apply because the reliable sources confirm that a device based on the principals of an anti-laser is being actively developed at Yale University. It's not speculation, it is confirmed with sources. This, however, is still only a piece of the article's subject matter. Crystal goes on to discourage debunking of accepted scientific information with speculation that it may be incorrect. As of this writing the principal is circulating the scientific community and the article takes care to note the theoretical nature of the concept. I agree that anyone who wants to know about anti-lasers can google it, but is that not counter-productive to the project? If it's a notable enough concept to have such an array of reliable third party sources that anyone could easily google for their information why should wikipedia refuse to publish on it. I don't want to go into WP:Other stuff exists territory, but there are a number of articles here on theoretical science with not nearly the amount of reliable coverage. Once again, if the article was only something picked up by pop science magazine I'd be skeptical. If anti-lasers had only been proposed in a scientific journal with no outside exposure, I'd be skeptical. If this was only a proposed university project I'd be skeptical. The problem I have with this AfD is that we have all three of these working in unison to make for a fairly tight notability standard.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet shown to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You must have meant "Not yet shown to be workable" or "...practicable" or "...useful". A simple look at the sources or a quick Google of the term will proves beyond reasonable doubt that this statement "Not yet proven to be notable" is false, because if it weren't notable, why has it been so widely noted? As is the statement "not of serious interest to notable experts in the field" thus shown to be false. The anti-laser is notable, because it's been given so much attention by notable people in academica and in the notable science media. People who are in a position to know what they are talking about think that it's notable. So please agree that it is in fact notable (thereby changing your "delete" to a "keep", give some explaination why you continue to hold that it is not notable, or give some other reason why it should be deleted. If not, this "Deletion Support" should be given no weight. Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has plenty of sources which prove notability. I agree with Chrisrus on this. —out^offocus 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Why has this been re-listed? What is your problem with this article? You have relisted in bad faith.[reply]

Keep. This article is average/above average as compared to the vast majority of science & math articles. Unfortunately, there are many topics in physics & math that are more notable than this (e.g. are subject matter in school textbooks) that are either stubs or are completely missing; I'd like to see this fixed over time, but it takes time to do this. I've been here 3-4 years, and progress has been slow. Deleting existing stubs really doesn't help. linas (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly good stub w/references.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen Prunty[edit]

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

No WP:RS, author does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, no results on Google News, the only result on Google Scholar is one of his own books. Another user prodded it but was contested; neither article nor notability of subject have improved since. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated by Armbrust. --Stormbay (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteric Barbie[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable single release from this summer, a speedy was recently declined. Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to be clear. Anyone else have an opinion? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David A Milman[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond passing mention in the context of Rescuecom. ^Bongo_matic 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because article resembles a poorly written vanity piece. --khfan93 (t) (c) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review additional independent references posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moevillecitizen (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC) — Moevillecitizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please review additional independent references posted, possible "vanity" language resolvedMoevillecitizen (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge to Rescuecom. Nothing in this article suggests he is personally notable. Three "reliable source" references are provided, but the Fox News one merely quotes him among other in an article about a computer virus; I can't find any mention of him at all in the MSNBC reference; he does seem to have appeared on CNBC once as an expert; not enough. All the other references appear to be blogs and press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not consider the references given show notability DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus on its notablitiy or not JForget 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bengalia africana[edit]

