< 13 January	15 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Borough of Newham. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essex primary school[edit]

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

Nonnotable primary school. Edison (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Newham as per standard procedure for primary schools. Uncontroversial process, no need for an AfD debate. --Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - creator has been blocked indef for vandalism - probably for creation of inappropriate new pages. --Kudpung (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, preferably with a better description than "middle-sex pupils". It might be that the school only takes pupils from the former country of Middlesex, or only takes pupils who are transgendered or hermaphrodites, but I don't think that's what they meant. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, now my eyes have recovered from probably one of the most badly designed websites I've ever seen. Having said that, this is a huge primary school at 900+ pupils, and so it is possible that it may be possible to write an article on it - this isn't it though. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the consensus is that we do not have articles on primary schools. The target should be the place where it is. 900 pupils makes it a large school, but hardly exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SetupBuilder[edit]

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

Article does not mention any reliable sources hence notability cannot be established. Also note that competitive product's page (InstallAware) has been deleted so for consistency this one should also be removed. Grobelny (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the outcome of a competitor really has much impact here, but regardless, I am unable to find reliable sources or any evidence of notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author or someone can show notability. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from article talk page:

If this article is deleted, then articles on InstallShield, Wise Installer, Innosetup, InstallAnywhere etc. must also be deleted for consistency. All the articles are similar in presentation and content. Daan.Marais (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this article does seem to need more information, Daan.Marais is quite correct. One cannot delete this product without also deleting its competitors. Shparker (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's wrong. All articles on Wikipedia are independent of each other and the fact that one exists doesn't mean that another should. We might not have caught up with the other one, or it might really be different - by our rules. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means to say is that, if we delete this page, then the other pages can/should be deleted by the same arguments. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy

I very much agree with this logic: if InstallAware article was deleted and SetupBuilder article is deleted then further proposals for deletion should follow and be decided on case by case basis. Note that this argument may be used both ways: "InstallAware was deleted so we should delete SetupBuilder" or "InstallShield exists so we should keep SetupBuilder". Therefore as pointed out by others it is not an argument on its own. Grobelny (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't cite any independent sources that would verify this product's notability, and I wasn't able to find any appropriate sources to add with my own search. The existence or nonexistence of other articles is not relevant to this discussion; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a relevant link. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Recently the article got a few new links so please speak up if you have changed your mind on notability of SetupBuilder. 151.193.120.15 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Holding a US Patent would seem to cover the notability and independence aspect --StamosD (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — StamosD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anyone can file a patent for a few thousand dollars. A patent does not indicate the subject is notable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Same goes for anything else filed with the USPTO. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to me that it is a trademark, not a patent. Grobelny (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per overwhelming consensus and WP:SNOW - there is agreement that this should be kept. With regards to the proposed move mid-discussion, the argument does not seem to be gaining traction, so I suggest a requested moves procedure to debate that facet, and make no claim either way to the current consensus on such a move. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bouazizi[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username))

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

Recentism. WP:BLP#1E. Damiens.rf 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no doubt. Aa42john (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2010–2011 Tunisian protests. Technically not a BLP (read the article!), but there doesn't seem to be enough to say to justify a separate article. (Unlike, say, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.) Robofish (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mohamed Bouazizi is not a living person, and is obviously not a low-profile individual. jonathan riley (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Robofish. Keep per the proliferation of articles saying he had a pivotal role, whatnot. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge per the fellow who shot the pakistani governow recently. These pages are WP:ONEEVENT and serve no function as independent pages where all content can be mergesd into 1 page with redirect.s(Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Oppose. One commentator has written "In due course, every city of consequence in Tunisia will have a street or square named after Mohamed Bouazizi, the unemployed fruit-seller whose humiliation at the hands of the authorities led to a revolution."[1] That exact prediction may or may not turn out to be true, but I think Bouazizi as the catalyst for the fall of a long-standing dictator has much greater significance than a guy who shot a provincial official in Pakistan. —Sesel (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to the belief that Wikipedia:ONEVENT does not apply here. To quote the guideline:

"The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

It seems that Mohamed Bouazizi has played a significant role in the downfall of a "major political leader", arguably a more significant role than Neda Agha-Soltan did in her event which did not have the same consequences. "Arabs everywhere identified with Mohamed Bouazizi" and he is described as "a symbol" and "a martyr" by sites such as the BBC. He brought down a president ("one of the region's longest-serving autocrats") and his actions are still having an impact on Tunisia and other countries (including Algeria, Jordan). He set himself on fire four weeks ago, hardly the best example of Wikipedia:RECENTISM, i.e. "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view."

There are numerous articles from a period of several weeks which discuss Mohamed Bouazizi's role and which refer to him in their headlines. Perhaps these can be used to expand the article and bring it closer to the standard set by Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. The National - "Bouazizi has become a Tunisian protest 'symbol'" and again "With the strike of a match, Mohamed Bouazizi did more than take his own life - he ignited the dormant anger of a generation", Toronto Star - "Suicide protest helped topple Tunisian regime", International Business Times - "The Story of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man who toppled Tunisia", The Guardian - "How a man setting fire to himself sparked an uprising in Tunisia".

Neda Agha-Soltan did none of that. --candle•wicke 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just signed on only for the sake of commenting on this, so please forgive me if I don't format this correctly (and kindly advise me). I was surprised to see that this entry is being considered for deletion. Bouazizi's name came up twice in this BBC article ^[1] so my first move was to look him up in Wikipedia. This man did not just commit suicide in private, this was a public act of protest against police harassment and a government, on a par with the Buddhist monk who self-immolated in Vietnam ^[2]. This triggered nation-wide protests which four weeks later led to the fall of a government that had held power for 23 years. This is no small thing so I believe this gentleman deserves a separate entry. Sunny112358 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny11235813 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Deleting the entry about a person who has contributed as an important catalyst to the events currently happening in Tunisia would be a subjective minimization of his role in the current revolution. By this standard, the Wikipedia article on another self-immolating protester, Vietnam's Thích Quảng Đức, should be merged with the articles concerning the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngô Đình Diệm administration. As someone else stated above, Bouazizi is the catalyst for the fall of a long-standing dictatorship and this will have great significance in the future for the entire Arab world, and not solely Tunisia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.25 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone please stop saying "oppose" in these AfDs; it's confusing. Say either "keep" or "delete". Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This person literary changed history. If you are watching al-Jazeera now (the most widely watched Arab TV channel), you would know what I mean. His name is on every tongue in the Arab World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taleb3elm (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a significant individual by virtue of his actions and their consequences and also one who's anonymity would benefit only repressive elements in the region and the world generally.Paddy.carroll (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You must be kidding. If there was such a thing as speedy deletion of requests for deletion, I think it would apply here. This will become an important article about an individual who made history. Joriki (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he played a significant role in a significant event. KeptSouth (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man's actions have played a huge part in shaping a country. He is more worthy than a huge percentage of people who have articles here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a world-wide resource and on that scale he is very important, even if Americans think pages on Star trek are more important. Maybe the article needs improvement, but that is a horrible reason for deleting or merging. As we move more than a few weeks before the world had heard of him, obviously the page will improve. Nmpls (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12198039 - mentioned by name in a major news source 129.11.77.198 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep- indeed recent, but on the other hand, this guy's suicide is universally acknowledged to have literally started a revolution. He merits an encyclopedia article without a doubt. I started the article, but only after the revolt was successful and Ben Ali was toppled, making the chain of events started by Bouazizi historically significant. jackbrown (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is Notable. Kaaveh (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I specifically searched for Mohamed Bouazizi in order to find out more about him as I'm sure many others have done, his notability is undeniable. Furthermore, search for his name and you get 220,000 results on Google, he deserves an entry is his own right. His death may have triggered the protests in Tunisia but it was a separate event entirely and deserves to be treated as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.109.146 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable, his suicide triggered the Jasmine Revolution. Look also at the number of media organizations mentioning him and detailing his story. He can be also seen as the symbol of frustration of many Arab youth. In addition, it is most likely that many streets and other public places will be named after him as mentioned above. Bestofmed™⟨msg↵⟩ 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based simply on the lack of arguments for deletion. --Halfhaggis (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination makes no sense and the subject's notability is significant. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This death has clearly been highly significant to those who've struggled against that government. Whether he'll be seen to be as notable as Thích Quảng Đức remains to be clarified; for the moment this article remains a logical, timely point of reference for a potentially large audience. Twang (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.8.150 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - You would only have to create the article again as a generation asks 'who is this Mohamed Bouazizi who triggered a revolution?'. Like many I came here to learn more about him, his family and background.
Keep - True, this person is notable for a single event. But this single event is a really big deal. Bouazizi's only 'crime' is not being an American, and thus less access to information about him is available (compare for example to Jared Lee Loughner). --Fjmustak (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Neda Soltani, this is a key event within a political process (a revolution). Yug (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to close this discussion and remove the notice as per WP:SNOW. (Note that this is different from WP:SK, which I think doesn't apply.) There's hasn't been a single comment favouring deletion, but dozens for keep (all except one for merge); there's obviously a strong consensus; none of the keep arguments have been countered; no delete arguments have been brought forward, so I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of the deletion proposal being accepted. We should take into account that this article is probably getting large numbers of views, and the first thing people see is a large notice saying the article is being considered for deletion, and a lot of them are probably going "WTF?!"; they're getting a wrong impression since in fact there's a strong consensus against deletion. Joriki (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a further argument for closing this ASAP, take a look at the talk page, where people are worried/incredulous about the deletion notice. Joriki (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] although thats not a reason to keep.Lihaas (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep made the frontpage of CNN website on Sunday Jan 16 "How a fruit seller caused revolution in Tunisia". Also present on numerous newspapers all over the world. There is absolutely no doubt that many streets will be named after him. Moez ^talk 15:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is even a picture going around that the airport was renamed after him (although it could be photoshopped so I will wait to see the picture in a news article or someone can verify if the image is real before we add this to the wikipedia article).Calaka (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the picture, it is clearly a photoshop :) Moreover, it is materially impossible to change the airport name while the rumbles of the revolution have not settled Moez ^talk 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the info! I was a bit unsure about it hehe. Would be interesting to see what they do later down the track.Calaka (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)A[reply]

Move (merge, if the article is ever created) to Self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, per Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.VR _talk 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; how is this not notable? This person, indeed, is notable for a single event, but as are Jared Lee Loughner and Soghomon Tehlirian, and their articles are not consolidated into their respective events' articles. Bouazizi was instrumental in the fall of the ben Ali regime. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 17:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as I would keep the articles on Thích_Quảng_Đức and Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan, if either of them were proposed for deletion. --Leigh (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close the friggin' discussion already, I am so sick of every WP article about a current event being tagged with a spurious deletion notice. TiC (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "Death of Mohamed Bouazizi". Cs32en Talk to me 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Bouazizi, due to his lower-class background, motivation and legacy needing some explanation, requires an article separate from his act. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 11:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a perfect accomodagtion to move the page as reccomended.(Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep I feel like we have the same AFD discussions over and over.--Banana (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of other people known only for that one (unfortunate) action and this one certainly notable. See Category:Self-immolations. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move, probably to Death of Mohamed Bouazizi. I do think it's a close call, but if it's his death that is being used as a rallying cry in the Tunisian protests, and he was not previously notable, it seems to me that the proper subject of the article is his death. I struggle with this a little, because I have supported a separate article for Jared Loughner. I do think there is a difference, but not a huge one -- just enough to produce a different result, it seems. Neutron (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep ^walk victor falk^talk 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Persuasive argument to keep on the basis that the subject played a critical role in a particular event of geopolitical importance; the Gavrilo Princip example is persuasive. Johnleemk | Talk 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course we should keepm it. He is every bit as important to the events as Jan Palach was to the Prague Spring. Ringbark (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Alice Herz, at age 82. A bit strange she is so unknown compared to Norman Morrison. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article provided useful background information not available in the "protests" article, although it needs professional editing. Dtaw2001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced and extremely notable.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:candlewicke. Really, these AfD noms on every page about something that has happened recently does damage to Wikipedia's reputation. The nom should have waited a couple of weeks for reliable info before nominating this article for merging. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep, but move to Death of Mohamed Bouazizi, based on past precedent. Let us be perfectly clear, BLP does not apply, as the man is most sincerely dead. Such "Death of NN" articles have been kept in the past, when the death of person involved has historical impact. This has been true even if, or in some cases because, the person was non-notable during life. There is a category for "Death of NN" articles, Category:Deaths by person, and such have even gotten top billing as FAs or GAs. There is no question that his death has set off the revolution in Tunisa, see Financial Times. In this particular case, these is no shadow of a doubt that this one man's death has resonated throughout the Arab world, see two stories on PBS. The act of self-immolation has already spread through North Africa, see CNN. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar cravings[edit]

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

Unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion. Damiens.rf 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see the footnotes at the bottom of the page? How is this "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"User:AnthonyArger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Arger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, understand that Wikipedia may not be the most appropriate place for you to promote your stuffs. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to answer the question and demonstrate how exactly the article is an "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"? Or are you going to continue to make ad hominem attacks and waste my time? Very important lifechanging information is being conveyed to the world here - who are you, and why do you have such an interest in stopping it from being conveyed? User:AnthonyArger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.155.43 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Now, now, children!" is what I once said to a CEO and a school teacher at a committee meeting I was chairing. Not that I am going to say it here.... (It was effective, though. They stopped hating each other and hated me instead - and we got a lot of work done.) As to the article, as it stands it is somewhat unencyclopaedic in Wikipedia terms. I am also worried about the as yet unwritten bits, whose headings give distinct impressions of Original Research or possible promotion of something (which need not be commercial - ideas can be promoted too, but not here) yet to emerge. (Don't think that sentence would translate well by machine. Don't care, either.) "How To Stop Sugar Cravings: Key Lessons" (my quotes - although there are plenty to spare in the article) is a little bit in contravention of WP:NOTHOWTO before it even gets written. I get the feeling that sugar cravings do exist - or is it low sugar levels? I've had to deal with those and mostly in non-diabetics to boot. However, the PubMed references do indicate that there are researches going on into this area. It cannot totally be dismissed as OR - well, in Wikipedia terms. It is original research by the researchers, but it is published research by the definition here. The article does look as though it is a flier promoting some sort of fruitloopery. (Fruitloopery is used here in the sense found in the 'Feedback' column in 'New Scientist' et al.) It probably isn't, but surface impressions are important. Sorry to ramble a bit - had a hard day and not feeling organised. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author blanked the page, so that might qualify the article for speedy deletion. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there's some confusing reverts going on in the article. First, the author (and only substantial editor) blanked it. Then, another user rightfully G7ed it, but then s/he suddenly reverted back to a version before the blanking, after which the author blanked it again. It seems to make the most sense to go to that version and then G7 it again, which is what I did. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amelie[edit]

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

Unsourced bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very notable person in Scandinavia. The political debate is currently ongoing, and the case has received an enormous amount of attention in Norwegian media. The article contains several references that verify the information, and references to printed material covering the case will be added to the article later. At any rate, the person is a published writer of a best-selling book in Norway and the later developments in her deportation case should fall under the label of "significant events where the individual's role is substantial and well-documented." --Daofeishi (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Daofeishi - Maria Amelie has made a massive impact on the Norwegian public debate on the rights of undocumented immigrants, with her best-selling book (published last September) and opinion pieces and essays, and the fact that she managed to get a Master's degree while she was not in the country legally. Her recent arrest sparked a public outrage. Every major newspaper is covering this. I think we might be looking at a significant policy change in Norway. Mirithing (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about policy change, but when there's demonstrations of a noticeable size in all the major cities just a day after her arrest (considering the short timeframe that the arrangers had the size was impressive on an norwegian scale) and the outcry from political leaders and other public people all over Norway it might have a big enough impact to influence the upcoming election... Luredreier (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that after the financial crises the number of norwegian news in english sources have gone down a little so it's not as easy to show how really important this is/might be. But would it qualify if we found an article about her in all the norwegian news in english websites? I honestly think that we can do that without any problem. (and I haven't checked if that's true but I'd be really surprised if it wasn't) Luredreier (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I know about at least one russian language news article about her if that would help... (from a russian newspaper or something) Luredreier (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I suggest that we wait a couple of weeks to see if this blows over before deciding on any deletion. If it's still going strong then there shouldn't be any doubt about it's importance I guess... Luredreier (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about as notable as people get. Was clearly notable before the last days' events, but is currently on the top of nearly ever newspaper, and has resulted in a nation-wide debate about immigration policies. Searching for instance in the Aftenposten archives gives 36 news hits from the last few days. There have been massive demonstrations in five cities in support of her. Even independent of the last days events, she is clearly notable, and the issue does not fall within WP:NOTNEWS. Atekst (a closed search engine for most Norwegian newspapers, online and page) gives 148 hits for her before the recent incident, most of which are feature articles, interviews and similar (many of which by themselves are sufficient for notability). She was also voted "Norwegian of the Year 2010", which created large-scale media coverage. Article is fully referenced and meets BLP criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was nominated for deletion shortly after creation and before references were added, but now has several. It needs to talk about her book in the article text and not just the infobox, and reference its importance, but clearly her notability is not just a brief news story but rather the news story has arisen because she is a well-known writer. Therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, but the article needs to have that background in it. There may be a misunderstanding about foreign-language sources; they are fine for establishing notability as well as for supporting points, but translations should be provided where necessary. I encourage those with a good overview of the Norwegian press coverage of her career to add sources even if they are not in English. Someone's notability is not affected by the fact Aftenposten has discontinued its English-language service. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable, referenced as such. __meco (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Several improvements have been made to make it acceptable and to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case seems politically delicate, and is also about an important current event Øyvind Teig (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arsenikk- --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per above keeps -- clearly notable/well referenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable. The article, while initially lacking in references, is well sourced. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work) 14:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep National cause in Norway: [3]. ^walk victor falk^talk 09:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. 77.40.157.115 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ogirko[edit]

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

appears to be one of an army of vanity entries, which this Ukranian professor has created about himself in many language editions of wikipedia and wikiquote, Many of these articles feature "Огірко Ігор Васильович" as main author, see here for his contributions to all wikis: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=%D0%9E%D0%B3%D1%96%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D0%86%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80+%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&lang=

Independent attestations of his notability are missing. Johannes Rohr (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP of dubious veracity. The above named contributor created an article on the same person at Wikiquote that reeked of bogosity until it was purged of falsehoods.[4]. Whether this was a case of naive hagiography, delusional vanity, or outright hoax, we cannot have a biography of a living person without reliable sources if it is edited by someone who spreads transparent disinformation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparently failing WP:PROF. There are very few Google scholar hits, and nothing in the article that indicates passing this criterion either. Nothing much on Google either. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for reasons articulated in the nomination. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasantrao Arjun Naik[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support text. Nothing found to support the award given. Nothing in The Hindu or Times of India. no mention of him at the Konkan Railway website Plad2 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The google hits for "Vasantrao Naik" are for a different person.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources of the subject. Vasantrao Naik is notable, Vasantrao Arjun Naik not so much. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unreferenced BLP from Jan 2009. Unable to find any sources, even passing mentions. --Vassyana (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am unable to find sources to verify, nevermind establish the notability of this putative living person. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rahoul Daswani[edit]

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

No reliable sources indicating notability for this filmmaker, at this time. His film's acceptance into the little known Syracuse International Film Festival does not confer notability. (In fact, a quick look at the festival's own article reveals it to be highly problematic, in its own right). Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells strongly like an autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Auto bio or a "not there yet" film maker.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Inheritance of Light: Jehangir Sabavala[edit]

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

Less a documentary than a sponsored film, it seems to me, the nominated article has social networking site and video sharing hits, but my Google searches for combinations of the film title and subject reveal no WP:RS. One Times of India hit appears in the Google results because of a YouTube link, not secondary coverage. Despite being proclaimed as a "globally renowned artist," there is no article on Jehangir Sabavala to redirect to at this time, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Looks like an article on Jehangir Sabavala is worth considering, as he himself apears to meet WP:GNG (even if not "globally"),[5] and a mention of the documentary can be included therein. But as it's always difficult for ducumentaries to show notability when pitted against their mainstream big-budget brethren, let it get coverage and critical comentary before considering a return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sabavala seems notable as an artist, but this film isn't.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Article had already been deleted with db-web when this AfD was raised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collegerecruiter.com[edit]

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

Non-notable online job hunting site. Only assertion of notability is that the site has won several Weddle awards. Google news lists a few mentions; none appear to be substantial. Article created by User:Adguide, who appears to represent the site's owner. Zachlipton (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs); rationale was "‎G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: G3: Blatant hoax." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arcanni[edit]

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

Unsourced article on what are apparently characters of a computer game )as http://rtw.heavengames.com/rtw/info/units/rome) seems to suggest. There is another source http://thearcani.com/content/squads.html which seems to be some kind of fantasy role-playing club. Unfortunately no reliable sources seem to prove that these "arcani" every actually existed in ancient Rome Travelbird (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Skier Dude, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion Island: An Overview[edit]

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

Low-budget documentary uploaded to video sharing sites that meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:FILMNOT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In attempting to arrive at consensus, I ask that the closing admin take into account that this AfD was removed from the Film deletion sorting page for several days by a suspected sock of the article creator and/or COI subject. Please allow sufficient time for discussion before closing. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requested by author per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaienhakuto, see [6]. I thus tagged the article with ((db-author)) per G7 JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing so, Joe. Yes, when confronted with the facts, the sock sort of owned up. Though he still had the gall to deny he'd done anything wrong, when the diffs provided at his SPI show a history of deceptive editing, rather pathetically trying to hide his tracks by calling his AfD removal and maintenance tag blanking "bug fixes." Some bug; some fix. These multiple accounts were created for a reason, and that reason was to WP:OWN the article and block its deletion, period. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close AFD as rendered moot due to it already being deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I did find the deleted article in a google cache.[7] And while 8 minute independent documentaries are rarely able to show Wikipedia notability, I will note with sadness that the puppets only hurt themselves, as a very decent review by Film Threat[8] just popped up on the radar. And if more such pop up, this article, might well merit an article in the near future. So puppets, please take heed and stay away. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters#Team Bullet Train (Team Shinkansen). –MuZemike 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Run[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_characters#Team_Bullet_Train_.28Team_Shinkansen.29, the anime series this character originates from. Mathewignash (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_characters#Team_Bullet_Train_.28Team_Shinkansen.29 per MathewignashDwanyewest (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons Black Kite listed AND the fact that this page covers two (possibly three) entirely unconnected characters named Rapid Run. --Khajidha (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the list of characters, per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers: The Headmasters characters#Decepticons. –MuZemike 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdwolf[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect - This is a character from an anime series. It would best be served to merge him to the character page for that anime, which is List_of_Transformers:_The_Headmasters_characters#Decepticons Mathewignash (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect - For consensus List_of_Transformers:_The_Headmasters_characters#Decepticons Dwanyewest (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Delaney[edit]

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

Self-promotion for non-notable delusional Internet celebrity wannabe. Damiens.rf 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Delusional" seems a bit harsh and not in keeping with our policies about civility and assuming good faith. I would have supported deletion when this originally autobiographical article was first created nearly three years ago. But what has happened since then? Notability, that's what. In depth coverage in the Los Angeles Times. An interview on the CBS Evening News. Coverage in the New York Daily News and USA Weekend (circulation 22.6 million). Writeups in Hollywood trade publications like the Hollywood Reporter and Tubefilter, which is one of the most professional sites covering web media. Just what do terms like "delusional" and "wannabe" mean in this context? Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not sound objective, and that detracts from his or her credibility and led me to check out the article. I think there's sufficient coverage in RSs now for notability. KeptSouth (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While there is considerable COI and soapbox issues, the article has been spruced up with several reliable sources and is verifiable. I would look at the IP address that recently tweaked the article and possibly block the editor from editing the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. However, the article will need editing to change focus from VendrTV and back to the subject himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above keeps. Notable coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real, actual notability of this subject seems quite week, but the third party coverage somehow still exists. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources establish that the concept of "exploding animals" has any notability in its own right; instead, this is a mish-mash of a variety of news reports which have been unified under one topic only because Wikipedians said so. The history shows that a lot of other "Exploding..." articles were redirected here; I don't see how putting a bunch of garbage all in one place makes it any more notable than before. Most individual incidents violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST. *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some of this might be individually notable, but not as a subject area. If there were a general cause, that would be notable. If there were a technical name for "exploding animal" where all the instances had a common cause or theme, that might be notable. It's kind of too bad though, this is useful... uh... kind of. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a collection of various things. In some cases there was no explosion, in others something else besides the animal exploded. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference to WP:SYNTH is badly wrong: it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources but here there is no original conclusion here. There is no original research. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST would be appropriate if we were discussing articles of each episode, but they do not refer to article content. In fact it was exactly for these reasons that several articles were merged into this one. Actually, unifying sources content under a common denominator because Wikipedians say so is exactly our job in making an encyclopedia; that the nom thinks it's "garbage" only means he doesn't like it, but well, this has never been a good reason to delete stuff. It could be renamed as List of exploding animals however, but this is an editorial decision. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I concur with Cyclopia, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than original research or synthesis. The fact that prior deletion requests resulted in a speedy keep the last two times this was proposed should have clued in the nominator. -- Marcika (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jaque Hammer. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~: I don't see a WP:SYNTH issue here. The introduction and content makes clear there are a variety of causes/sources and there is a common thread. The article does need improvements so it wouldn't be an incredible loss but the preferable solution would be to improve the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Normally multiple nominations for deletions occur because the same issue is recurring and there is no clear consensus. Now that I look at the history, this article survives the 2nd nomination for having original research, the 3rd nomination is non-constructive and involves merging articles and this one is sythesizing because too many articles were merged? I've never thought an article was being persecuted before, but this is looking a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per the previous 2 deletion attempts, which are unanimous apart from the nom. Occuli (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cfd: Category:Exploding animals, has also been nominated for deletion by another editor. If you would like to participate in that separate discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article seems to establish three different kinds of explosion (1) due to the build up of gas from decomposition after death (2) due to humans attaching and detonating explosives (3) a species of ant which can detonate itself. Additionally there are insects which can release a jet of chemicals explosively as a defence mechanism without harming themselves. While the various cases are disparate, there is no justification for deleting an omnibus article covering them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inherently encyclopedic. Good use of WP:RS secondary sources that satisfy WP:V. The article could be expanded greatly, to include discussion from a wealth of additional secondary sources that deal primarily with the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me and shows promise for expansion. The title however seems a little sensational to me. Perhaps a rename is in order? --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers a wide range of things, but it does so well and in a unifying way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pointy nomination, user has been reported for being disruptive. Speedy close.. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H-58 (Michigan county highway)[edit]

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nominator is trying to make a point by nominating for deletion. –Fredddie ™ 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. Gamweb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an article for deletion that was written by someone who tagged an article you worked on is disruptive to the encyclopedia. –Fredddie ™ 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article is well-referenced and notable. older ≠ wiser 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article is notable due to it being the primary access for a US National Lakeshore, and with its upgrades from the state of Michigan, it is a primary connector between Munising and Grand Marais. –User:riehlj —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—The Alger County Road Commission recently completed paving this road. That paving was funded by the National Park Service, and literally took an Act of Congress to complete. (The NPS was required to build its own access road to the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore when the park was created in the 1960s. No such road was even built, and Congress amended the legislation creating the park to allow the NPS to fund reconstruction efforts by the ACRC.) This county road is it as part of the Michigan County-Designated Highway System, a system of primary county roads that acts as a secondary highway system in the state, albeit under county maintenance. CDHs carry the same designation across county lines, and those designations are assigned, not by the counties, but by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. Gamweb (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what YOUR point is, but perhaps you should follow your comments, please. I am tempted to close this now as a snow close. I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Dusti^*poke* 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging 3 articles (CR 492, H-58, H-63) worked on or created by one editor (Imzadi1979) when asked to comment on 3 AfDs (CR 509, CR 511, CR 516) that were opened by that same editor (Imzadi1979) is disruptive. and WP:POINTy. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced CTJF83 chat 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H-63 (Michigan county highway)[edit]

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nominator is trying to make a point by nominating for deletion. –Fredddie ™ 19:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. Gamweb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an article for deletion that was written by someone who tagged an article you worked on is disruptive to the encyclopedia. –Fredddie ™ 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Perfectly fine, moderately well-referenced article. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—This county road predates the Michigan Highway System as the Sault - Green Bay Trail, a native American Trail linking Green Bay, Wisconsin with Sault Ste. Marie Michigan. Later it was a part of the Mackinac Trail, a name it still carries in addition to the current CDH designation. When it was part of the state trunkline highway system, it was paved as part of US 2. Now is it as part of the Michigan County-Designated Highway System, a system of primary county roads that acts as a secondary highway system in the state, albeit under county maintenance. CDHs carry the same designation across county lines, and those designations are assigned, not by the counties, but by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. Gamweb (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging 3 articles (CR 492, H-58, H-63) worked on or created by one editor (Imzadi1979) when asked to comment on 3 AfDs (CR 509, CR 511, CR 516) that were opened by that same editor (Imzadi1979) is disruptive. and WP:POINTy. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)[edit]

Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. This article is well-sourced and has historical value. Nominator is trying to make a point by nominating for deletion. –Fredddie ™ 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. Just because an article is well-sourced, does not automatically make it notable and historical. Gamweb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an article for deletion that was written by someone who tagged an article you worked on is disruptive to the encyclopedia. –Fredddie ™ 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Well-referenced and notable. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW—This county road predates the Michigan Highway System as the Marquette–Negaunee Road. When it was part of the state trunkline highway system, the first highway centerline in the United States (and the world) was painted along Dead Man's Curve. The site of this centerline is marked by a county historical marker, and it's eligible for inclusion on the State Register of Historic Sites and the National Register of Historic Places. The nominator of this AfD discussion is likely making a WP:POINT because I have nominated several Florida county roads for deletion or merger. Unlike this road, they do not have any significance outside of their counties, and even that significance is debatable. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what your point is, but perhaps you should Assume Good Faith. You should also note that this AfD discussion does not reference any roads in Florida, or elsewhere. Gamweb (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging 3 articles (CR 492, H-58, H-63) worked on or created by one editor (Imzadi1979) when asked to comment on 3 AfDs (CR 509, CR 511, CR 516) that were opened by that same editor (Imzadi1979) is disruptive. and WP:POINTy. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking into account the single-purpose and sock puppetry activity, there is a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online calculators[edit]