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

No sources and hardly any information -- Ice (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most species are considered notable, but I can't find anything to prove this one exists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem to exist see; [2], [3], [4]. Just seems to be very under researched, no real information past the taxonomy. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It needs reliable sources (those listed above are not reliable enough) and a taxobox. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what we should do, but it should b noted that the taxonomy of Bengalia is complicated, and that the expert (sort of) on it, Andy Z. Lehrer, has been editing the articles on Wikipedia. See Andy Z. Lehrer and the paper by K. Rognes there for more information. —innotata 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lehrer's book Bengaliidae du monde, p. 176, says that the taxonomy of this claimed species is dubious. Google Books displays the relevant snippet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a review of Lehrer's book in the journal Studia dipterologica, by a published authority on blowflies, Knut Rognes, which specifically addresses Lehrer's treatment of this species. Lehrer's claim is that this species is "nomina dubia, because based on female types", while the reviewer says that "However, there is no scientific principles in zoological taxonomy that restricts or bans the use of names based on female types." and "Neither can LEHRER invoke the nomen oblitum clauses for these names (ICZN 23.9) as they have all been used since 1899." I think an expert opinion would be helpful. You can read the review here,[5] on page 458 under the title "Names deliberately ignored as nomina dubia, because based on female types". It must at least be worthy of an article explaining that it's a disputed species, and is probably notable if Rognes and Lehrer are going back and forth about it. First Light (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not for us to judge which taxonomic names are valid. The practicce here is firm , that every described species is notable . If the species should eventually be rejected it would remain notable . If the name should be deprecated, the article would be redirected to the accepted name. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alicja Tendt-Boyd[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article. The article makes some very impressive claims to record sales but unable to verify them. In addition to the normal Google News Archive and Books search, checked the Polish Wikipedia], and could not find an article for this singer, assuming that the Polish spelling is different I tried searching for the albums which also had no pages. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that the author has a history of creating dubious articles. Renata (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unverifiable BLP for which notability, via general or more specific criteria, has not been established. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources to verify the information - using any of the terms I've added to the "Find sources" above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ponyo. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:V and WP:N Jeepday (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Beast Wars characters. Mandsford 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tigerhawk[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Real world notability not clear, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I guess this can't be more notable than Airazor. NotARealWord (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Beast Wars characters. NotARealWord (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Beast Wars characters page if not. Mathewignash (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Beast Wars characters. Character had a significant role during the season season. —Farix (t | c) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. —Farix (t | c) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fansites like retrojunk aren't reliable sources of information. see [6] Dwanyewest (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notable character, bad faith nomination by a blocked sock. If a renomination is requested, so be it. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaster (Transformers)[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources exist have covered this subject. Fails WP:GNG. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of those Transformers who has obtained a level of note. For instance look at this book on toys and popular culture where the author explorers Blaster roll, what he represents, etc. [7] Here is another book about censorship in saturday morning cartoons, where it talks about Blaster and Jazz being "black coded" voices. [8] These are definitely examples of the characters being talked about outside the fiction itself. Mathewignash (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Mathewignash (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as a sockpuppet nomination by Claritas (talk · contribs). No prejudices against renomination after a week to give time for the other butt-load of Transformers AfDs to worth themselves through, which may give guidance on what to do with this article. —Farix (t | c) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even after ignoring the sockpuppet nominator, there is still a consensus to delete. Courcelles 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banzai-Tron[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources exist on this subject. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Decepticons characters page if not. Mathewignash (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. Mathewignash (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources independent of the subject that establish notability for this fictional thing apart from the fictional world it inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as a sockpuppet nomination by Claritas (talk · contribs). No prejudices against renomination after a week to give time for the other butt-load of Transformers AfDs to worth themselves through, which may give guidance on what to do with this article. —Farix (t | c) 23:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in an earlier AfD, who the nominator is and what his motivations may have been are largely irrelevant once other editors have weighed in with !votes. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no notability asserted, no reliable sources cited. Yet another hopeless crufty article about a minor Transformers character. Reyk _YO! 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) by Kinu. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Code (movie)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL; fails WP:GNG; is obvious case of self-promotion before the fact. Contested prod by article creator. Article has no WP:RS. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 as a recreation of Sacred Code, which has ben previously deleted following this AfD. (It was recreated under this title, because original title was salted.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nice catch, I didn't see that. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i could only catch it, because i !voted in the original AfD and remembered the title. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stages (Nick Cannon album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album with no track listing or album cover. Wikipedia:Notability (music) says: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." This has unsourced statements about contributors, no confirmed release date, track listing, etc. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. TenPoundHammer's Law can be applied too, as there is no cover, tracklist and even a release date is missing. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage for an unreleased album, per WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability criteria for albums. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:HAMMERTIME Nowyouseeme talk2me 09:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Planets (Dr. Dre album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to prove existence. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. It's unsourced and sounds like a hoax to me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect it to Dr. Dre. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Is Back[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ballery, no sources to prove existence and way too early anyway. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fail notability criteria for albums. TenPoundHammer's Law can be applied too, as there is no tracklist or cover, and the release date is also speculative. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely crystal and incredibly early. And if I remember his newest single, he's already said he's back; why would he say it a second time in album title form? Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dary Al-Ziayaidi[edit]

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

Arden IF is rather unknown and so is this player. MGA73 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and without appearances for a fully-pro club, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Press Park[edit]

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

This is a small park (by its own terms) near Boston. I don't believe it has the required coverage, outside of traditional parks and recreation pages. Shadowjams (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a handful of news hits, all of them trivial mentions and none of them discussing the park in significant detail, as the GNG requires. Ravenswing 05:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth merging to Cambridge, Massachusetts. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windsong valley[edit]

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

Non-notable place. No references at all, and search turns up nothing relevant. Original author very persistent in removing PRODs and refuses to engage in any sort of communication at all; he or she is apparently an SPA. Let's get trid of this for good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best reference I could locate was [9]. One 249 word article in a newspaper 24 years ago doesn't really show notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG categorically. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial housing development. Doesn't even rate a mention at the Wildomar, California website or article even though it is supposedly located in that town. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no sources = no article. Can be recreated as and when someone finds some. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unikkatil[edit]

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

Nothing here establishes the notability of the subject. Was previously prodded and then undeleted when contested but the article has not improved. SQGibbon (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Kedaditalk 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he made some important Albanian rap, that's now in career written —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinie007 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2010
Delete as article fails notability criteria for rappers. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's the first Albanian hip hop musician. Very notable in the Albanian music world. The article is a mess, completely unreferenced, but as far as notability is concerned I don't see ANY problem with him. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are still no reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. Given that this is also a BLP then we especially need to be careful of that. SQGibbon (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article is a real mess, I'll try to find some sources and reference the article. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just google the man, there's over 2 million results on him, or youtube him he has millions of plays. He is a representative of a specific rap style noone has ever done in Kosovo. His songs and albums have been topping the charts in Kosovo and Albania for a few years now. His last event in Frauenfeld Switzerland had close to 5000 people present (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwmzOCcrsso) hear them chant "Unikkatil", thats huge for someone who's not even an international star. Do your research before questioning his notability please, allthough the article is pretty bad i will also try to help on improving it. He is easily one of the most powerful musicians in Kosovo and has a huge following. His name at least deserves to stand if not the article. JoeTBA (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went through the first three pages on Google and did not find any reliable sources that establish his notability. He certainly has an online presence but that's not enough by itself to establish notability. Heck, I'll even grant that he is notable in general (i.e., not in the Wikipedia sense) but that's not even the point. We have to find reliable sources that talk about him otherwise the entire thing is original research. As the article stands now everything except the first line should be deleted since none of it is sourced. This is Wikpedia policy especially when it comes to biographies of living people. SQGibbon (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guys i found a reliable source just now, which is Gazeta Express, one of the biggest newspapers in Kosovo. Won't be the last either i am sure i can find much more. Searched for him on their site there was a few useful articles. http://www.gazetaexpress.com/web/index.php?/kerko/df2d90a67d3533a6156530452d68fbc1/ . However, as i stated before i am new to Wiki and i dont know how to add references, help please lol. JoeTBA (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Tomorrow's Parties (music festival)[edit]