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

This is a mere list of external links - it has no sources independent of the article subject(s) and so does not meet the general notability criteria. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. If it weren't for the charts, I would tag this ((db-empty)). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong do not delete. Google and WolframAlpha are clearly notable in the field of online calculators. Any online calculator that competes with Google or WolframAlpha on the basis of features, must be covered by Wikipedia to provide an unbiased view of the field. This issue is similar to the compelling need for antitrust laws: to prevent one or two large corporations monopolizing a market for a given product or service. If Google and WolframAlpha are notable in the field of online calculators, and nobody disputes that fact, then any product or service that competes with them on features, is by definition also notable in the field. The article attempts to provide that needed balance, by showing how the contenders compare on features. However, the article would benefit from additional details on each tool. Wilomina (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Wilomina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - just a fancy WP:LINKFARM as only the Wolfram Alpha calculator is notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong do not delete.~~ With 190 million searches daily as of 2010, Google by far dominates search. As a reasonable estimate, the Google online calculator is probably queried 10 million plus times daily. WolframAlpha is notable on features alone, and perhaps also on number of daily queries. That makes them both notable, and the field of online calculators notable by extension, but the field is comprised of many more contenders than Google and WolframAlpha. Wikipedia needs to survey the field, and this article does that. Keep the article and improve it. Wilomina (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the field of online calculators notable by extension" — "By mere extension" is not a valid notability argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Online calculators as a field, meet the WP General Notability Guidelines, due to the significant coverage they have received in all forms of reliable and independent media. Frenkky (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you point out some of this coverage? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Partial merge to Comparison of software calculators Linkfarm. As far as I can tell only Google and WolframAlpha are notable here, and we don't need a whole comparison article for the two. Wilomina does not seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep.~~ The Wikipedia notability guidelines for lists of related items state, begin quote: "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." end quote. In other words, the fact that Google and WolframAlpha are notable in the field of online calculators is sufficient to warrant a WP article on that field. However, the other contenders in that field, do not need to rise to the same notability standard as Google and WolframAlpha, and importantly, the guidelines say that the best WP lists include red-linked items, that is, items that do not have WP articles devoted to them. Keep the article and enhance it. Frenkky (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Frenkky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been banned as a sock.[reply]
- The guidelines do require that we show that the concept of an online calculator is notable though. Pointing to 2 examples (one of which (Google Search) is probably too general) is insufficient to prove this. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the "Google Calculator" is available contextually via the Google search box does not change its singular function, which is to "solve" mathematical expressions that involve general arithmetic, roots, powers, logarithms, forward and inverse standard and hyperbolic trigonometric transforms, number base conversion from and to decimal, binary, octal, hexadecimal, and more. "Google Calculator" servers do not "search" for the answer on the World Wide Web. Instead, "Google Calculator" servers perform calculations, after they "understand" (through contextual analysis) the mathematical expression given by the user, and they send the result directly to the user. In other words, the "Google Calculator" is not "Google Search", even though both are accessed via the Google search box. This article deals with the "Google Calculator", not with "Google Search". Conflating the two is misleading. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Google Calculator" is used daily by 10 million or more people, and it is only a single member of the field or concept of "Online Calculators". Prior to the invention of online calculators those same millions of people were using electronic calculators and other tools for the same task. As such, the field constitutes a Paradigm shift in human behavior. That is by definition a notable field, which WP must cover with one or more articles. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Notable" is a term of art jargon word with special meaning on Wikipedia which differs from common usage. As such, supposed paradigm shifts do not "by definition" confer notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The WP General Notability Guidelines state, begin quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.", end quote. The "Google Calculator", WolframAlpha, and the general field of online calculators, meet those criteria due to the significant coverage they have received in all forms of reliable and independent media. In other words, online calculators as a field, meet the WP General Notability Guidelines. That is sufficient reason to keep this article. Frenkky (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The topic is "online calculators" generally, not 2 specific instances thereof; you can't validly generalize to an entire class like that, you need coverage of the class itself, not its instances individually. And where has any significant coverage been pointed out? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly more than a mere linkfarm as has been claimed as there is analytic comparison of the features and differences presented through tabular representation of the data. It usefully complements the companion article, Comparison of software calculators. — O'Dea 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that article has questionable notability itself. So tagged. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much more than a link farm. Article should be groomed, not deleted. Issues with Comparison of software calculators are unique to that article, and should not be conflated with this one. Frenkky (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe this article could be merged into Comparison of software calculators as opposed to delete? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that any of these are notable; linkfarm. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Article complies with WP Notability Criteria. Significant coverage of topic, in reliable sources. A sample follows:
- http://gpl.org/young-adults/homework-help
- http://www.istl.org/03-summer/internet.html
- http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/aerospace.html
- http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster4/part80.html
- http://www.martindalecenter.com/Calculators.html
- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Calculator
- http://www.businessjournalism.org/pages/biz/online_calculators
- http://distancelearn.about.com/od/onlineresources/Online_Resources.htm
- http://mathforum.org/library/resource_types/applets/?keyid=34215985&start_at=301&num_to_see=50 RNBclyde (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)— RNBclyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been banned as a sock.[reply]
  - Comment I didn't say that lists of calculators didn't exist elsewhere. I'm saying that none of the individual calculators listed here meet any kind of notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkfarm which lacks any evidence of encyclopedic notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Database audit[edit]

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

totally non-encyclopedic essay WuhWuzDat 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just needs more work per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gone is year 2005 when a user would write an article with basically no referencing and quit without saying anything, but the article is valid. Agree with colonnel Warden: Unfortunately we'd need some good souls to find the pages of the books the article is claiming to be referenced to. And, probably the reason why this article was forgotten is because no wikiproject was following it. I listed it now, it should be easier for the members of such wikiprojects to start referencing.--Sepastaj (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedic topic. Google books says there is 423 results, but doesn't list any of them, they having some sort of error right now. Not sure who to contact about that, or if they don't already know. If the nominator has a problem with the article, please use its talk page first and discuss it, don't just sent it straight to AFD. No one has posted on the talk page in years. The article has references. Google news search confirms this is a real thing. I see no reason not to keep it. Dream Focus 07:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that Google problem too. The parameter "-publisher:icon" seems to have something to do with it. If you take that away then you see the results. A source such as Auditing information systems seems adequate to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's nothing to do with that parameter. Google has broken one of its long-standing search interfaces. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in its current state, the article is simply a WP:CFORK of Database security combined with a WP:HOWTO manual. An encyclopaedic article on this topic is most probably possible, but the easiest way to create one would be to write it from scratch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hrafn. It may be possible to write an article on this topic, but none of the current article could practically be used in an encyclopedic article. WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWong ^comment 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Snottywood is right that the subject is appropriate for an article, and also right that the present material is not suitable as it is, but I do not see why he concludes that none of it can be used. Unless it proves to be altogether a copyvio, it's at the least a start. If that an article be poorly written should become a criterion for deletion, almost the entire contents of the encyclopedia would be in jeopardy. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, as I stated above, all the current material is either (i) off-topic or (ii) unencyclopaedic howto-manual material. Aggravating this, none of it has inline citation, and all the general references appear to be unreliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it does show some signs of being a copyvio, although I haven't put too much effort into checking just yet... SnottyWong ^gab 01:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A quick search returns only Wikipedia mirrors. It seems to be an essay drafted offline (a class assignment?) and pasted here. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar to Hrafn (although not quite), I see this as too much of a WP:HOWTO. We could support an article on database audit without that, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Poorly written, but appears to be a notable topic.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and significant subject, but the article needs more inline citations and more details. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the article had inline citations in its original, 2005, form. They even had the page numbers of the books in them. Some hamfisted editing since, not recognizing citations for what they are, has largely lost this information from the article. Of course, the problem with the original 2005 form, that Hrafn and others haven't tackled, is the fact that it spent several sections explaining background completely unnecessarily, before getting to the actual subject. The first six sections could have been wiped and replaced with something explaining "What is a database audit?", leaving the final three that actually got around to the topic at hand. We did, and do, have a database article answering the question "What is a database?", after all. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of the hamburger in the United States#Competition. The rough consensus clearly favors some sort of deletion, in which a redirect should suffice given the discussion at hand. –MuZemike 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Wars[edit]

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

Dicdef, stating the obvious. I found no sources except for articles that just used the words "burger wars". One source is NNDB which is not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a waste of an article, as this could have been more than a dictionary definition. The competition for market share between McDonald's and Burger King, and the changing fortunes of other competitors, is notable. The links appear intended to show the existence of the phrase "burger wars". Maybe it's covered somewhere else (to some extent, it is in the articles about the individual franchises). It's like having an article entitled "World War II" and seeing only the sentence, "World War II was a war fought between 1939 and 1945." Mandsford 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how are the new York times and the nation restaurant news not reliable sources? Theses two sources easily meet the standards of reliability and show notability and verifiability. It is a stub with citations. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the sources don't discuss the concept of "burger war" as a whole, just in the context of other things? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I expanded it and added some more citations. The citations explain the situation and directly refer to the competition. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article starts out: "The Burger Wars is a term..." The term "Burger Wars" is not a suitable topic due to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Burger Wars themselves should be covered in hamburger, fast food, and/or McDonald's and Burger King. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I have edited the article and it no longer starts with that phrase. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the hamburger in the United States. We ideally should have coverage of the actual wars somewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Milowent's suggestion. A great idea. KeptSouth (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection doesn't get us that coverage, and this is at least a start to such coverage. Merger, rather than redirection, to a new History of the hamburger in the United States#Competition section would do so, albeit that this would comprise the history of the restaurants rather than the history of the foodstuff.
Jerem43, what you've fallen foul of is the unfortunate and widespread tendency to use slang names as article titles. "Burger Wars" is not the formal name of the subject, and is more slang used in newspaper and magazine headlines. It is a name, but it's not how serious treatments of the subject properly address the subject. This stuff is part of the economic history of fast food restaurants in the U.S., and there are sources discussing how they have competed with one another over the years. In such cases, it's best to point the slang name to a more formally titled article and work under the formal title.
Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a "dicdef" (!?) - it appears that TenPoundHammer is confused in his use of this term and it seems to be a DONTLIKEIT nomination. Mandsford argues delete because the article at present is not good enough. I argue keep because existing references from NY Times and LA Times use the term. How can TenPoundHammer say "I found no sources" - when sources are easily found, i e.g. Gscholar Enacting competitive wars: competitive activity, language games, and market consequences The Academy of Management Review, 2004; or Marketing Mistakes, (10th Ed.). The same book also has a chapter on Cola Wars. Wikipedia also has Browser wars and probably many other notable competitive wars for which sources exist, irrespective of whether somebody like the subject or not, if the article is incomplete or not, or if someone care to look for sources or not. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra Research[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher, sourced to a self-reference. My Google search hasn't come up with any reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intended addendum to Vadim Rogovin and Nadezhda Joffe pages. Latter page mentions this organization but leads to dead link, former page should probably mention this organization, as it is the sole publisher in the author's native language. Recommend merge with another page. Perhaps a single page listing all Trotskyist Publications, but that would seem least favorable. YB1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, not publications, Publishers. Most recommend by far some mention on Rogovin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only in print form as far as I can tell. Once again, it may be best to clip back this article to a sentence or two and place it on the Vadim Rogovin page. For instance, "The sole publisher in Russian of Vadim Rogovin's works is Iskra Research;" with the remaining composition of the edit being fairly irrelevant. I can understand why a whole article may be excessive as it is a very small publisher. Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to deleting this page and sorting out other concerns later, by the way... Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --DonaldDuck (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Chang's The Little Merman[edit]

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

Quite clearly a hoax, literally the only source that comes up on google is a fanfiction. BOVINEBOY2008 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a hoax. Barring some time travelling, this movie having debuted in 2014 is unlikely to have any reliable sources in the present or past covering it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sotis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unsourced article that fails to really show why the subject is notable. The article has a number of issues and has been tagged as needing sources for 3 years Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unsourced and gives no indication how he meets WP:MANOTE. I found a decent number of ghits, but not in reliable sources. I also searched a site of old martial arts magazines without success. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following Papaursa's comments. Janggeom (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. No indication that this has any independent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omelette About to Be Irreparably Crushed by Hands[edit]

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

I created this article last spring as a stub. However, I was a newer editor, and I didn't understand the notability guideline's as well as I do now. I am beginning to have doubts about whether this individual drawing is notable enough for its own article. There are very few, if any sources which could be used to expand it, so it would be highly unlikely for it to ever be anything more than a one-sentence stub. I would like other editors' input on this. Thanks. —focus 04:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Dali is about as notable as an artist can get, but this is literally just a doodle. I couldn't find any sources aside from inclusion in two books cataloguing Dali's work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. There may not be enough information to warrant an article about this drawing, but at least we can redirect the title to the list of the artist's works. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article About to Be Irreparably Redirected per Metropolitan90. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might well be notable, but a one line "article" is rather pointless. Or redirect. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in keeping it, it's one of the only sketches of Dali's we have (maybe the only drawing), I haven't seen any other drawings by Dali on wikipedia. Dali did a few other Omelettes that year, like Omelettes with Dynamic, Mixed Herbs; and Figure - Omelettes; [9] (scroll down) must've been hungry...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC) ~~struck "Keep" as this user has opined "Strong Keep" below. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)~~ redacted comment as user has redacted duplicate !vote —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a sketch. By Dali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.9 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and since nom is also the author. Dali himself is notable, but this particular drawing does not seem to be. YardsGreen (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 (author requesting deletion). As far as I can tell, there is no time limit on speedy deletion, and while this page has been edited by two other editors, none of those edits added or removed substantive content. Absent that, I still say delete as I find no independent notability for this subject. In either case, I have no prejudice against recreating as a redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a notable work by a notable artist and its the only paperwork by Dali on wikipedia. Bottom line - it's notable and valuable to the project. It's a working sketch, and is reproduced in various books on Dali's oeuvre...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the only paperwork by Dali in Wikipedia because I randomly decided to create this article and not one for a different sketch. I think this was listed at WP:RA actually. But that doesn't make it notable. Focus (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about you - you started the stub; you don't own it, - and you don't consequently wish it away...Modernist (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I own it; that's why I took this to AfD in the first place. But the reasons you've provided above don't explain why this drawing, and not any other random drawing, is notable enough for an article. If you could provide even one source which could be used to expand this article (not just a list of his works), that would be a different story. Also, I'll note that you have supported this twice, and so your second 'strong support' is not valid. Focus (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's a documented work by a notable artist and is sourced to books on Dali's work, BTW my support is certainly valid, as is your 2nd non-support here...Modernist (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As someone who works almost only on visual articles, I would be dismayed if any article on a work by a (it kills me to say this as I do not generally like Dali at all) major artist would be deletable. I worry about precedent, not knowing enough to know if a judgement on a single ADF becomes law. For what its worth the drawing is useless. Ceoil 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reasonable way this AFD, no matter how it closes, could be used as a justification for deleting another article on a completely different work of art. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author request. There is literally nothing else to say, and all the "keep"s so far are either WP:LOSE or WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Redirect per building consensus, author can probably be bold and do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí for complete lack of independent content; it just restates the title and identifies the artist and year, as the list does. Another consideration is that the artwork is not in the public domain, so there really isn't even an article here to anchor the nonfree content. A redirect here doesn't have much value, but it's not inconceivable that a valid article could be researched and written about even an obscure drawing of his. I'd support deletion as a second best option over keeping outright. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Biggs[edit]

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

Never played in major leagues, questionable notability; no sources outside of B-R. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league player. Admrboltz (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is actually notable. 2,300+ minor league hits. Fairly weak nominator rationale. Managed for seven seasons, leading two teams to the playoffs. There are at least 184 returns of his name on Google News Archive, which is an impressive feat for anyone from that era, let alone a minor leaguer.Alex (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is was a notable athlete and manager. References demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Sutton[edit]

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

The only significant third party sourcing is an editorial about the subject and his previous criminal record WP:BLP1E Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable triathlon coach for two reasons: has coached high profile professional triathletes, and the sexual abuse case. The case of sexual abuse case itself doesn't make him notable, it only raises his profile because he is considered a top level coach and has committed this type of crime. Here is some 3rd party coverage: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Other "blurbs" about him exist that support article content that he has coached different professional athletes, but are not listed here. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (but...)~~ (see note below --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC) ) Certainly a notable coach, he has coached many World and Olympic champions. Not only that, several of his formaer athletes are themsleves in turn now successful coaches, for example Ben Bright, or Siri Lindley, coach of current world champion Mirinda Carfrae. The article in its present form is of very little value, so I wouldn't be sad to see its demise. It is also a POV-magnet, mostly for Sutton's opponents. This is going to be a tricky one to get right, both because the sex conviction is an emotional subject, and the lack of high-quality sources on basic facts such as his date and place of birth, as well as the interesting earlier phases of his career. Neverthless there are more than enough sources to produce a decent article, but it needs to be done well, or not at all. Given Sutton's importance and significance in the triathlon world, it would be ludicrous not to have an article on him, so I will shortly be starting a sandbox version of an article on him in my user space. Given the difficulties I've mentioned, it may take a week or two to produce an article good enough for mainspace, but it will be done. --NSH001 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it is written does little more than name the subject as a sex offender. Sadly, this sort of offence is common and the subject, as a criminal, is no more notable than tens of thousands of other sex offenders. This is a BLP and as such we need to be sure that sources are of a high quality and that the subject is treated fairly. (Note: fair treatment does not mean whitewashing) Delete without prejudice to a recreation when better sources allow for an article that will avoid issues of WP:UNDUE. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's shocking and sad that he seems to still be working as a coach, but really WP is not a most wanted poster or a milk carton warning people about possible dangers in society. This seems to be the main point of the article. No real information on (or claim to) his importance as a coach. Wolfview (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A different version of this article existed recently until the changes were reverted. Although this version still needed work, there was a little more weight put on his coaching career. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply to comment - it placed a little more weight, but all of that weight was unsupported by any actual citations. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are available for the content on that version. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 22:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's gotten more than enough press coverage for coaching and the sex scandal. The article just needs some expansion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note OK, I've now started a sandbox version of the article at User:NSH001/sandbox. I reckon it covers the sex offences part pretty thoroughly, and in a strictly NPOV manner. It still needs several days' work to expand the triathlon section to give proper weight to that part of the article. Either the article can be kept as it is, and I will paste my version on top of it when I think it's ready for mainspace, or it can be deleted, then I will move my version into mainspace when ready. My preference is for deletion, as I see nothing worth keeping in the current version or its edit history, but I will leave the decision up to the closing admin, and possibly other editors. It might be best to wait a few days to allow consensus to emerge regarding my proposal. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the sexual abuse issue didn't exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a notable coach. References demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a coach is not enough. sources verify this but not indepth. not enough indepth coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After taking into account the single-purpose activity, the consensus clearly favors deletion here. –MuZemike 22:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survival capital[edit]