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

article totally devoid of independent third party sources about a music festival of dubious notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Village Voice reference in the article does say "Evolving from the decade-old U.K. event, ATP is a festival like no other". But I agree the article probably needs more to confirm notability. It is a firm part of the musical ground, though; take for example this from The Guardian recently: "live performances of famous albums, an idea first popularised by All Tomorrow's Parties, have become exceedingly trendy". And it is first on The Observer's recent 10 best music festivals list. And these are from 5 mins looking. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but does need improving. I've added the Observer top 10 reference as a start. Soupy sautoy (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a Google News Archive search for "All Tomorrow's Parties" music festival shows enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to easily satisfy the general notability guideline. Qwfp (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough mainstream sources to fulfill WP:N and WP:RS Ezhuks (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly consensus is moving towards keep. However, detailed line-ups of upcoming festivals definitely doesn't belong in the article. That's for their own web page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. clearly the article needs tidying up, but notability is easy to prove - User:Qwfp's news search does the job nicely. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination rationale is basically that this is unsourced, which WP:BEFORE would have taken care of.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is easy to prove. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That wikipedia article and list of ATP bands is actually hugely important. Music fans use it to learn about bands that are endorsed by their peers, as performers must be invited to play the festival by other established acts. There is nowhere else you can get a list of past and future ATP performers that’s as concise and convenient as the list on this site. This article shouldn't be hard to reference. A quick google search comes up with write-ups in the following American publications: New York Times, The New Yorker, The Village Voice, Spin,Pitchfork:--Atlantictire (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Can't believe this discussion is still open. Very notable festival, if article needs to be improved with more sources someone should improve it, don't nominate a notable subject for deletion because the article needs work. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as an attack page. Nothing to see here, folks. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soren sinz[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP JeremyMcClean (Talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Beyond the newsroom[edit]

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

Essay, steaming pile of WP:OR, Delete per WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, essay-like, unreferenced, no defined topic so no demonstrable notability. WP:NOT. Chzz ► 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprised there isn't a speedy deletion category for this kind of thing. Figureofnine (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic, lacks reliable sources, also WP:OR and WP:ESSAY as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No kidding: this is original research at its finest. WP:ESSAY seems to apply a lot here too. The New Raymie (t • c) 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I previously speedied a different article at this same title, which just happened to have been created by the same user who created this one. The earlier article, incidentally, was an unreferenced advertisement for a novel (which may cast some fresh light on this version of the article, or it may not.) What was especially fascinating about it was this: article creator = User:Oswaldpereira; author of the novel, according to the article = Oswald Pereira. So in addition to all the above reasons why this article shouldn't exist in this form, add WP:COI to the menu too. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Override (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about multiple unrelated, non-notable fictional characters. Please delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or merge to the various articles, which would be a list of Autobots for the first character, and a page of characters from Transformers: Cybertron for the other. Mathewignash (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No decent sources, no real world notability. The fact that this contains content that could be merged to several locations reveals the fact that the basic premise of this article is flawed, not that the subject may be notable. We should not throw characters together just because they happen to share a name. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see any reliable sources covering this subject. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find third-party sources that could WP:verify notability of this subject. Without any other evidence otherwise it is safe to conclude that none exists and the article should be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion and is in keeping with the WP:PRESERVE policy. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breacher (Transformers)[edit]

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

Very minor fictional character. Delete and strongly oppose redirect due to this character not being important in any way. NotARealWord (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Horribly minor even for these Transformers articles, it would seem. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It never surprises how many mediocre articles exist, insufficent third person sources, minor character Dwanyewest (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in third-party sources and so this article should be deleted. WP:V and WP:N both require third-party sources for an article to be kept. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No were to merge. Appears to be a toy rather than a character that has appeared in some form of media (animation, comics, film, etc.) —Farix (t | c) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-Octane[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise#Decepticons_.28Combatrons.29 Mathewignash (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect or something. Whatever, this article does not need to exist. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its been shown time and time again the so called "sources" on this and many other Transformers articles are unreliable :See "Reliable sources for Transformers"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent secondary sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters along with other characters from the same television series. A good way to start the list is to split off this entire section from the main article. —Farix (t | c) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability establishment - I added a reliable tird party book source which has a paragraph about Mega-Octane in it. That should help establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DK's The Ultimate Guide is so not a "third party" source, being a Hasbro-affiliated publication, written by Simon Furman. Plus, the book had spelling mistakes. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Crufty plot summary, bloated with original research, and "sourced" to a couple of toy catalogues. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Reyk _YO! 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brahms Gang[edit]