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

Original research. The original article included a paragraph about the creator of this concept, one Iva Isaković, whose name is similar to the username of this article's creator (Ivaland (talk · contribs)). The concept was apparently created as part of the author's Master's Thesis. No other uses of this terminology can be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like original research to me too. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the term in this context, and I can find nothing on a search for "Iva Isaković" that mentions this work. Of the two sources given, one is a definition of a different term, Social Capital, and the other is a search result that has some hits on the words "survival" and "capital" individually, but not the phrase itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research. The second link has the illusion of an article entitled "SURVIVAL CAPITAL", but turns out to be the results of a search engine-- you can type in anything in the upper right hand corner. Mandsford 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the beginning of the mentioned list and the rest will be considered later.Master work is not testing presence of concept because it is obvious that the concept is very familiar to our years and eyes and used by actors and different promoters of social capital practice. So, master work is not criteria for reality of survival capital but Internet practice including Wikipedia. Master work is trying to denote survival capital as academic notion and candidate for contemporary social theory and I am not selling my vision for best mark. As I understand Wikipedia policy rules, my article has only Wikipedia profile without informations specific for original master work. http://www.earth.org.in/organic-farming.txt There can be no economy without ecology and all ecological losses are erosion of our survival capital on this earth. Polo Group’s Miranda Liu: ‘Innovation Is Our Survival Capital’ http://www.knowledgeatwharton.com.cn/index.cfm?fa=printArticle&articleID=2053&languageid=1 Nikhil adds: Well, it looks like survival capital, and $12 million is significantly higher Than http://www.medianama.com/2010/01/223-sms-gupshup-raises-12million-in-series-d-funding/their previous rounds of funding. William Goldberg & Co For over twenty years, the firm has helped companies with profit improvement, business consulting, expansion or survival capital, and mergers & acquisitions. http://www.business.com/directory/financial_services/investment_banking_and_brokerage/mergers_and_acquisitions_manda/consulting_services/ For those companies that are able, tapping the public markets for equity regardless of whether to raise “survival capital” or dry powder has been made more challenging by the increase in volatility and the sharp decrease in company valuations. http://www.marine-money.com/archive/tag/ethan-ram
- I've just checked those sources. Some of them mention the phrase "survival capital", but not a single one of them defines or describes what it is. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has lots of great information. V RS --Anna O'Leary (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- But can you find any sources to verify that it is a notable concept, as required by WP:N? Just give us a couple - that's all we need -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please ignore the sockpuppet account being used to disrupt multiple AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of use in a reliable source. Google books and scholar come up largely negative. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last year when I started with master work I have found about 200 Internet online locations with Survival Capital topic ,with different degrees of independence of the concept Eg Survival Capital,,,Capital in Surviving ... Capital ....Survive .Six month later I have found 400 Internet locations with same topic and much more articles using Survival Capital as construct.The things are moving so quickly to the fact that Survival Capital is reality of contemporary existential practice and my master work is dedicated to importance of this concept for our civilization .Thanks to people who are not deleting our reality ,who recognize and have a vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaland (talk • contribs)
- Comment If there are 200 - 400 sources, please provide a citation any of them to indicate that this term has actually been the topic of significant coverage. So far, we have only your word for it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But this article is your own synthesis, based on your own research into those sources - and that breaches the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR rules (I have a Masters dissertation of my own that probes what I think is an important and emerging concept, and which got me good marks for original thinking, but it is not notable according to Wikipedia rules). For this article to be considered notable, you need to get your own Masters work published, recognized, and written about by multiple reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don’t believe that this article contains original thesis. First of all in the article there is no mention of master thesis there is only mentioning of internet and academic usage of the term survival capital. Author also provided several web pages which indicate that term survival capital has been around for awhile. I find this article an important and valuable, it provides some new insight in general development of capital in new and modern social order particularly through modern media like the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wukicevic (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Wukicevic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The author has not provided a single web page that in any way defines or describes the concept of "survival capital". Also, "new insight" is not what Wikipedia is for - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only contain information that is already known and notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original form of the article clearly indicated that the concept of "survival capital" discussed in the article was the concept of an author named Iva Isaković who created the concept in his (her?) Master's Thesis. That citation has later been removed, but its presence in the original article indicates that the source of this article is original research. The link farm that has been added to the article really just consists of a bunch of articles that satisfy the term "survival capital". Each link uses the term in a different context with a different meaning, including one that claims that "Wellington will soon overtake Seattle WA as the heart attack survival capital of the world." Surely this is not the meaning that the author has in mind, and the addition of such a link farm merely serves to obfuscate the issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I knew what the article was about from the title. Then I started reading it, and found myself in a mire. I think the article could be reduced to "Survival capital is capital you need in order to survive". With possibly a second sentence, "You must make this capital provision out of your other capital assets". I could be wrong. Words are my business, however. As to references, what is http://radaris.com/p/Jessica/Roar/ there for? It appears to be some form of social networking and doesn't contain the word 'sur' (the box went red when I'd got that far typing in 'survival'). http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2007/Volume26/EB-07Z10012A.pdf seems to be talking about cultural capital. The third random one I picked turned out to be already mentioned above. So I picked a fourth - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900094,00.html and bingo! Well, a brief use of the words in an article about something else. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If Wikipedia is Encyclopedia for informations that are "...already known and notable" than Wikipedia is running after other mass media and Wikipedia is media that did nor recognize presence of concept yet or just hesitate to be the first Encyclopedia to do it.I understand.But Wikipedia has the chance to be the first because of its nature and position-encyclopedia with modern and actual access. Wikipedia, please just type Survival Capital in eg google and you should found 400 or more articles. I know that some of them are not point of this article but are "some" important for deleting this article more than all others? Everybody heard and feel familiar with this notion,even my 10 year old neighbor.Survival Capital is interesting for the whole modern World and process made a notion to be mature for encyclopedia and supported by it. I told before that there are no definitons of Survival Capital and this is the point of my master work which is not important here.But there are descriptions which underline value and function of concept for people and institution using this concept on Internet again and again and again ...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.73 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- "But Wikipedia has the chance to be the first because of its nature and position-encyclopedia with modern and actual access." - Wilkipedia does not want to be the first, because the publishing of original research is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia.
- "Wikipedia, please just type Survival Capital in eg google and you should found 400 or more articles. I know that some of them are not point of this article but are "some" important for deleting this article more than all others?" - Show us one reliable source, then - just one - that defines and describes "Survival capital" in a way that would support this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This article contains only informations about Survival Capital which are known and notable yet and original aspect of notion should be discussed in another form ,hope soon will find a place here,Everything on Wikipedia was original once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.73 (talk • contribs)

Comment I think this IP editor has made their opinion well known in several posts on this page already. However, rather than soliciting the opinions of individuals, we are actually trying to establish whether this article meets the relevant guidelines. No indications have been given by any of the "keep" !voters as to how it does meet guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the "keep" - they've already !voted once. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maldivian honours system[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A search for references found only Wikipedia mirrors. The requirements of WP:V are "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". All indications are that article is the fabrication of a banned user. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one closed as a keep two years ago, based on the old "someone, not I, will improve this" argument. Needless to say, it's the same piece of garbage that it was last time. Nothing links to this article [14]. There's no content, other than to say that there was a system, in the Maldives, to honor people and that "Kilegefan" was the highest honor, although even that is unsourced. While every governmental unit in the world has a way of honoring people, ranging from a "key to the city" to a medal, the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide reliable information that can be verified. Until someone who knows what they're doing can write a stand alone article, a paragraph will suffice. Mandsford 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 720p. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

720i[edit]

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

This is not a standard resoultion. It should be deleted. Hinata talk 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the article says this is nothing more than an erroneous term! Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So does the source supporting it. The existence of this error, and the reason that it is an error, is verifiable knowledge that belongs in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because it has a reference doesn't mean it is necceary... it is useless... and, it is not useful, serves no information, and is not even a paragraph! But OK, since you want it so bad, state your reasons? --Hinata talk 22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already have, kiddo. Read them, and try having more than one tool in your toolbox. Not everything is addressed by deletion. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technically original research, and, more likely-than-not, cruft - especially considering it does not exist. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not technically original research at all. Indeed, exactly what the article says is supported by page 13 of the book cited as its source. This content is in no way an original thesis nonexistent outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the HDTV article as a plausible misnomer. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is futile to do, it really isn't even HDTV. It would be EDTV. --Hinata talk 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine whatever. Redirect to 720p then, as a plausible misnomer. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65.93.14.196 is quite right. The content here is verifiable from the sources cited (which I just read and checked for myself) and not original research at all (the book saying what this article says). We shouldn't lose this content. The best place for it is in 720p, as indeed the very source cited indicates, and this should be merged — not redirected losing information from the encyclopaedia — there. No exercise of the deletion tool is required. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. OK, you may merge... but what is the point when this article is not even a paragraph, and that this serves no usefulness. References that just site it does not mean that it is correct; it has no usefulness. Delete due to it being a stub, and a largely useless one at that --Hinata talk 22:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously asking what is the point of merging and retaining verifiable information that informs a reader, correcting an error with a redirect and even explaining the correction with the prose already written? Have you not grasped the basics of what we're trying to do in this project? We're trying to write an encyclopaedia that informs the reader, including informing the reader of a common error that the world has documented and explained, in a For Dummies book, no less. Are you really trying to make Wikipedia a less informative reference work than a For Dummies book? Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then redirect it, and add the information to it. --Hinata talk 15:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Wong[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable: (1) He has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) He does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and (3) he has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Actually does appear to meet WP:ENT, as films notable to Hong Kong are notable enough for en.Wikipedia. However the article needs sourcing. Any Hong Kong Wikipedians available? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it appears that non of these roles are featured, so does this still qualify as WP:ENT?Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will hope for input from Hong Kong Wikiepdians far more likley to find the Hong Kong sources showing notability for these Hong Kong films and this Hong Kong actor. English language coverage for non-Western individuals is always problematic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. This article from the World Journal, this article from Xinhua News Agency, and this article from China Central Television provide significant coverage about Jacky Wong / 王樹熹 (also nicknamed Jacky仔). Notability per WP:GNG is met. Cunard (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - most of the articles I've seen are about Wong's conflict with Mung and Au-yeung. In the world journal ref and the rest of the sources I've read, Wong only plays a 'cameo' role. For example, in one article Wong was mentioned because his brother was used as an example in the 2006 secondary school allocation results. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the sources here (archived link) better? Specifically, this, this, and this. Wong is the centerpiece of the article which goes beyond the conflict between him and Mung/Au-yeung. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, the first one's Wong's official blog, and the rest are error messages. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog has scans of a three-page article. The links to the three pages worked earlier but have now become error messages. Here are the links again (this time using the durable WebCite): 1, 2, and 3. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the article says nothing of notability as far as I can tell (the words of page 2 are really blurry). It's mainly about how Wong entered a band-one EMI school. A lot of people enter band-one EMI schools every year, so this does not establish notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 2 provides in-depth biographical information about Wong. That a third-party publication chose to write a featured story about his personal life—how his mother ensured that he studied hard, did well in his classes, and was able to get into his chosen secondary school—indicates that Wong is notable.
It is true that many people enter band-one EMI schools every year. But how many of these people are written about by the media? Very few, I would predict. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Many papers in HK (paricularly the Sing Tao Daily) feature reports about students' experiences all the time. These students are usually not notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article, in conjunction with the rest of the sources, is enough to push Jacky Wong over the requirements of WP:GNG. We'll have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- With apparently only non-English language sources availabe , it is difficult to assess Wong's notability. Should the article be deleted from the English-language Wiki since these sources are not verifiable?Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and offered by User:Cunard. While yes, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available, in the lack of available English sources, non-English are acceptable. An unfortunate systemic bias exists, and some editors treat WP:UNKNOWNHERE as if it were a guideline or policy. It is not. We should all strive to address systemic bias whenever possible... for the ultimate benefit of the project itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is a systematic bias as it becomes difficult to verify sources if they are in a language different from that of the Wiki itself. How can one confirm the statements if one cannot read the cited source?Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Chinese Wikipedians on en.wikipedia (including me). Kayau Voting IS evil 10:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the cited sources and verify their information. Cunard (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure that you are a honorable and trustworthy editor (no sarcasm intended) but that still does not mean that a non-Chineese reader can verify the citations for themselves. Isn't the point of citing sources is for the reader to investigate and verify the claims themselves instead of relying on third-parties to do it for them?Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia recognizes this concern, and DOES allow non-English sources in such cases where English sources are unavailable... specially for someone with an assertion of non-English notability. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Non-English sources, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Biographies And for non-Chinese-reading Wikipedians, a translation may be requested and included in the article... usually in a "notes" section. Translations ARE allowable, and follow both policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ogletree[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability The subject appeared in only one film and notability for entertainers requires multiple appearances. No indication of any significant fan base or "cult" following and no indication that the subject made any significant or unique contribution to her field. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Safiel (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one acting credit listed on IMDB, and it's a minor one. Lack of coverage in RS. The NYTimes link is just a profile, not a full article. Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One role back in 1995,[15][16] and then this (then) youngster seems to have disappeared. Fails WP:ENT. Fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourced to one database entry with a very weak claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the rough consensus seems to favor retention. Any further discussions regarding merging can be handled outside of AFD. –MuZemike 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elwyn Watkins[edit]

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

The subject of the article has been an unsuccessful candidate for election to Parliament, and was a local councillor; it is generally accepted that neither is a claim of notability in itself. It is possible to argue that he is notable because of the rare legal case he fought to overturn the 2010 election result, but I would contend that it is the case itself that is notable rather than the litigant. All relevant information about the case is contained in the article about the resulting by-election; so I suggest deleting the biography and then replacing with a redirect to this article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only notable for one event; ample precedent that just being a parliamentary candidate is insufficient. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Watkins is more than just a (former) parliamentary candidate. He is responsible for challenging the general election result which found an MP guilty of a criminal offence and voided the MPs election, prompting their removal as an MP and a by-election. This is far from a regular occurrence, the last time an election was voided like this was in 1997 and it was under an election law that had not been used in 99 years. He was of course the target of the statements which the court found were illegal. I suggest he meets the criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN regarding candidates: ...such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Adambro (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media are wrong to state that the section invoked by Watkins had not been invoked in 99 years; see Miranda Grell for one, and the court judgment cites other occasions as precedents. But even if so, that does not make the litigant notable. We need multiple independent sources on the subject of Elwyn Watkins, not on his election petition or election candidatures. I have found none. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/possibly re-work/re-name. Clearly Watkins does not meet notability purely as a councillor and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate, but, also clearly, an unsuccessful candidate can still be notable more generally under WP:GNG. The events around the election court case and subsequent by-election are clearly very significant, notwithstanding precisely when the law was last invoked (although thanks to Sam Blacketer's usual precision on that matter). For me, Timrollpickering's WP:ONEEVENT argument is the most relevant. WP:ONEEVENT says, "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Watkins' role in the event was clearly very significant, and I feel the event was very significant (to UK politics). I don't agree with Sam Blacketer that the event is adequately covered under the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 article, although it is better covered under Phil Woolas. However, there is no article specifically about the event. It seems to me that what we should do to follow WP:ONEEVENT is create Watkins v Woolas about the court case, its background and associated appeals, then re-direct Elwyn Watkins there! In the absence of someone more legally minded doing that, I'd keep this article, but I can see the arguments both ways. If this article is deleted, I suggest re-direction to Phil Woolas#Re-election 2010 and election court case rather than Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011. As a final observation, I think the analogy with the Miranda Grell article (which I note I created) would suggest that this article should be kept: Watkins is more notable than Grell. There was an AfD for Miranda Grell, not that I can find it, but the decision was to keep. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link for Miranda Grell AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to the article about the by-election. The by-election, and the court case surrounding it, are both notable chapters in the history of this parliament, and Elwyn Watkins played an important role in it, but he doesn't seem to have any coverage independent of these events, so this is a clear WP:BIO1E. However, this should be merged properly, to make sure no information in this article is lost if it isn't already in the article of the merge destination.. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /strongly support the positions of Bondegezou. Material is not covered sufficiently elsewhere and very notable (disagree about his comparison of Grell compared to Watkins though as Watkins is the victim whereas Grell was the perpetrator). The reason for notability is because this is a case occurring in General Election seat and therefore had a huge amount of coverage, the Grell case was merely a local election.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed candidate. Alternatively merge into new article on unsuccessful UK tactical voting. 86.161.31.200 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the bye-election article, whose background section ought to be expanded. Since he was not elected, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. However the circumstances of the by-election need coverage in more than the Phil Woolas article. I do not think we usually have by-election articles, as it is sufficient to put the results in the constituency article, but this is the first occasion in about a century that an election court has overturned an election result for misconduct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we do have articles specifically on all recent Parliamentary by-elections - see Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 and explore away with the box at the bottom. There seems to be a general belief that all by-elections are notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I am more used to editing constituency articles, where people have frequently provided a link to a non-existent by-election article. However, this error does not invalidate the point that I sought to make; in fact it probably strengthens it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for the court case and subsequent coverage rather than as a politician. - Galloglass 06:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babajide Ogunbiyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source what says the Danish 1st league isn't fully professional?--TM 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source, also listed at WP:FPL, provides information on the pro status in the Danish football pyramid. In addition, since notability requires verifiable evidence, this player would have been non-notable simply in the absence of a source indicating he had played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Apparently hasn't played professionally, so he fails WP:NSPORTS. I was able to find a story on him here, but I'm unsure how reliable it is, and the rest of what I saw on Google News was mainly trivial stories relating to his drafting by the Red Bulls. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possible speedy since it hasn't changed since before? Spiderone 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NAC - Speedily deleted as G11 by User:RHaworth. meshach (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EP China / Electrical China 2010[edit]