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

The subject has no notability, no value, and is entirely undocumented.--Galassi (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a brief mention in the net.legends faq is enough, and that's the only secondary sourcing for this that I could find (there's plenty of primary sourcing in the usenet archives, of course). And, tangentially, how come C. J. Silverio never gets mentioned as one of the gangsters? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons given and this is already covered (unsourced) in the Gene Ward Smith article. There might be a case for usenet related subject that had some significant influence, but getting involved in some flame wars doesn't cut it.--RDBury (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No reason to leave nonsense like this sitting around. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Jones (wrestler)[edit]

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

Hoax, perhaps an amateur wrestler and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE but definitely not a Welsh international footballer Tassedethe (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some schoolkids dicking around -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With zero real references, this article should be a speedy delete.--Lester 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only has he definitely not played for Wales, I also doubt he's played for Whitehaven, Derby or Liverpool. Also, he can't decide whether he's a wrestler, a footballer or a rugby player. (I personally would have sent it to CSD.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy - non admin closure by nominator following comments by the article's creator. This is an incomplete student project. andy (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social dynamics of communication technology[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original research which doesn't even deliver what it promises: the subject is "just beginning to be explored" and "the implications... are enormous". No encyclopaedic value, nothing to merge elsewhere. Fails WP:OR. andy (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is being developed by a group of 13 communication students who are researching and compiling articles on the effects of technology upon social dynamics. I wrote the introduction and added the first links, but over the next 6 days, my students will be adding the rest. If, after the next 6 days, it fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, please feel free to delete it. Thanks! josh 09:03, 6 September 2010 (PST)

This should have been created in user space, then moved to article space when in better shape. Unless you object I'll move it to a page in your user space. andy (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article and added source for initial claim. More to follow soon. 09:13, 6 September 2010 (PST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwmisner (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not think that this person meets the notability requirements. Chzz ► 08:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His article looks a bit lacking, but he's well known within the industry. He has a solid list of works on MobyGames. Developer of a notable title in the history of the video game industry. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems the SC is a notable enough contribution for game legacy even per 1EVENT. I had a book that mentioned SC in a bit of detail; not sure if it mentioned Ford in particular. here's some good info. Although I can't find many more sources. Paul Reiche III is more notable. If it comes to deleting, then definitely Merge to SC. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – His credits and roles listed look good enough to me. –MuZemike 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm fine with it, but it needs to be expanded. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 00:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Canon Playaz[edit]

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

Canadian band. The references used in the article do establish notability -- that is, the notability of one of the band's members as a professional skier and not as a singer. Otherwise, the article would be a clear A7 candidate. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band has not yet established notability according to criteria outlined at WP:BAND. Cindamuse (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search for sources reveals nothing notable.--Lester 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:GNG. VirtualRevolution (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, spam. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Into Wonderland (2010 book)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements. Cannot find an ISBN. It may be a catalogue for an organization called Truffle --maclean (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flight of the Conchords songs[edit]

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

An orphan list that doesn't direct. These songs don't have their own pages; the links go to albums and episodes. Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the seven criteria of WP:NOTDIR applies to this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say redirect to the discography, but we don't have one. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing Abu Hasan Al-Ash'ari From The Hands Of The Deviants[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability requirements. Cannot find an ISBN. Cannot find secondary sources reporting on this book. maclean (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails to establish any notability for this book.--Lester 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 11:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would help if the article creator would at least indicate what country and language the book was published in. This would seem to be the author's blog; his profile says he is in New York [10]. Presuming it's an English book then it clearly fails WP:N, the only hits are in Wikipedia mirriors. In case it's an Arabic book, I tried some searches in Worldcat, which should be language-agnostic (if the title or author name is in Arabic, it will find transcriptions) and came up empty [11][12][13][14]. cab (call) 11:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since it's apparently so hard to prove the book even exists. NotARealWord (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its existence can not be verified. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ruyer (Ruyal)[edit]

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

Vanity page about an artist with no indication of notability. I can't find any reference to him anywhere other than this page and phone directory–type pages. —Chowbok ☠ 04:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A part of the article is copypasted from here. The information on his awards and the other recognition (Medusa Aurea XXX etc.) is unverifiable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for artists. The awards are not significant. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While trying to find refs. for this page, I stumbled upon this, which appears to be the subject's own website. The translated version seems a lot like the Wikipedia article. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text on the Wikipedia article is an un copyedited machine translation, possibly not using Google, but something similar, so it's a copyvio of his own site..--Kudpung (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC) BTW: Any reason why it gets AfD exactly 2 years to the day of its creation?[reply]
- Nope, just a coincidence. I hadn't even noticed that.—Chowbok ☠ 06:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tucson Unified School District. JForget 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secrist Middle School[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. These are the Tucson USD articles for deletion. Again, nothing much salvageable.

Also included:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all five to the appropriate school district per usual practice. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kyrene School District. JForget 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akimel a-al[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. No notability, and it's a middle school. (The name is incorrect by some clerical error, I take it, given Kyrene's LONG school names (see #4 at bottom).)

From the same school district:

The New Raymie (t • c) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect all Elementary schools are not notable. No notability shown for middle schools. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect I looked but couldn't find any coverage that wasn't trivial or incidental. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Deer Valley Unified School District. JForget 00:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Valley Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. Earlier AfD was back in 2008...proposed a merge which apparently never happened. Wikipedia precedent treats schools below high school as non-notable. The New Raymie (t • c) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect No notability shown. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Washington Elementary School District. JForget 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cholla Middle School[edit]

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

Split off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. Mostly cruft anyways with little content.