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

Appears to be no more than an advert for an upcoming (but subsequently past) trade show. Emeraude (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per G11. Clearly an advertisement with no encyclopedic content. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campervan management companies[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable; google returns six results. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Also unambiguous advertising: Campervans are synonymous with freedom and carefree living. Campervans are traditionally bright and colourful and a surfboard does not look out of place strapped to the roof. Campervans also have a reputation for being used by young people, couples and groups of friends. .... Campervan management companies are spread across the globe in response to the boom in the hire market. Campervan rental has become very popular in New Zealand, with many considering self-drive holidays to be one of the best way to the landscape on rural roads which are traffic-free compared to those found in other countries. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Smerdis of Tlön. Borderline WP:CSD#G11. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, only sourceable to corporate websites, and possibly thinly-veiled advertising. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Pretty much everything is wrong with this article. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G4) by JohnCD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are Yaaroo[edit]

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

No solid sources. A previous version of the same name was deleted before. Novice7 | Talk 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching on the term "Are Yaaroo" is pointless, as it appears to be a common phrase in some language. However, searching on "Are Yaaroo" +film yields almost no meaningful results. Even the IMDB page is practically empty. (Note, prior article deletion discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are yaaroo!.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is something in Hindi language. Novice7 | Talk 13:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible references to notability for the film. johnclean184 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God Hot Springs[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence (or former existence) unverified by any Reliable Source. The springs are mentioned on blogs here and there, but not a single mention in a Reliable Source that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable sources seem to be possible. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - The only reliable source reference in the article presently points to it being used as a filming location for a movie, as such the small amount of information that is presently there can be placed in an appropriate section in that movie's article, and if more information is found (enough to warrant a return to its own article) on the location it can be spun out as a sub-article of sorts. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep ; nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Szilvia Ábrahám[edit]

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

Only 613 results in Google. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keep the article[edit]

Ábrahám, a professional handballer, plays for Veszprém Barabás KC in the Hungarian Championship, which is among the strongest in Europe, listed second on the seedings of the EHF Champions League, the top continental tournament in handball. (Seedings for the current season). She is also a Hungarian full international, having played on the 2010 European Women's Handball Championship, therefore fits the criteria of notability which says "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics."

Generally, handball is sourced poorly throughout the net, which can be a reason for the low number of results in Google. However, searching with her native name gives over 60,000 results, which indicates her notability. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

- OK, I withdraw. (Will someone please close this for me? I know I can per WP:SK but I'm in a rush right now. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Agency[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation, fails WP:ORG, no independent references, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also unambiguous advertising. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance: a live entertainment agency based in Notting Hill, London. Hyper Agency is a booking agent for DJ's and Celebrities. Hyper Agency offer representation for acts throughout the UK and Worldwide booking bars, nightclubs, personal appearances, television and corporate entertainment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since I can't even see any claims of notability. Definitely breaks WP:ARTSPAM. Jonobennett (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming to represent David Hasselhoff might be a minimal claim of importance. I mean, David Hasselhoff! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is, of course, is that it's a claim. Moreover, it's the sort of claim that organizations like have been known to fraudulently make, or exaggerate. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything documenting this organization in depth, either. There's nothing independently verifying that this organization, known to the world only via a WWW site, is as it is claimed. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite a long and spirited defense of this article's creator, the consensus here is to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (clone)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Strange article which aims to provide a complicated theoretical rationale for an utterly trivial idea, namely that you can use the word "clone" to describe a copy of a game. Probably created with the aim of promoting Xisk, one of the game sites referred to in the external links section. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and possibly WP:SPAM andy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a brief defending the legality under copyright law of a game copy. Loved the "time travel" argument but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's the germ of an idea in here - that certain games introduce a basic gameplay that is then the basis for numerous others. However, even if such an article could ever be written encyclopedically, nothing in this would be salvegable. So, delete.--Korruski^Talk 14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman, the entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to define and document term Risk (clone) which has been in use by Risk players for many years now. The term is very relevant today and deserves it's own article.

Some of the information in the article previously lived in the Risk (game) article but was removed for various reasons (some stupid, some legitimate). Hopefully much of that very useful lost information will find it's way back into the Risk (clone) article where it belongs.

As the Risk (clone) article states, the purpose of a Risk (clone) is NOT to be the same as Risk and in fact in all cases, the exact opposite is sought.

I refer you to the IBM_PC article, specifically the history of the term PC clone where every ma an pop were cloning the original artifact. There is a reason they were called clones - they were NOT identical - if they were they'd've been called 'PC COPIES'.

In the land of copyright you are allowed to 'clone' the source idea. But you may not 'copy' already published copyrighted expressions of said idea. Risk clones are expressions of the generic platonic non-copyrightable IDEA of Risk. They are NOT copies of 1959 expressed published materials.

Just as there ended up being more PC clones than actual IBM pc's, there are more Risk clones than actual Hasbro licensed variants. And there are more players playing Risk clones (on a daily basis) than there are playing the actual game of Risk.

Legally, Risk is no different than Chess and Checkers. Anybody can legally make a Risk clone as long as they do not re-use any of the Hasbro published materials.

I'd suggest also adding Risk (variants) to the disambiguation list and redirect to the Risk (clone) article.

The commercialization argument does not hold water, the Risk (game) article is a shrine to the Hasbro commercialized versions Risk. There are some of you that are failing to understand that Hasbro does not have the soul exclusive monolpoly to commericialize expressions of Risk. Yes they (Parker Brothers) were the first to express the idea of Risk. But doing so does not prevent others from also expressing Risk. If you delete this article for commercial/copyright reasons, then you are being hypocritical and you are persuing a policy that does not agree with United States Copyright laws.

The term Risk (clone) is very legitimate and deserves it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the following line appears in the Risk (game) article "There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially." This is clearly referring to what are known as Risk (clones).

IDEAS are cloned. MATERIALS are copied. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Risk (clone) article contributes to the clarification of what is and is not a violation of copyright using real world examples. The article has real world value for any reader seeking to understand the difference between an IDEA and an EXPRESSION of an idea. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article Lux_(video_game) is a Risk (clone) which is fine. But we need an article that clearly defines what a Risk (clone) is, specifically that they are legal and do not need the consent of Hasbro. --Riitoken (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do to rescue this article is to concisely show the notability of the term, through its use and explanation in reliable sources. Explaining at great length why you personally think it is important is, unfortunately, no substitute.--Korruski^Talk 16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original research, has no sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to document the already existing phrase being used by the internet community. The term is not new and has existed for some time. There is no way to know when it was first used but I know that I personally heard the term back at the beginning of the IBM pc era in the 80's. The article has merit because it documents the populist term already in use. Here are 6 hits from a google search for the term "risk clone": http://www.baumanfamily.com/john/risk.html http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskonline/Risk_Online_and_Computer_Versions.htm http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48539 http://demonews.com/thread104-1.html http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/flash+risk+clone+freeware/ http://touchreviews.net/pocket-world-war-risk-clone/ The article is NOT doing original research on the term. It is merely documenting what has already transpired in the modern lingo of the internet. Sometimes wikipedia IS the authoritative place to learn what a popular term means - certainly in this instance. Now if any of you disagree with how the article describes the already existing term then please EDIT THE ARTICLE with your changes, but do not delete the article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riitoken, have you read the links I provided you above to WP:RS and WP:Notability?--Korruski^Talk 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korruski, yes I have. I would gladly document the term Risk clone as soon as we can find the entity with the authority to define the term. This is one of these rarer instances where the standard wikipedia OR guidelines are net helpful to the wikipedia community. I chose not to include the google hits as references because the links seems a bit transient and some of the pages were product ads. Nevertheless, the term itself is being used and has been used for years. It is time that for a wikipedia article that documents the meaning of the popular usage of the term. Read the opening line of the article and see that it properly describes the phrase and that sentence is useful to readers who simply want a nice reference point for the term. --Riitoken (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned WP:OR. Google hits are not adequate references, as you yourself point out. You say you have read WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY, yet you continue to ignore these policies. Until you can come forward with an argument for keeping the article that is rooted in policy, and not in your own opinion, there seems little point in debating the matter further.--Korruski^Talk 03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2011-Jan-14 google is showing 25,700 page hits for the exact phrase "risk clone" --Riitoken (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the number of hits for "Asteroids clone", "Space invaders clone", and so on. We don't need to have (and should not have) articles for all of these, because this is really just one concept (cloning) being applied to many different games. We only need one article for clones in general. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie your point is noted and I've suggested above that we add Risk (variant) to the disambiguation. Consider the other pages like Chess and Checkers that have their own variants WP article. These Risk variants previously tried to live on the Risk (game) page but were rejected because they were not officially licensed ... nevertheless they deserve mention. And the Risk (clone) page is the place to do it. --Riitoken (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go on record now and say that when the number of published Risk variants matches the number of Chess variants, I'll support an article on Risk variants. I imagine this will take quite some time, though. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google this phrase what is a risk clone? and see that the first hit is a reference to Risk (game) (the original) and the second hit is a reference to Risk (clone) and that is as it should be. The two article combined serve the reader fully. --Riitoken (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any encyclopedic material to a new section Risk (game)#Clones, and move this page to the new title Risk clone redirecting to that new section; delete the resulting double-redirect page Risk (clone), whose mistaken pseudo-disambiguation name (this is not about something called "Risk" that is a clone) is an unlikely search title. --Lambiam 19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, might I remind you that the Risk (game) article used to have a large selection devoted to clones and variants. And then there was a huge edit war and all of clone type info got evicted from the article. There was, for a time, an unofficial list of risk games article but that got removed as well. Hasbro now gets a free shrine for every commercial product released under Risk license. Meanwhile none of the legal legitimate clones get zero mention anywhere. But this isn't just about mentioning Risk clones; it's also about all of the useful Risk related info that got removed from the Risk page in the edit war. Hopefully some of that content can find a place to live on the Risk (clone) page. The Risk clone article is the best place to document the world of Risk clones. It does not belong on the Official Hasbro Risk page and Hasbro does not want it there. --Riitoken (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the alternative is Delete. If all the material that is not based on reliable sources is deleted from this article, not even enough remains for a stub. When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of? I couldn't find anything indicating an edit war in the article history of Risk (game) or its talk page and talk page archive. Are you referring to the deletion discussion for List of unofficial Risk versions? That was a regular discussion, not an edit war. In any case, this article is not the solution. I'm confident a reasonable amount of verifiable material on Risk clones can be added to and kept in Risk (game). --Lambiam 13:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only line of this article which is verifiable is "It is not possible to copyright or patent an idea." The rest represents unsourced original research which is quite interesting to gamers but not appropriate for an encyclopedia whose purpose is to record and disseminate information, not discover it. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content fork of various sections of the main article, including Risk (game)#Official licensed Risk games. SnottyWong ^yak 15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection I refer all of you to the following two excerpts from the Risk (game) page:

"There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially. See the Risk (clone) article for more information."

"In addition, there are many unofficial Risk clones, both for download and online play. Due to the history of the game's creation, there are no IP protections on the game, other than a US trademark on the word RISK when written in the distinctive red font ^{[citation needed]}."

And I ask any of you to refer me to the Wikipedia rules that, allow Hasbro to enshrine every commercially licensed instance of a Risk based work, but disallow a similar shrine to legitimate Risk (clones). Furthermore, given that these two excerpts remain in the Risk (game) article, where EXACTLY is the reader supposed to learn more about the history of Risk clones with the expected Wikipedia Neutral Point of View?

I again remind all of you that the list of unofficial clones used to live on the Risk (game) page but were evicted in the giant edit war last year.

And to Ollie, yes there SHOULD be a page for Asteroids (clone) and Space Invaders (clone) assuming there is a wikipedia writer/editor willing to start those articles and there is something legitimate to say within those articles and assuming the article can be written from the neutral pov. --Riitoken (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You totally ignore the issue that the article does not conform to the policies of Wikipedia. If you want these policies changed, fine, go ahead, make the case for changing them — not here, but at the Village Pump or on the talk pages for these policies. But as long as they are as they are, we should not make an exception for these clones, however crucially important it may be for the world to be able to partake of this information. --Lambiam 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree see Objections below --Riitoken (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I rewrote the copyright section. The time travel thing is entirely based on the legal concept of the subtractive test which is a valid legal concept - I added 2 references for this. I am trying to find the ref. for the time travel example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe "Modding" and Cloning of games is becoming more and more popular. This is a legitimate area for information and discussion. I would disagree with Ollie who wants to hold the "Number of Chess variants" up as the threshold. Chess has existed for thousands of years, and there are untold number of variants. For people who are interested in clones, I can see no reason why Wikipedia can't be a source of information about those mods and clones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.2.79 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — 71.59.2.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Objection There are no WP:SPAM issues in the Risk (clone) article. There is nothing being promoted or sold ... there is in fact less WP:SPAM in the Risk (clone) article than in the Risk (game) article where every single Risk based product listed there has commercial profit based motive. --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection There are no WP:OR issues in the Risk (clone) article. The time travel test is a legitimate method for expressing/implementing the subtraction test for infringement (which is a legal concept with references). --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The application of copyright law to software copyright is not straightforward (see, e.g., Sega v. Accolade), and we should avoid making pronouncements about when a Risk clone does or does not infringe on the Risk copyright unless we can give a citation to a reliable source for them. However, this issue is not immediately relevant for this AfD discussion. --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection There are no WP:RS issues in the Risk (clone) article. There are no unreliable sources and/or references. --Riitoken (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there is a lack of reliable sources. --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objection There are no WP:N issues in the Risk (clone) article. I agree that any one individual clone might not be noteworthy enough to merit it's own Wikipedia article. But COLLECTIVELY, the entire congregation of Risk clones is most definitely notable and worthy of an article with a neutral point of view that discusses the entire collection of clones. --Riitoken (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, you should be able to cite reliable sources that discuss the concept of "Risk clone" is some depth (and not just mention it in passing). The content of the article can then be based on what is said in these sources. Without such sources, the content of the article is unverifiable. --Lambiam 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, you're being obtuse. How does anybody define a term that is already in the collective language and has been for years? As I've already said I first heard the term Risk clone back in the 80's. Furthermore ... tell me WHO has the authority to define something that's already in use by the collective population of online Risk players? (rhetorical:nobody). The article defines the term as is being already used in the lingo. It does not redefine the term. It just states what's already a fact. However, if anybody (any Risk player) were to happen along and take issue with the way it's defined in the article then, they might, in the spirit of Wikipedia, edit the article for better wording. But if that doesn't happen then we can assume that those who already know what the term means are agreeing with the article by NOT making an edit. How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? This is one of those situations where it's perfectly fine for Wikipedia to simply report the facts with neutral pov - which is exactly what the article does. --Riitoken (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? Not by doing original research on the topic and then writing it up as an article on Wikipedia. All I'm trying to do is apply established Wikipedia policy to the issue of whether your article should be kept; your objections appear (to me) to ignore the gist of our policies and therefore come out as irrelevant. The concept of "authority" plays no role in our policies; that of "reliable source" does. I've probably heard the term "conclusive argument" long before you first heard the term "Risk clone", but that does not mean I can just start an article in which I write up my understanding of that term as I've encountered it. Instead, if I want to contribute an article about that concept, I need to find reliable sources that have written in some depth about it, and summarize in encyclopedic terms what they have to say. --Lambiam 10:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a sincere job of trying to defend the policy. However, consider this opening line in the PC_clone article "Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture". This is an UNCITED statement nor can it be cited with a reliable source ... because nobody has the authority to be a reliable source for something the collective is ALREADY DOING. In other words ... everyone who was alive during the PC revolution already understood the term PC clone so much so that nobody has thought to tag the article reference with the CN tag - and why is that? rhetorical: because the collective mind/lingo IS the reliable eye witness source and that is plain and acceptable to everyone reading the article. There is no original research here. To some degree, all of Wikipedia is neutral fact based reporting on what the collective mind already knows to be true. If You cry foul over the term Risk clone then you need to do the same for the term PC clone to be consistent in you position. I grant you that the term PC clone is more notable than the term Risk clone but that does not mean that Risk clone is not notable. --Riitoken (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to clear up a point of confusion: 'reliable' in terms of Wikipedia policy has a specific (jargon) definition, which you can read here. It has nothing to do with authority - a source being 'reliable' just means that it was independently published by some organization with a reputation for doing decent fact checking. Original research has a Wikipedia specific meaning as well - it is anything you just wrote down yourself without following a source. Since you admit that your article is uncited (as you claim it cannot be cited), then it is by definition original research. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to the reliable source that fact checked the term PC clone. It is unacceptable to reject google as an unreliable source for collective behavior (facts) seeing as the relevance of page sorting is decided by quantity of collective reference. The truth of the term Risk clone does NOT become more or less reliable just because some individual or group publishes something on the subject. Nor would it mean that they were the first to use the term. The term Risk clone is there and has been there for over 3 decades. I know this the same way I know that the term PC clone has been used for over 3 decades. The terms are accurate by simple repeatable observation - which is about as scientific as it gets. I didn't need a reliable source to tell me this. --Riitoken (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. That another article has bad sourcing does not mean that Risk (clone) should have bad sourcing as well. Your objections to the WP:RS guideline are noted, but the fact remains that if you want this article to be kept, you will need to edit it to be in compliance. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to MrOllie's remarks (with which I fully agree), it is actually easy enough to find reliable sources for the term "PC clone": Boston Globe (December 4, 1983), Atlanta Journal (December 23, 1985), Seven Principles that Drive Corporate Value in any Economy (2003; ISBN 0-7879-6604-5), Computers: The Life Story of a Technology (2007; ISBN 978-0-8018-8774-1), and so on. --Lambiam 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my PC_clone argument. I never said there was bad sourcing for the term PC_cone. I said that it was a case where sourcing wasn't needed because anyone involved in the PC revolution already knew what it meant. The same thing applies to the phrase Risk clone in that anybody involved in the world of online Risk knows what that means without ever having a reference as a reliable source - the collective is a reliable source. Once the initiate begins looking for various places to play Risk online, they are guaranteed to bump into the phrase Risk clone often and after having seen the term used the same way for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th and Nth time, they don't need a reference - the collective online mind was the reference. Try hunting for online Risk sites without encountering the phrase Risk clone - impossible. Wikipedia serves the public interest by providing an article explaining Risk clones and some of the more notable sites with the expected WP:NPOV.

Update I have removed the Time travel test until I can find a solid academic ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have changed the legal wording in the List of Risk clones section. After re-reading some of the arguments here, I now admit and agree that Wikipedia is not the place to pronounce any given Risk clone as legal unless we have an official cite stating such. However, Wikipedia is also NOT the place to declare a Risk clone to be illegal just because the clone is not an official Hasbro licensee. Hasbro bears the burden to defends it's copyright (not Wikipedia or it's editors). We should also recognize that Hasbro is the definitive authority on exactly what has been officially licensed and that list is very well documented on the Hasbro shrine for commercialized Risk (game) - and for this reason I say it is best to not sully their shrine with the notable clones for which they have no commercial interest. However, legal Risk clones have been around for 30 years or more and they deserve their own article - the commercial interests of Hasbro be damned. --Riitoken (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-merge I refer all of you to this markup comment from the Risk_game#Official_licensed_Risk_games "This section is for OFFICIAL implementations only. Do NOT add any unofficial "Risk" clones no matter how popular they might be. If in doubt, bring it up on the talk page first." . So two things to say here: 1) somebody wanting to assert authority over that list stamped the markup comment. 2) that same editor used the term Risk clone and recognized the fact that some Risk clones are NOTABLE. --Riitoken (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one should not add unlicensed Risk clones under the heading "Officially licensed Risk games", but I can't see an objection to listing other notable but unlicensed Risk clones in a new section Risk (game)#Other clones. --Lambiam 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, you're not listening. We aready tried a section for "unofficial clones" and it was strongly opposed by those who feel that the Risk (game) article be devoted to the "official" Hasbro game. I for one, used to be a supporter of having the clone list maintained there - but I have since changed my mind. We also tried a separate article called "Unofficial List of Risk games" (or something very close to that) and it was also evicted by various editors for being just a shrine list (similar to the shrine inside the Risk (game) article). The Risk (clone) article can be encyclopediac in it's own right and it can and will have a WP:NPOV given enough time and enough input by those motivated to watch over the article. The problem has been that everytime this collective participation begins to happen some !bleeping wiki admin removes the bleeping section or page (and that kills the willingness of voluntary participation). Leave it the bleep alone and give it time; I'm not the only editor with expert knowledge; there are others out there, but they have to first believe that all of their writing and contribution isn't going to get bleeping deleted (harsh abusive language omitted). --Riitoken (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above: 'When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of?', but did not see a reply. Can you give a date on which the Risk article contained a section for "unofficial clones"? --Lambiam 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, quite frankly, I'm trying to forget the experience. There are others who gave up on Wikipedia at that time - they were attempting to make a contribution to that page and kept getting deleted, reverted, undone, etc. If you really care then search through the history for edits made by 'Riitoken' and others. I personally do not care to help edit that page ever again other than to add the links to Risk (clone) for the 2 places where other "unofficial" clones are mentioned. We tried again when the unofficial risk game article was started and were shot down again. Most of them now have a "screw you" Wikipedia attitude. So I am trying yet a third time to make the case that the Risk (clone) editors/enthusiasts should have their own article to write the WP:NPOV for Risk clones separate from the Hasbro copyright protected content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the section removed in this edit, I think it was rightly removed, as it was an unencyclopedic linkfarm with a complete lack of citations from reliable sources and no means to distinguish the notable from the totally non-notable. As I wrote before, I don't think there would be an objection to listing notable Risk clones, such as have their own Wikipedia articles. --Lambiam 07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "unofficial list" does not belong in the Risk (game) article. It belongs in the Risk (clone) article. You'll also notice that not all of the clones in the edit section you referenced did not get mentioned on the Risk (clone) page. It will be up to the Risk (clone) editors as to what is notable enough to mention as a Risk clone and those editors will be avid players of Risk and Risk clones and/or makers of Risk clones. I qualify in all 3 categories. Do you? --Riitoken (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. The reason it did not belong in the Risk (game) article is that this list does not belong in an encyclopedia, period. That is the meaning of "unencyclopedic". If an article cannot exist without such an unencyclopedic list, the article does not belong on Wikipedia. See What Wikipedia is not. What is acceptable is a reasonably sized list of notable Risk clones. Almost all clones on the list that was removed are not notable (in the sense as defined by Wikipedia). --Lambiam 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are just not going to agree here. I've seen what happens when "unofficial" clones get mentioned on the Risk (game) page. There are many readers not involved in this current debate who will immediately remove/revert any such list in the name of purity and loyalty. The concensus was that the Risk (game) page be reserved for only the commercially licensed products and the commercial interests of Hasbro. I used to oppose this concensus but I now support it. However, if Hasbro is going to be given a free commercial shrine to every profit motivated Risk based product they've ever made, then, at a minimum, the non Hasbro licensed Risk clones should get a shrine of appropriate magnitude, otherwise you and any other editor in this debate are by default being hypocritical and you bear the burden to explain why a Hasbro licensed products get mentioned and the "unlicensed" products do not. One central purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to draw attention to the world of Risk clones and NOT the world of Hasbro products. What is your justification for granting attention to Hasbro products but not allowing attention for Risk clones? What is your justification for wanting all notable Risk clones to be mentioned on the Hasbro centric Risk game article where attention is drawn to Hasbro commercial products? If drawing attention to viable Risk clones is "unencyclopediac" then drawing any attention to Hasbro products is equally "unencyclopediac". Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam? --Riitoken (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre content fork, with most of the article being a silly legal defence of why the "clones" are supposedly not illegal. Simply put, this isn't encyclopedia material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, the copyright info is there because, while Hasbro would have everyone believe that they own the idea of Risk, the U.S. copyright office disagrees. Having actually spoken with Hasbro attorney's and having been served cease and desist letters, I'd say I know WTF I'm talking about. Explaining why Risk clones are not infringements is not silly ... however, not understanding why (apparently in your case) is silly. Commenting on your own ignorance in a debate is even worse. --Riitoken (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, please. --Lambiam 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, no personal attack was leveled. Andrew is simply mis-informed if he thinks the copyright section is 'silly' and/or irrelevant. Where Risk and Risk clones are concerned, it is VERY relevant. I am simply challenging the notion that Hasbro is the authority who gets to decide what is or is not an infringing Risk clone; Poor Boy Risk definitely is not and they know it and I know they know it. I am also challenging the notion they they get to decide whether or not "unofficial" notable Risk clones are mentioned on Wikipedia. Remember the list of "unofficial" Risk clones have been evicted from the Risk (game) article at least twice now because they were "unofficial". --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a quite curious idea of the extent of the authority of Hasbro. I can assure you with total confidence that Hasbro has no authority whatsoever to decide what content is acceptable in our Risk (game) article. There is only one authority for that: the consensus of the Wikipedia community. The list of unofficial Risk variants was removed from the article simply because it was unencyclopedic material, as I've explained above. --Lambiam 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying this out loud. As the Purpose section indicates, the Risk (clone) article is not about any one individual Risk clone, it is about the collective Cult following of those who play and make Risk clones. It may be that any given clone isn't notable enough for it's own solo WP article but that does not mean it can't be discussed in a historical section in the main Risk (clone) article. And I'm going on record to say that the only Wikipedia editors who get to decide what is 'notable' are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. If you qualify then good; I am definitely qualified. Those that don't play Risk or Risk clones or have never made a Risk clone are less qualified to settle the 'notability' issue - doing so would be the same as if I were to comment on what was notable in the world of Gay/Lesbian fashion. --Riitoken (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should only actual communists be allowed to edit the article Communism? Whether you like it or not, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit; what counts in case of a content dispute is the quality of arguments (in the context of the principles and policies of Wikipedia), irrespective of the credentials or qualifications of the discussants making these arguments (unless you're User:Jimbo Wales speaking ex cathedra). --Lambiam 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Communism and anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for Risk (clone). However, deciding who/what is 'notable' in the history of communism is not something I would do and neither should you unless you are an expert in that area. Each of us have areas where we bring expert knowledge. I happen to be an expert on Risk clones and copyright issues regarding such which is why I started the article. Risk has a Cult following of enthusiasts who play and make what are known as Risk clones; it's the same type of cult following found amongst Trekkie's and this Risk cult following is worthy of it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide what is notable in the field of risk clones. We rely on third party sources to do it for us - that it why we keep asking for them. That is how Wikipedia works. - MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riitoken, if anything the opposite is true: people with conflicts of interest regarding a topic are frequently banned from editing that topic on the grounds that they are not able to write objectively. Just like we wouldn't want a card-carrying neo-Nazi to write our article on Hitler, neither do we want someone who has apparently been threatened with legal action by Hasbro to write about Risk, for what I certainly hope are obvious reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "Risk clone" does not appear in reliable sources, even allowing for game-related ones. For what we're looking for for "gametype clone" articles, please see Grand Theft Auto clone where the term is strongly-defined in sources, including the elements that set up the GTA clone game, and the fact that GTA really isn't the first game to have those features, and notable games that are called clones. While we wouldn't expect as much depth to other articles at the start, the existence of this type of information relating to Risk clones are necessary. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I am confident that reliable sources will be found over time. Wikipedia is a publically edited work. It will take more than one editor (myself) to find reliable sources. All of you know that WP articles grow and expand and evolve over time. This article needs public attention and a chance to live long enough such that it can be fed by the collective mind the same way that all WP content is served. Deleting this article too early is a mistake and does not serve the Wikipedia readers specifically those readers who are looking for a WP:NPOV neutral point of view for non Hasbro Risk clones. The article should remain and we can tag it with a 'more sources needed' banner that will invite all readers to help with the edits (and that's the true spirit of Wikipedia as it was first founded). I for one am not a fan of this new wave of anal editors who are more excied about being policeman and tagging and attacking stub articles, than they are about letting things live and grow into excellent content. Shame on all of you; you kill the spirit of Wikipedia and worsen the experience for those trying to contribute. Wikipedia is about serving the Wikipedia reader and not about serving the anal retentive needs of it's editors and admins. --Riitoken (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been asked not to make personal attacks. I have now placed a warning on your Talk page. andy (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, it's not a personal attack to tell Andrew that he's flat out wrong. Getting your feelings hurt because you were wrong doesn't mean you were personally attacked; it means you were wrong. Also, I do genuinely miss the old days of Wikipedia when everything was new and growing like crazy and there were tons of unwritten articles and the editors knew the value of just letting stubs and fledglings exist and wait for volunteers to get involved and make it better. The current state of Wikipedia specifically this debate does not feel the way Wikipedia used to be; it's not a personal attack for me to say this out loud; it's my personal pov.--Riitoken (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose The purpose of the Risk (clone) article is:

a) to document the term Risk clone that has been used for 30+ years.

b) to offer clarity about the rules of copyright infringement (regardless of the Hasbro non-neutral pov).

c) to discuss Risk clones with a WP:NPOV neutral pov (which is what Risk clone players want).

d) to list some of the notable clones and their histories.

e) to intentionally be a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests.

f) to invite other Risk clone makers to become editors of the article.

The article can meet these goals while upholding the high standards of Wikipedia. The article will only become better as real clone makers/players volunteer to edit the content - because they are the real 'Policeman' who can decide the WP:NPOV for Risk clones. Forgive me for saying so but the only editors qualified to contribute to the WP:NPOV are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. We need to allow the article to live so we can tap that collective editorship; doing so will allow this article to make an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original research; a Google search is not a valid reliable source indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update Removed the google hits line here

On 2011-Jan-16, google showed 14,700 hits for the search phrase "risk clone" -wars -high-risk -antigen --Riitoken (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter the structure of this page, which you did with your previous edits. Threads are shown by indentation, not by sub-headings. If you would like to tidy the page you could indent your comments properly, but please be careful that by doing so you don't de-link them from other editors' replies. andy (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I was attempting to section the page only to make editing easier - that was my only motive. --Riitoken (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I found the usenet ref. for Poor Boy Risk. --Riitoken (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break this to you, but this usenet posting does not count as a reliable source, and it is also not a source that is independent of the subject, so this reference contributes neither to verifiability nor to notability. --Lambiam 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usenet reference verifies and cites the accuracy of the sentence that is superscripted by the reference - Poor Boy Risk is an analog paper Risk clone first described by Ray E. Bornert over a usenet board game group in 2004. This is a true sentence as evidenced by the usenet ref. in the google archive. The reference isn't supposed to verify everything Bornert said - but only that he said it and that makes it a reliable source. --Riitoken (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply not listening. Usenet cannot be used to support any assertion in an article (other than, of course, a statement such as "x is found on usenet"). You state that the usenet reference proves that Bornert first described Poor Boy Risk on usenet and is to that extent a reliable source. In fact that's 180 degrees away from being correct: since usenet is not a reliable source then the usenet reference cannot be taken as a proof of anything. This is clearly explained at WP:ABOUTSELF. Wikipedia rules on reliable sources are very clear and you should read them. andy (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy the reference is just an item to show source of the sentence "x" is found on usenet nothing more nothing less. It's not the only reference out there but the only one I've found so far. I'm still working on references and as other interested editors work on the article I'm sure they will collect more. --Riitoken (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*POLL I'd like to request that all present volunteer a YES or NO answer line, with signature inside the ////// markers.