Also included:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect all No notability shown. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gilbert Unified School District. JForget 00:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Junior High School (Gilbert)[edit]

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

Partly a split from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District AfD, partly new. Again, little notability and precedent are the reasons.

Also includes the following:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect all No notability shown. Reywas92^Talk 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Safford Unified School District. JForget 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safford Middle School[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. This block of schools is entirely in the Safford Unified School District: The New Raymie (t • c) 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The middle school may be notable because of the Supreme Court case, but the others certainly are not.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect all Elementary schools are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leon County Schools. JForget 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Elementary School[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. This article has little to stand on in notability – more than some others I'm nominating, but precedent shows it's curtains for most of these articles. The New Raymie (t • c) 03:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Jujutacular ^talk 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erickson Elementary School[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. This article has little to stand on in notability, especially when the town appears to be so small that it isn't on Wiki quite yet. Repeat after me, class: primary schools are not notable. The New Raymie (t • c) 03:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Per Standard Procedure for elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 8 Kootenay Lake. PK T(alk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I support the mentioned actions above for all the same reasons: non-notability of primary schools, the article's own lack of substance, and the existence of an article that already encompasses the school with more substantial context and notability. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Normally, I should not close AFDs with only one non-nom vote but usually elementary schools are not notable and the article clearly demonstrates its non-notability JForget 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Elementary School[edit]

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

Split from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in the Peoria Unified School District. This article has little to stand on in notability except the expand-section tags that comprise much of it! The New Raymie (t • c) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no argument for deletion aside from nom JForget 00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrilite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nutrilite

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

Notability of the subject is questionable and not satisfactorily proven. Nomination for deletion and debate are now appropriate. Merge with Amway Global is proposed as a secondary option (previously approved via discussion). Xaliqen (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore mistaken 2nd nomination description. There is only one nomination for deletion so far. The 2nd nomination is due to my own mistake using Twinkle for automated AfD. I apologise for any undue confusion/inconvenience. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the error, duplicate deleted, and this one moved to correct name, and afd link in article fixed. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very good article, but this product has been on the market for almost eighty years and seems notable for that reason alone. Figureofnine (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is the length of time a product has been on the market a criterion for notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think eighty year's longevity is so rare that yes, it is a notable product. It may not be in the notability criteria, but it is common sense in my opinion. However, I cannot vouch for that longevity claim, as I have no personal familiarity with this product, and am just accepting that assertion on good faith. Figureofnine (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but we really need reliable sources to back up any claims including the longevity of the product, and I do think it's important that longevity of production is not a criterion as far as I know for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick Google News search and found lots of old stuff, including this from 1951: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1EFF39591A7B93C0AB178ED85F458585F9 And then there's this: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0714FB3B5F177A93C2AA178ED85F448585F9 In addition to these subscription articles, there are plenty of free sources in the Google News archive. Seems that an article on this product may not be exactly promotional. I've added a section based on the second link. This was a Supreme Court case. Really no doubt about this product's notability. Figureofnine (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of notable third-party sources seems to be the primary issue identified by editors, myself included. Since Nutrilite is not an independent company, but a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amway, Nutrilite is currently more of a brand for Amway corp. As a brand, the question of notability seems even more important. Maintaining separate articles for widely-known brands (such as Honda's Acura or Toyota's Lexus) seems appropriate. Including articles for lesser-known brands (such as Malt-O-Meal's Mom's Best Naturals or Hansen Natural's Ace Energy Drink) seems questionable when a strong case for independent notability is not established. While the longevity of the product-line adds weight to the notability argument, there is still a question as to whether the relevant material might work better merged into Amway's primary articles. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the longevity of the product. (By the way, I finished changing over the AfD.) Raymie (t • c) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is suitable coverage to establish notability. Its history of exaggerated claims in the 1950s is more than enough for establishing notability.[15] Its position in the early phase of multi-level marketing is of note.[16] It has a checkered history not reflected in the article; the discussion page has an good outline for expansion. If any tags should be placed, they should be for expansion, not lack of notability.Novangelis (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your comment. Yes, there are plenty of old and uncomplimentary articles dating back decades and readily available. Figureofnine (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g4, nothing new since last AFD deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakur Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not satisfy WP:N; all sources I've been able to find are self-published or make only a passing reference. me_and 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not indicate notability. A Google search turns up nothing relevant. Oh, and by the way, a similar article has apparently been deleted through AfD before, which should qualify for a speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SpaceX. already merge some content but feel free to trim it - actually it might have be trimmed JForget 00:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon X[edit]

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

This article (and its sister article Falcon XX) were added to Wikipedia in the immediate aftermath of a space propulsion conference last month (August) where a SpaceX employee gave a powerpoint presentation with various conceptual ideas for future heavy-launch system configurations, based on a conceptual new engine. Internet buzz and formal media, including the mainstream space media, picked up the story and ran with it. Per the Talk page, the CEO of SpaceX quickly emphasized that "the SpaceX heavy lift slides shown at the recent propulsion conference are just rough concepts and not part of any grand long term plan." Even Aviation Week published a story with the claims corrected: Musk Clarifies SpaceX Position on Exploration showing that Musk and SpaceX currently have no formal plans for either a Falcon X or Falcon XX, and that both rockets are mere concepts.

I don't believe Wikipedia should have an article on what is now a purely speculative future heavy-lift rocket. Perhaps a section within the SpaceX main article is more appropriate. N2e (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SpaceX ; this has gotten press, so is a valid search term for the company, and so should have a section in the company article. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, while I believe a Delete would be an acceptable outcome, for the reasons articulated above, I would have no problem supporting a Merge of the well-sourced portion of the info in this article into the SpaceX article. N2e (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Space X (Falcon XX was decided to be merged already) into some section of "design concepts" or similar (to be distinguished from actual projects under development) Alinor (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SpaceX just as I said (and was the eventual outcome) for Falcon XX. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No arguments for delete after User:Fattyjwoods followed through with "boy does this need a rewrite" and added sourced content. Mandsford 20:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BDR Thermea[edit]

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

I originally speedy tagged this as spam but an admin removed the tag (the original editor didn't weigh in with a "hangon" template as is normal - an external admin decided to create more work here by proactively removing the speedy tag). Anyway, absolutely no attempt to establish notability. Article is a single line saying "hey, we exist." Original posting didn't even spell "dosmetic" correctly. In my opinion, if the original editor was going to expand this, the "hangon" tag would have been fine. But admin action means we all have to go the extra mile and do an AfD on this. Quartermaster (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ As the admin said, this page is not unambiguously promotional. Research shows that this firm is notable enough with quite a large amount of sources available. But boy does this need a rewrite if this article is to stay. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem understanding keeping this on procedural grounds. I've had occasions where a speedy tag or an AfD has nudged an editor (or other editors) into expending some effort to save an article (which I think is the point of doing both of those things). I've expended effort on my own to save articles. However, in lieu of no improvement, I'd rather see these sort of things nipped in the bud. I think lots of editors let procedure get in the way of doing the obvious. I don't lose sleep over these things surviving, but the cumulative effect over many years is lots of dross in the wikipedia-sphere. Also, in my opinion, a single line article proclaiming the existence of ~~an article~~ a company is unambiguously promotional. In lieu of any justification, what else can it be? It's a Billboard. A sign on the side of the highway. Living in Missouri I'm probably over-sensitized to highway sign noise. --Quartermaster (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact after some in-depth researching I found heaps of good reliable sources for this article, and have added it in. All it needs is some work. So Keep. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable company, cited accordingly. Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note: I was the admin who declined the speedy yesterday. A merger of a notable company is a good indicator of possible notability (which is why I didn't just delete it under A7). I'm glad somebody else found the time to dig up references (kudos to Fattyjwoods). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:COMPANY. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable company. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G3 Jmlk 1 7 07:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Smith (Man, Warrior, Legend)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dan Smith (Man, Warrior, Legend)

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

No sources found to indicate this movie and the studio exist. Seaching for info on the director yields 1 director, but no connection to this movie was found. Sources point to the movie's own page. Fails GNG & WP:MOVIE. Jarkeld (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Hoax. Dondegroovily (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quantum Link. JForget 00:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Link Reloaded[edit]

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

A dead project that attempted to recreate a formerly popular product. Few sources on the program, which is now offline and no longer being produced nor worked on. Only source is announcing the project, and anything else out there is a few years old and no current mentions anywhere. Jmlk 1 7 00:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quantum Link. This article is unsourced; on the other hand, the subject is mentioned there, and all that really is of encyclopedic merit (if anything, of course) should be there already. (The target could use some improvement though, but that's another story.) --Kinu ^t/_c 07:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rederict: according to Kinu. Dewritech (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cohn[edit]

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

Not notable - holds an obscure local Democratic party office.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is indicated in his RS coverage, and a number of such articles over a number of years are clearly indicated in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting - syntax was broken, so this AfD fell through the cracks. -- Y not? 00:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dude's not the most famous, but enough third party cites over the years tip me to saying "keep" with Epeefleche. --Quartermaster (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of very local pieces of coverage about very much a local politician does not make for "significant coverage". And we have to bear in mind that he fails - by a wide margin - the notability standards that the community has set for persons of his profession.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:POLITICIAN. The subject has obviously received "significant press coverage". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant media coverage, including treatment in "the fifth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States". Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Zarro[edit]

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

This is an assistant professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University. In 1987 he received an Student Academy Award for his student film Bird in a Cage which I have also nominated for Afd. Most of the films listed on the award's wiki article do not have separate articles. Zarro's page is referenced by a Regent University self-edited page and to his faculty page. Most of this page's text is cut and pasted -- an obvious WP:COPYVIO but is full of promotional, unconfirmable claims (before I removed them from the original): 300 films, shown in Hollywood, Cannes, HBO, etc. His short IMDB page] supports none of this -- only his student film, a couple of bit parts and a possible future short. He claimed that he was reviewed in The New York Times but it is only an entry from the All Movie Guide. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 151.185.60.250 (talk · contribs) is registered to the professor's school. The other editor Wolgan (talk · contribs) has been involved with several Afds. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion is about the Academy Award-winning director.page 24 The discussion about the Academy Award- winning film is elsewhere. That his other films do not (yet) have articles is irrelevent, for if they have the sourcable coverage as does Bird in a Cage,[17] then they might one day have articles themselves. However, and to the point, that he won an Academy Award, even if it was 25 years ago, IS relevent per WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you should be linking to Student Academy Awards, not the obviously massive Academy Awards. How big a deal are these student awards? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The student academy award meets Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African kestrel[edit]