~~Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?~~

/////////////

NO --Riitoken (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES - Hasbro pays me big money to keep the brave rebels of the Risk clone resistance movement down. The money arrives each month in a black helicopter and is given to me by a large man in a white suit who strokes a black cat and has a monocle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~/////////////~~ (no one needs to answer any silly poll here)

ENDPOLL --Riitoken (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deliberately offensive to me and the other editors. Stop right now! andy (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, the poll is purely voluntary. Chill man. I have no idea who any of you are and I am not suggesting that any of you work for Hasbro ... But if any of you do then you should be honest about it so that others can measure your comments in that light. And btw Andy, you opened this deletion debate by accusing me of wanting to violate the WP:SPAM policy and that offended me; but I said nothing. --Riitoken (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making precisely that suggestion. For example "Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam?", "Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?", "…the Hasbro copyright protected content", "…the Hasbro non-neutral pov", "…a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial interests" and so on. You're obsessed about Hasbro and are prepared to insult anyone who disagrees with you. So… pay attention… stop it. And read wikipedia's guidelines on notability and reliable sources. andy (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what was NOT neutral within the history of the Risk (game) article - a concensus that the unofficial Risk clones did NOT deserve ANY notable mention anywhere, not the main article nor it's own separate unofficial list article. THAT IS/WAS NOT NEUTRAL dude. Ok so fine. The Wikipedia policy asks any article to not be only dependent on some link farm list inside that aticle. I get that (and to some degree the old list was just a list and nothing more). So I am attempting here to satisfy that policy by actually writing a worthy Risk clone article that can and should exist whether or not notable list is present. So if you see angst on my part, it is due to suggestions that 1) Risk clones do not deserve notable mention anywhere or 2) Risk clones should return to some notable list in the main article. Those suggestions OFFEND me. --Riitoken (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the story you told above is true (the one where you have received cease and desist letters from Hasbro's attorneys), then I'd say you have much more of a conflict of interest than anyone else at this discussion. Why don't you calm down and let the deletion discussion run its natural course? Continuing to insult people after having been warned could eventually lead to your account being blocked. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story is true but there is no conflict of interest; as a result of that incident I learned much about copyright law(s) and what is and is not copyright infringement. I'd like to help other would be Risk clone makers avoid the same mistakes I made and thus I am attempting to make a contribution. The poll is voluntary; I wanted it on the record that I am WP:NPOV toward Hasbro and the Risk (game) article. I seek neither to promote Hasbro commercial interest nor do I seek to harm them. I am neutral and it is not abusive to offer the opportunity for others to go on record voluntarily. There is no reason for ANYBODY to be offended. --Riitoken (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of familiarity with WP policies is showing, and this is probably contributing to the frustration that you appear to be experiencing. You say that your purpose in creating the article was to help other would-be Risk clone makers figure out the intricate copyright issues associated with doing so. In other words, you were trying to create a guide on how to navigate the copyright issues associated with creating a legal Risk clone (and this is largely what the article turned out to be). However, are you aware of the policy which states that Wikipedia is not a manual or how-to guide? The policy suggests that you might want to take this content and add it to Wikihow or the How-To Wiki. Since it seems all but inevitable that this article is going to be deleted, I'd suggest preparing for that eventuality and figuring out what you'd like to do with the content you created before it is deleted. Continuing to post long rants and arguing with everyone who votes to delete the article, however, will almost certainly prove to be an enormous waste of time. SnottyWong ^express 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly. We used to have an article that was a List Of Risk Clones, and I thought that was a handy resource, even though only a few of them could assert notability. This page, is not useful for anyone. It's just a defensive justification for the existence of Risk clones, with the only references being links to pages about copyright law!! The article contains no useful content on Risk clones, and anyone who could do the research to put together a well researched, referenced article about the topic would be better off starting from scratch anyway. There's nothing salvageable here. APL (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we used to have such a list and yes it was very handy for those wanting to find an unbiased list of notable clones. But it was shot down by those demanding that there be an article and not just a list. So that is what I'm trying to start. But I find it very annoying that not a single one of you can admit that sometimes articles take time and require the input of more than one author. There isn't a single human being that can write an article like this in it's entirety; It's a large subject spanning 30+ years. I've done my best to start it and lay out some of the major issues for clone makers; but apparently all you guys can do is complain and some of you are biased. What exactly are any of you good for here other than complaining? Why don't you actually help make the article better? Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Or is this just a place where editors and admins sit around all day and enter *Delete for any incomplete articles? And yes I am taking this personally. And yes I'm offended. It's my first attempt at a writing a minimally standard peer reviewed Wikipedia article and all I see is complaints. I am attempting to do the research but I've got a DELETE banner at the top of the article. So why should I or anybody spend any more energy when some authority higher up in the Wikipedia food chain can just decide to delete it? Why should anybody help with an article that has a DELETE guillotine hanging over it's head? What exactly is their motivation to spend time and energy on something that's going to get deleted? --Riitoken (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riitoken, I can completely understand your frustration. I have no doubt you are editing in good faith, and with a genuine interest in your subject. However, what the extensive debate on this page demonstrates clearly is that you are taking criticism personally and failing to listen to feedback from experienced editors. Wikipedia has policies about the notability of a subject, and the fact that it must be dealt with by reliable sources. These things are not negotiable, and have been pointed out by several editors, and yet you continue to stick to arguments that have little to do with wikipedia policy or practice. You must understand that people are not at AfD simply to complain and criticise, but because removing articles that do not meet the minimum standards for inclusion is an important way to maintain the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. As I see it, you have three choices:

Accept that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia with a good grace, and apply your enthusiasm to writing or improving other articles. Personally, I mostly stick to articles that I don't care very much about, as that way I have no POV and it is less heartbreaking when they get changed or deleted. But that is up to you, really.
Continue to make your case using long posts, insulting other editors, and insinuating that people are under the employ of Hasbro, but without rooting your argument in wikipedia policies. If so, the article will almost certainly be deleted at the end of this process, and you will permanently damage your reputation on Wikipedia.
Carefully read WP:GNG and WP:RS and, if you still believe your article is acceptable for inclusion, go out and find at least two significant references to 'Risk clone' in a high-quality independent source such as a major newspaper, a published book or an academic paper. If you can do this, I will change my !vote to Keep, and asist you with improving the article.

I hope this helps.--Korruski^Talk 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I absolutely refuse to believe that a Wikipedia article cannot be allowed to exist in an unfinished state whilst the public collective mind hammers on the article to make it better. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA. This is why thousands of people fell in love with Wikipedia. This is why it has been successful. Only certain types of personalities are rubbed the wrong way for seeing an article that is not yet fully compliant. I am not one of those. I get excited when I see an article in an unfinished state; it makes me want to help (if I can make a decent contribution). Is the original idea of Wikipedia dead? Is it now just a bunch of policy police? What none of you are willing to admit is that this article can be a fully compliant encyclopediac contribution to Wikipedia. But it will take time and it will require more than just my efforts alone. It will require the efforts of those familiar with the history of Risk clones since the 80s'. It will require the efforts of those who play Risk clones and it will require those who are aware of the copyright case law on the subject. When the article is finished, future generations of Risk clone players and makers will be able to get a solid education from Wikipedia on the subject. --Riitoken (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pretty much give up, in that case. However, let me finish by saying that there is a difference between an unfinished article, and an unencyclopedic article. Many articles on Wikipedia are unfinished, but they must make at least one reliably verifiable claim to notability. I am afraid that yours does not and, yes, I will admit that I do not believe this article can ever be fully compliant. If it was an obscure historical character, and you told me that the only reliable sources were out-of-print books in private collections, then I might be inclined to accept the 'give me time' argument. However, you are talking about a phenomenon that has existed for a couple of decades at the very most, and appears to revolve to a certain extent around the internet, so if you cannot find a single reliable source through a quick Google search, I am inclined to believe that they do not exist. I cannot understand why we need the efforts of those who play the game, or those who understand the case law, to be able to write the article. Indeed, if we do need people with specilised knowledge, then that strongly implies that whatever they added to the article would be original research and, therefore, not permissable.--Korruski^Talk 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riitoken, that's a fair comment, so I'll explain. I honestly do not know where to find good source material for an article like this. If I did, I would overcome my lazyness, and rescue it by putting in a couple good, useful, well referenced paragraphs. I honestly believe that that's all it would take to swing this debate.

But apparently I'm not alone. No one, including yourself, knows how to turn this into a useful, well referenced article, otherwise they would have said right here, mentioned some sources that we could all go to the library and check out, or simply have fixed up the article.

That's why I believe that the article as it stands has no real value, and should be deleted without prejudice against recreation. APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have added a section for legal cases surrounding Risk specifically. The plan is to collect some case law and some actual examples for reference. --Riitoken (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have re-arranged the sections. After re-reading some of the objections above, I now realize that leading with the copyright section is a mistake. It gives the reader the wrong impression as to the main purpose of the article - which is simply to document the 30+ year history of Risk clones. Yes, copyright issues are part of the article but it's not the main purpose. --Riitoken (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The author of this article, Riitoken, appears to be the designer of a risk clone covered in the article. See here where he states that he is Ray E. Bornert, who also appears in articles at Ray E. Bornert II, WinHoldEm and Xisk. His comments about being offended that the article is alleged to be spam are therefore disingenuous to say the least, if not downright deceptive. andy (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, judging any article for WP:NPOV is based entirely on the actual wording, phrasing used irregardless of who wrote the words. Do you care to prove that nobody from Hasbro or nobody favoring Hasbro's interests, has ever edited or not edited anything in the Risk (clone) article? Furthermore, if you want clarity here then how 'bout some Quid Pro Quo - answer the Hasbro poll question above if you think "conflict of interest" should be an issue in this debate. NOTE: there is zero reason for you to be offended. If you are then please explain why? --Riitoken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update added a Lingo Jargon section that documents the current/recent usage of the phrase Risk clone --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update added an academic reference from the main article --Riitoken (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTIONS:

Is there anybody here that knew the term Risk clone before reading the article or participating in this debate?

If you say YES then please explain where you first learned the term and document the reference please (if you can't document your source then please explain your justification for knowing a term without a reference point).

If you say NO then - Have you now learned how the term is used and what is means when it is used?

If you claim the article is a lie or mis-representing reality then please cite a source that disagrees with the article documentation.

If you can't then please explain how you know this without citing a sacred source.

--Riitoken (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had certainly heard the term before. It's common to refer to generic versions of well-known games as "{Game} Clone", just as acetaminophen is often called "Generic Tylenol". APL (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you. Now prove it with a sanctioned Wikipedia blessed hard source (newspaper, book, magazine, etc.) --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That's the 'trap' you were setting here? I was hoping for something with wit. Or, failing that, a reply that had some basic awareness of the purpose of this entire conversation. The whole point is that no one here except you believes that such sources exist, and unless someone provides them then the article cannot continue to exist. APL (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the polls and questionnaires. It's pointless and insulting. As has been explained ad nauseum to you is this discussion is about whether the article meets Wikipedia standards. You're arguments should be focused on those standards, not on challenging editor's qualifications. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, APL answered the Risk clone consciousness question ... why can't you? --Riitoken (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's irrelevant to an AFD discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, the questions are VERY relevant to those who demand that we cannot have a Wikipedia article for the term/phrase Risk clone just because we don't have any hard sources that define the term. The questions are a rebut to that mindset. --Riitoken (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our WP:AFD, WP:OR, WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources policies. The article's adherence to those and other Wikipedia policies are what is relevant here, not some nebulous idea about the "spirit of Wikipedia." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie, yes I have reviewed those policies (and a friend has as well) and I do not find any glaring violations. I'm not willing to say the article is 100% at this point but it's getting there. Have you read the article lately or are you going on what was there several days ago? --Riitoken (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it just now, and it still does not meet WP:GNG. Looking for ways that the article violates policy is rather misleading, what actually matters is does it conform to policy. For example, take the WP:GNG. This asks for significant coverage in reliable sources:

Significant coverage - I see no evidence of 'significant' coverage of this term. I see it being used occasionally by individuals in specific gaming circles, but that is a different thing.
Reliable sources - I see no reliable sources covering the term. Source 1 is a Masters thesis of limited reliability according to WP:RS, source 2 does not mention 'Risk clone' anywhere in its text, source 3 contains no content, source 4 does not mention 'clone' once, and does not mention 'risk' in the context of the board game at all, source 5 does not mention 'clone' once, and is in any case a Google group posting of almost no reliability according to WP:RS. (Citation numbering correct as of time of this post)

--Korruski^Talk 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Is evidence that sometimes there are academic reasons to write a risk clone. The word clone doesn't have to be used for you and I to know that it is evidence for the general idea of the article as well as the sentence it superscripts.

2) Is taken from the U.S. copyright office. Why would it mention the word 'clone'? It's not supposed to and nobody suggested that it should other than you. The purpose of the reference is to support the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."

3) source 3 is an error and will be removed

4) source 4 is a legal opinion that references copyright law and isn't expected to state the word 'clone'. It supports the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."

5) doesn't contain the word clone; it's purpose is to illustrate an instance of a risk like game that does not infringe copyrightable elements of the original. the instance illustrates what "non-infringement" is.

--Riitoken (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point, which once again you seem to have missed or ignored, is that the article contains no reliable sources that suggest 'Risk Clone' is a notable idea. It may contain reliable sources for all kinds of other things, but that is beside the point since there is nothing to show the notability of the article subject. That is why it does not conform to policy. You can accept this or not, but it is pretty much the most fundamental of Wikipedia's policies, so no amount of argument or sophistry is going to change that. If, as is suggested by your posts below, you do not understand what Wikipedia means by notability then all I can do is, for the third time, point you at WP:NOTABILITY and ask you to read it.--Korruski^Talk 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riitoken, Under construction or not, articles are expected to assert notability at every stage of their existence. If you're so certain that you'll be able to do that in the near future, why not stand aside gracefully right now, and come back when you're ready to create the article? Wikipedia will still be here. APL (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that an article be notable to every man woman and child on the face of the earth - but only that it be notable to the audience it serves - and in this case the article is notable to any high school or colledge kid seeking to understand some important things about writing a Risk clone. Is every article on Wikipedia notable or important to you? Not me. But this article will have value to those wondering what they can and cannot do by way of writing their own clone. Right now they have no where to go for this info - which is why I am trying to contribute. --Riitoken (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requirement that an article be notable to the publishers of reliable sources. the Risk (clone) article's failure to meet that requirement will be the reason that it is deleted. Please be careful, your persistent misstating of policies can appear to be a sign of disruptive editing. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie, Risk IS a notable idea and the act of creating Risk clones has been happening for 30+ years. Now we may not have an actual hard source that states this truth in paper/ink (because so far nobody has cared enough to write a book or article); nevertheless it is true. Assume for a moment that no such hard reference source exists until the year 2040? Will the readers of that book at that time believe that Risk clones were first notable in 2040? (the truth is Risk clones began with the PC revolution - I am an eyewitness - Now I've not published this fact in a book or magazine but it's still true.) Furthermore, if we have no hard sources publishing the observable facts of Risk clones today (and yet they exist), then what exactly would the 2040 author have to say about the History of risk clones if he's the first to publish on the subject? There are things that are true and observably true even if there isn't a hard source. Hard sources do not cause truth - they simply catalog it. Wikipedia does not cause truth; but it does catalog it. Now if the reality of Wikipedia is a mentality of "It didn't happen unless it was recorded in a book, newspaper or magazine, etc.", then that it IS NOT an appropriate mentality for a MODERN online digital collectively edited encyclopedia. Reasonable, repeatable, observable truth is ALWAYS it's own reference source. --Riitoken (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this has been well addressed below, but I will answer the question put to me: Yes, if a given concept is first noted in 2040, that would be when it became notable. - MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block Riitoken for disruption of a discussion by trying to make a WP:POINT. SixthAtom (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow! ... so speaking ones mind fully within a debate page is illegal? --Riitoken (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts above[17][18][19] indicate either a clear unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's rules, or a willful lack of understanding them. You're also ... let's say, not entirely civil[20][21](Note edit summary). Why wouldn't that imply that you're more trouble than you're worth? APL (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no more words than that. 2005 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Stop trying to engage Riitoken in this debate. It's clear he's not willing to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. This afd is already a slam dunk for the reviewing admin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I should have given up ages ago. I just keep hoping that what I've been saying is going to get through. But yes, it's not worth the effort anymore :( --Korruski^Talk 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question How do we document reasonable, repeatable, observable truth in cases where there isn't a hard source? I can accept an answer of "we are not allowed to publish truth unless we have a hard source"; I just want somebody to say that out loud in the record of this debate. If somebody wrote a line in an article that said "All cars ever made are yellow" - I don't need anything other than repeatable observability to KNOW that is wrong - I don't need a hard source telling me the truth of this; I can figure it out on my own (and presumably any normal reader would as well). The subject of Risk is notable as evidenced by the existing artcle. The truth of Risk clones are repeatedly observable without a hard source. They exist; Nobody (and I mean nobody) needs a hard source to know the truth of this. It is observably true. But if you're saying we cannot write on the subject of Risk clones until there is some hard source saying they exist then that is just plain silly. --Riitoken (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTTRUTH : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.".

No one is disputing that your article is true.APL (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I am not opposed to WP policies. But I am opposed to the interpretation of those polices in this case. Risk is notable. Risk clones exist by independent repeatable observability. The article is not a violation of policy. --Riitoken (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! So basically, "I like rules except when I have to follow them!"?