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

Pointless and unneeded. Delete per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Odd_articles —out^offocus 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. All of the species listed are notable, and grouping them in one place by geography can be useful. There is precedent for this approach; see, for example, Old World vulture and New World vulture. --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the vulture examples are more based on taxonomy, not geographic distribution. The fact that there are 4 kestrel species is not taxonomically significant. The word 'kestrel' itself is just a term used for a few birds in the genus Falco, so kestrels as a group don't have very much taxonomic significance either. —out^offocus 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a meaningless subject; the article simply covers a few species that happen to share a common name and occur on the same continent. MelanieN's "precedent" is no such thing; as Focus said, Old and New World vultures are actually real taxonomic groups (the subfamily Aegypiinae and family Cathartidae, respectively); African kestrels are not. I suppose we could redirect the article to kestrel, though. Ucucha 00:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Away Simulation[edit]

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

Contested prod. Information website geared toward the users of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Although the membership rolls are impressive, it seems to gather little media and scholarly attention on its own. Delete ~~with no prejudice against merging to Microsoft Flight Simulator.~~ Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on deletion, but oppose merging content into the MSFS article, as this would place undue emphasis on this website - it is not the biggest online community (other articles exist for the biggest). The MSFS article has historically had a lot of spam links to online communities (very much a case of "I want my favourite website listed"), and increasing this info would encourage that. Halsteadk (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Congratulations (album). Jujutacular ^talk 00:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Dada's Nightmare[edit]

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

Not notable--not a single, doesn't seem to have received more press attention than any other song on the album.Prezbo (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Congratulations (album) - a mention there that the track is an instrumental with an identified Beach Boys influence should suffice. None of the sources confirm that it was inspired by Lady Gaga, by the way, so the picture seems a little gratuitous.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Congratulations (album) as a likely search term. This is a non-notable album track. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Colonel Warden took the initiative to make improvements, and User:Codehydro followed with substantial addition of content. Mandsford 19:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community management[edit]

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

Unsourced statement of the obvious (community management is management of communities? Never!) that exists primarily as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang promotion of a conference (now removed). Unpromising WP:COI origins but the subject may be savable with a complete rewrite. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't understand this article at all. Pure marketingese BS. Someone needs to make sense of it if they want to keep this article around.Dondegroovily (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICTIONARY. Keep, as the rewritten article does seem encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such irony. I have rewritten the article as suggested by the nomination and our editing policy. Use of the delete function was not required. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and keep or merge if another name exists. This is not an advert from what I can tell. It seems to be a fundamental concept to prevent the tragedy of the commons. Perhaps the article should be merged and redirected to there if it is unable to stand alone, but it seems possible to expand. Indeed, this article describes the type of management of Wikipedia itself, which is managed by the Wikipedia community. The only thing is that it is written in a way that is too narrow since communities are no longer local with the internet. I suspect there may be another term for this but I can't seem to find one. —CodeHydro 13:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was bold and merged and redirected a former orphaned article Common pool problem into here since the subject matter seemed to be related. —CodeHydro 18:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Community management is taught in relevant college classes. Google Book search has hundreds of results, but I didn't bother looking through any of them since common sense alone should keep this article. There are ample government studies on community management, it a key issue in elections, and I honestly can't image that some people have never heard of this concept. Dream Focus 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonably documented article which should be kept. No longer a stub. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per outstanding improvements by the Colonel and Codehydro. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CineMAA Awards. as suggested by MQS. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CineMAA Award for Best Film[edit]

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

Prod removed without rationale; original rationale was that there is no evidence that this article has notability independent of the parent subject, CineMAA Awards. A reference has been added since the prod was removed, but that reference still does not establish this individual award's independent notability. Bundle nomination to follow shortly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion, all for the same reason:[reply]

There are several more related articles with the prod tag still on them; if the prod is removed I will list them here as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all back to CineMAA Awards. No independent coverage shown for stand-alone articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had considered redirecting all of these to the parent subject, but I just don't see them as plausible search terms. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as search terms, they may indeed be quite reasonable to a few billion Indian wikipedians. That presumption should be enough for a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prods on several other related articles have been removed; I am bundling them with this nomination: —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to CineMAA Awards. みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per lack of independent notability. Implausible search terms and should anyone happen to attempt searching for a specific award they will be prompted to the lead article after typing "Cinemaa". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are not Indian, then the terms may seem implausible. But as search terms for a few billion Indian wikipedians, they may indeed be quite reasonable. That presumption should be enough for a redirect after deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; no notability independent of the main article subject; no reason to create a mess of redirects for a stub article that is already a Google Top Ten result for search term 'Cinemaa'. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MQS. Cinemaa itself squeaks by, and redirects are cheap--these search terms aren't that implausible. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no delete !vote outside the nominator. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jazze Pha production discography[edit]

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

unsourced, unsorted list of indiscriminate information. No synthesis, no context To what purpose is this served? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a breakout sub-article of Jazze Pha#Discography, it seems. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes but if its unsourced and this no information about whether any of these productions were a success or not it seems like WP:INDISCRIMINATE for being just a list of information. (which could be merged to Jazze Pha if the community decides this discog is notable). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discography of a notable performer. Discographies are well accepted on Wikipedia. This is too long to merge into ther article on the performer. It does not some cleaning up, though. Dew Kane (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological conundrum[edit]

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

Appears to be a fairly weak attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't see any evidence (from searching) that this is a real topic; the foundation seems to be just a single chapter from the 200-page 1915 "handbook of conundrums" [18]. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: From what I see in Google and Google Books, it does appear to be a real topic with the phrase turning up as early as the 1850s. That said, the article as it stands is little more than a dictionary definition and a handful of semi-random examples. However, that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't see it. I think this just a two-word combination that occurs occasionally, not really a concept. If you see real uses that are good examples, please provide a quote. Besides which, IMO the current version is such a poor basis for an article on this topic (if it is a real topic), that it's better to delete it. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The full text of the Ordway book is available online (the relevant chapter begins here). ^Bongo_matic 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That two words occasionally occur together does not mean that they form an encyclopedic topic. The Ordway book isn't especially useful for our purposes either. Ucucha 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets WP:N and per Dravecky. Appears to be a retaliatory nom by an admin who has been in an ongoing war with an alleged alter account of the creator. Minor4th 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. I fail to see how cleaning up after banned users by AFD-nominating questionable articles (for community to judge inclusion or not) is retaliatory; besides the underlying presumption that the banned user ever injured me being erroneous. (I mean, he accused me of all manner of things, but in his case, that just proved I was an admin.) Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not establish that the topic is notable. Seems to just be two words that sometimes happen together. We might as well have an article on "American stupidity." Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uh, you realize that American stupidity was created (as a redirect) in December 2008, right? - Dravecky (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that there's a coherent topic here. Deor (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Pyramid of Puñay[edit]

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

If this pyramid exists, and I have no reason to think that it does (I have done a search), it is clearly not notable. The article itself is clearly promoting and sourced from a tour company offering eco tours [19] - Ecuardor Eco Adventure, and the article was created by Ecuadorecoadvice (talk · contribs) -- Ecuador Eco Advice. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be making some fairly extraordinary claims regarding South American archaeology and because of that, in order for this article to be acceptable we'd have to see some kind of solid reliably sourced backing from mainstream scientific literature to substantiate the somewhat amazing claims being made here. Even if further study substantiates what's being contended; all we can deal with here is the article in its present state; not the idealized way it may look one day when/if supporting evidence eventually appears in a reliable source. Supporting references using information found on a tourism site is not sufficient in this context in my opinion. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs severe de-editorialising: ministers in the Government there seem to take it seriously, and Hoy is a (reasonably) reliable newspaper quoting studies from a credible centre of studies (but not a university). But the article must be able to justify its existence without such heavy reliance on a vested interest. I can however see a potential problem: will we get the sources that give rise to the travel company's claims, or the press releases of the travel company relayed through "Reliable Sources"? I would also suggest a less commercialised title for the article: the feature is not so well known as to have such a stylised sobriquet, so move the article, dropping the "Lost" bit. Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The government interest (which seems tourism driven, but why not) is I presume this [20] which mentions a temple but no pyramid. The centre of studies is a tourism centre, and the main person involved, a lecturer there, seems to be also Regional Director of Tourism. There's no evidence for any involvement by archaeologists. The claim is extraordinary, and needs some very good sources. And no archaeologist would ever dream of saying something was 4657 years old, C14 dating is no where near that exact and an archaeologist claiming such a date would lose credibility. Hoy is just quoting claims, and that isn't enough for an article like this. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Seems to meet the bare req. for notability, even if it is an overhyped site; badly needs re-write. Archaeologists do publish uncalibrated radiocarbon dates such as "4657 BP", so this does not alarm me (although it is normal practice to give standard deviation and calibration, see sec. 3.3.5 of the SAA style guide for more info: http://www.saa.org/StyleGuideText/tabid/985/Default.aspx.)Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment -- three options, per my comments at the article's talk page here. 1)delete as article about the pyramid, since the status/existence of the pyramid is not at all confirmed and apart from the small group @ ESPOCH who are its claimed finders, there appears to be no-one else claiming it. 2)rewrite to be an article on the mountain itself, with the pyramid material relegated to a section on the claims. 3)merge claims into article about the municipality and/or towns, Chunchi. This would require a rewrite also. --cjllw ʘ TALK 16:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The dissertation used as a source is called ""Plan estrategico para el desarrollo turistico del canton chunchi" ("Strategic Plan for Tourism Development of the canton Chunchi") and was, according to this, part of an engineering degree in Ecotourism. I see no evidence that this was for a higher degree, certainly not a PhD. This 2007 article [21] published by the Ministry of Tourism mentions "The majesty of Mt Puñay and Andean temple, " (a temple-shaped ceremonial macaw which I presume means temple shaped like a Macaw) and a " Declaration of Cerro Puñay as Spiritual Heritage of Humanity," "What is certain is that Puñay is a mountain that at the time of the Canaris was a ceremonial center and a privileged site for astronomical observations.". And something about the Advent of the New Age. But no suggestions that this has been seriously studied, no verification for a temple, etc. Something in Chunchi is probably the best thing to do, unless it is possible to find more on the mountain - but I've looked and came up blank with very little. Oh, the Rough Guide to Ecuador says " ruins of Punay, laid out in the shape of a macaw and said to have strange magnetic properties". And anything in Chunchi should make it clear that this is a tourist related claim with no academic backing. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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