Dude, you realize that you've lost this, right? Any second now an admin might come along and snowball close this and delete your article. People are just debating with you in the hopes of making you understand why. APL (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that rules are always safe from misapplication and misinterpretation right? I am definitely in favor of following rules that are interpreted and applied correctly with neutral bias. --Riitoken (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What interpretation? Articles MUST HAVE reliable sources that verify notability and accuracy. Articles CANNOT be based on personal knowledge or experience. It's pretty straightforward. APL (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Gentlemen (and ladies?), seeing as my 7 day deadline is drawing close, I'd like to say a genuine thanks to everyone who participated in this debate. I'd always wanted to create an article for Wikipedia. This was the first subject where I really thought I had a chance to satisfy all the rules and I gave it the college try. I must admit that as a result of this experience I've more than doubled any pre-existing knowledge I had about Wikipedia and the standard rules and guidelines. This debate has helped me ponder issues I hadn't fully considered. For the record, there was and is not any willful deceit and/or conflict of interest on my part - anybody may contribute to an article as long as they remain neutral (and that is a good and healthy). I wish you all well. --Riitoken (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete: As everyone above but Riitoken readily agrees, there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. It may warrant mention in the Risk article, and little beyond that. (I also commend WP:KEEPCONCISE to Riitoken). Ravenswing 14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G7, single substantive author requests deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firehole composites[edit]

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

WP:SPAM? WP:NN? (Also, the firm's name is confusing: from the name I thought that it would make parts for furnaces and/or incinerators.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a supplier of computer-aided engineering (CAE) software and consulting services specializing in analysis of composite materials. Yet another back office tech firm, the article consists entirely of unreferenced claims that its software is better than.... something else. (It's got electrolytes!) Google News, Books, and Scholar have not heard of this business or its claimed advance in the art, suggesting that it lacks historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete? As the original author, I can just request a speedy deletion. No need to continue this. --Tickingclocks (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-learning/version 3[edit]

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

article does not indicate notability of specific subject "version 3" (though im sure thats an artifact transferred from a userpage). subject is covered by Electronic learning, which is linked at the beginning. seems a rehash with no references. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (PS this was created using Twinkle. if this was in any way done incorrectly, or if Twinkle is not considered appropriate for this function despite it being in the menu, i apologize, as this is my first use of the function.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Uninformative definition: E-Learning or Electronic learning is the term used to describe all learning that has an electronic dimension to it. Likely coatrack spam: Organisations such as SkillSoft, Epic, K Alliance, LearningSteps.com, BlueU and REDTRAY are leading innovators in the design and development of e-learning in the commercial world. Of these, SkillSoft are by far the largest and most experienced company in the global e-learning market, whilst Epic are the largest bespoke e-learning content providers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see nothing in this article that is missing from our e-learning articel that is worth merging. As a redirect, this is an unlikely term so deletion is the best option. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this clarifies the origin of this (What is this section)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Friedman[edit]

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

Tagged on 12 March 2010 by User:Abductive [22] for its questionable notability, and even with some copy edits this article clearly fails to establish either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability, as well as pushing the limits of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Having survived the Holocaust and doing well in life later does equal true fame and notability. This obituary would be nice in a small local paper it is not encyclopedic. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. johnclean184 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From my read of the deletion discussion, the valid arguments boil down to whether or not the article is encyclopedic as well as whether or not the sum of all entries conferred notability for the topic as a whole. I could not find a consensus for deletion on any of those aspects. –MuZemike 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time travel urban legends[edit]

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

Wow, where do I begin. The article began from an alert on the Notability noticeboard, where instead of deleting the individually non-notable people, apparently someone decided to just plop them all together in one article without addressing the notability concerns in the first place. Unfortunately, it was a lazy way out that didn't solve the underlying problem in the first place (but that's its own issue). For instance,the line "A photograph from November of 1940 was alleged to show a time traveller.It was claimed that his clothing and sun glasses were modern and not the style worn in 1940." constitutes the entirety of a full L2 section and is pretty representative of how bad the rest of the article is. There are also significant issues with BLP on this article -- despite being decently sourced, the section on the time travelling spammer brings up the subject's mental health for no significant reason and begs the question why it's even there in the first place? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the subjects have received a fair amount of coverage (especially John Titor and the 1928 cell phone). Much of the nominators arguments come down to issues of writing quality rather than whether the topic is notable. As urban legends go, these are among some of the most well known. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The most well known? (Citation needed). Not a single one of the incidents on this page is mentioned on the urban legends article. It's beyond a stretch to say that these are "among some of the most well known". Furthermore, we already have an article on John Titor. That just reinforces the point that if the rest of these couldn't survive on their own as individual articles, why are they expected to be any different lumped together into one conspiracy theory article? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the urban legends uses specific examples that illustrate specific aspects of the anatomy of an Urban Legend it's wholly inappropriate to consider the article as some measure of how well known specific legends are. These articles may stand on their own as the Carlssin one did and as further time passes and analysis by secondary sources increases there may be a point where spinout is inevitable but at the moment it makes more sense to keep them together - probably with a bit more detail into this genre of urban legend as a whole. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Slight coverage does not warrant to keep an article that is wholly unencyclopedic. Η936631 (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notice at the notability noticeboard was placed due to questions of relevance in relation to the Charlie Chaplin film's article - it was quickly established as a notable Urban Legend but WP:UNDUE would apply to giving any analysis in the Chaplin article. Rather than have a series of single Paragraph stubs (as already existed in the Carlssin article) it made sense to cover them within a single article (a prose list of these events) better scope for expansion. I broadly agree about the L2 Paragraph on the man in the 1940's, but as it already had extensive coverage and further coverage occurred as a result of the Chaplin video I feel it should be retained but moved to a different part of the article. Regarding the BLP aspect, we have reliable sources (and I can provide more - including interview with his parents) discussing Robby Todino's mental state in regard to these emails - It is notable that Robby believed that he could make contact with real time travellers - and conducted this activity as a personal attempt to achieve that rather than as part of his multiple commercial spamming operations.

On Η936631's claim that the subject matter is "wholly encyclopaedic" I would quote WP:FIVE Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias" in the past I have owned specialized encyclopaedias on subjects such as UFO research and the Paranormal that cover time travel in articles such as these - however each section would be in it's own entry something that seems wasteful to do here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I'd warrant that creating an entire article and cluding together slightly connected elements, instead of keeping them in their parent articles seems ever more wasteful. At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article. Titor already has its own article. We can categorize articles that have the 'mysterious time traveler' or whatever element. Its the difference between a smart encyclopedia and a 'nyah nyah nyah' one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it more wastefull to have one place wehre users can come and look up time travel legeands then have them spread all over wikipedia with no patern. I want to look up a time traveler at a bridge opening. Where would I look? I don't know the name of the bridge or where it was, just that a time traveller was involved. I do a search for time travel I would hope this page comes up, if I did a search for bridge how many pages would I have to wade through?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said to anther user who objected to this page, it's a work in progress. Yes it needs work I agree but all of these subjects have been coverd in multiple RS. Not enouogh to warretn their own articels or to be included in artciels on other subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Agree with Slatersteven. johnclean184 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, you agreed with Slatersteven's vote 10 minutes before he made it. Maybe you were on the experiment! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but presents notable information in a way that will be interesting and useful to readers and will contribute to greater understanding of the topic. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This entire article was cludged together by the creator so he could justify removing one of the instances from its parent article. It's an ongoing hot mess from snout to tail, and while I am intrigued by the concept of all of these in one place, this should have sat in the creator's sandbox until it was a lot closer to being ready. As it stands, its a simple gaming of the system. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artciel in question is this one The Circus (film) please see Talk:The_Circus_(film)#RfC:_George_Clarke.27s_time_travel_urban_legend.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jack I don't want to repeat what has been said to you at the notability noticeboard, but the Time Traveller is not Relevant to The Circus (film). To take a modern example, Liz Hurley created a notable event when she wore a unique Black Versace Dress to the Premiere of Four Weddings and a Funeral that event is not relevant to the film so is not included within the Film Article it is however relevant to her and is included within her article (in the lead no less). Your continued insistence that the time traveller Urban Legend is relevant has been proven wrong by consensus and a delete of this article will simply remove all reference to the notable urban legend rather than suddenly making it relevant to The Circus. Your own argument is based on the the footage being considered relevant because of it's inclusion in the DVD release but the article currently contains no information on the DVD release to show that the DVD is relevant to the film in the first place let alone that an Urban legend based on that DVD footage is relevant to the film. Your other points are simply justification for an article clean up not for an article deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, you are incorrect, Stuart; my stance on its inclusion is clearly within policy. Therefore it isn't wrong, simply against the same four editors. You are beating the same dead horse by insisting that it isn't related. This is an AfD, weighing the merits of the article. It's a crappy one, and you should instead confine your comments to those discussing the actual article being nom'd for deletion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have failed to show that policy in all the forums you have raised this in, again see WP:Undue and the essay WP:HTriv this does not support more than a brief mention within The Circus (film) even though it is related to it it is not relevant to it. Regarding the AfD, you were first to discus the other article when you said "At least on of the componesnts - the Chaplin one, should be retained in the parent article." so keep your comments to the article in question rather than justifying the delete by suggesting the information could be moved indiscriminately to somewhere it does not belong. If you feel the article is "a crappy one" then policy is to improve not to delete - according to WP:AFD, reasons for deleting are WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NPOV none of those apply in this situation because the article is well referenced, verifiable and not original research, each section is also neutrally worded to maintain NPOV. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Stuart Jamieson about The Circus, and hope that this doesn't become yet another venue for flaying that well-beaten horse. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't bring up the topic, Scotty, aside from pointing out the circumstances surrounding its Bad Faith creation. This is a discussion re: this article's sustainability in the Wikipedia. Stay on target, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "Bad faith"? Tone down the rhetoric and please assume good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - AGF doesn't excuse bad behavior. The article was created so as to presumably remove any reason for the claim of time travel being anywhere near The Circus. It was bad faith in that it was cludged together with no real effort to bring it to acceptable standards, so long as it was out of the article in question. It's so transparent that it's almost a case of WP:SPADE to even bother mentioning it. It's the origin of a substandard article created with tons of speculative info. It's why we are here now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lets focus on this specific article please. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Swatjester; I've been dealing with these particular four editors, who haven't really been easy to work with to this point.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least till they get a bit further. For example this is RS and worth the read. this is another RS, but some of them aren't RS. Still, I think there's something in FRINGE which allows bad sourcing for these things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Decently sourced" remains a rare quality on Wikipedia. Though we occasionally get an argument that people and events have to be notable to even be referred to at all, the very first sentence in WP:N is "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." The primary purpose for an encyclopedia is that people consult it to find out more about something that they wish to learn information about. Mandsford 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Totally agree that this is the sort of thing that some of our readers might like to read - there is substantial indications that thye like that sort of thing. However, it would be far easier and more encyclopedic to create a category for this info instead, wherein the parent articles where many of these 'urban legends' occur would simply keep the info there. Pre-existing articles, like the Titor one, would not be repeated in another article but simply linked by category. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy-based reason given for deletion, just some people saying that don't like the article. I'm not a fan of it either. If I had my druthers I'd eliminate all Internet hoaxes and memes from the encyclopedia entirely. But I'm not seeing any reasons under policy to delete. It did originate from discussions concerning one of the items, because that item (The Circus "phone user") was clearly inappropriate for that article. Originally I had notability concerns about this article when it was far shorter, and tagged to that effect, but the article was expanded and I withdrew the tag. If I'm wrong about policy, please advise. I'll look back here in a few days and see. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Changing to Redirect to category. I've been disturbed from the beginning by the lack of encyclopedic value of the items in this article that are not already significant enough to have articles of their own. I think that creating a category on time traveler urban legends is the ideal solution. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have to agreee~~. If wiki is to have any repectability and integrity it should be a repository of unsefull and valuable informaion, not artciesl about some kid having his finger bit.' , But if we are to have them at least keep them from damaging more important artciels. Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I find the last comment to be very telling, and encapsulates the problem here. The above user is the creator of the article being considered for deletion, and even he considers it lacking in integrity and usefulness. Despite the ill-considered comparison (the finger-bit kid never received the level of RS and V media attention that The Circus claim did), the user created the article to - quite simply - provide a landing pad for the info he wanted deleted from the article. He created the article, and doesn't even consider it "unsefull and valuable informaion" [sic], instead seeking to isolate it from "more important artciels"[sic]. What he likely fails to realize is that, in Wikipedia, all articles are of encyclopedic value. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the PA's argue againt articel, not the percived motives of otehr edds.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with ScottyBerg -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete a well-sourced article, even if the subject raises eyebrows and giggles. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It isn;t a matter of IDONTLIKEIT, RotS (well, it is the case in the article that inspired the creation of this one); in this matter, its more a case f there being a far better way to have accomplished the same goal without the "Dinner for Schmucks" feel of this result. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have Swatjester's comments been addressed here? I share his concerns about this article and I wonder if we are really dealing with an actual topic, rather than a list of time travel related hoaxes, or perhaps better yet, a category. I've looked through the urban legend literature and I'm not seeing anything about time travel. Do we have a legitimate topic here, or something Wikipedia editors put together? We have a situation where individual entries aren't notable for their own article, but are grouped together on a single page. As far as I can tell, we still have a notability problem and I have yet to find a single source about urban legends that discusses these incidents. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Myth" or "Mystery" are sometimes used instead of but as a synonym of "Urban Legend" in some sources.

Time Travel:Myth Or Reality? - Richard Heffern, 2003
The myth buster: 150 great misconceptions clarified By Nirmal Chandra Asthana, Anjali Nirmal
Mysteries and Secrets of Time By Lionel and Patricia Fanthorpe, Patricia Fanthorpe -2007 (noted Fortean investigators working from a NPOV)
Much of Jenny Randles work also investigate Time Travel Myths and Urban Legends from a NPOV. Including "Breaking the time barrier: the race to build the first time machine", "Time travel: fact, fiction and possibility", and "Time Storms:Amazing Evidence for Time Warps, Space Rifts, and Time Travel"
Above Top Secret: Uncover the Mysteries of the Digital Age Jim Marrs - 2008
Heretics: Past and Present: Can We Now Explain the Unexplainable? By Brian Allan
Weird Science and Bizarre Beliefs:Mysterious Creatures, Lost Worlds and Amazing Inventions by Gregory L. Reece

- So there is material to confirm notability and verifiability, though changing Urban Legends in the title to something that takes in the synonyms as well is certainly a possibility that could be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which of these sources, if any, discuss the subjects in the current article? My guess is that none of them do, except for TPE. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The criteria I used to search for them was whether they discussed modern cases for which I chose John Titor so most cover that, Many cover TPE/MP, a handful cover the Chronovisor, and the remainder use other cases not yet listed or discuss the type of legend in a General style. Searching for the ones that covered Rudolph Fentz has thrown up several others not in that list, I haven't checked those in the list to see if he is included in any of them. Cases such as the circus will probably not appear in such books for a few more months and it may be difficult to identify ones about the Bridge opening man but if anything the amount of material in these documents which is not yet in the article is grounds to expand and improve not delete. The topic is notable, the individual cases are mostly notable and could have stood on their own, but would have been stubs with little room for expansion until such time as a critical level of secondary sourcing became available - here they can spin-out at that time, but are in context at the moment. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, so TPE/MP, Chronovisor, and John Titor. Wouldn't this topic be better covered by a category rather than a list? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Precisely my point: keep the info in place in the articles, tag these articles with a category, and move on.
        
        I think reasonably given time an in depth discussion of the intersection of time travel and myth/legend/mystery can be drawn from the above sources in fact some material should be taken out from our existing Time Travel article where it currently discusses Ancient Myths in the same context as modern published fiction - The two are not the same and really it would sit better here where old and new myths alike can be discussed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It sounds like you are broadening the scope of the topic rather than narrowing it, which does not help. In other words, time travel in fiction is not treated the same as time travel urban legends, but time travel in popular culture might cover both. In any case, this does not cut down on the trivial elements, but avoids the question altogether. As a category, membership would require a topic to be notable and well sourced before it was added. In any case, could you clarify something you said earlier? You wrote: "Cases such as the circus will probably not appear in such books for a few more months..." Please keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. There's no guarantee that Clarke's claim will appear in any book. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Viriditas, I'm not sure if there is some communication problem here so I'm going to try and repeat what I said. At the moment some Legends are represented in Time Travel as fictional works (which is an unsourced claim). I am not considering a change to Time Travel in fiction or Time Tavel in popular culture but to Time travel Myths and Legends or similar with these ancient legends being represented as Legends (since they are). You are right that Clarke's claim may not appear in a book, but that does not mean it may not be well sourced in other media as being a myth or legend about a time traveller. TV and Print media have already covered it in such light. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let's dispense with discussing the validity of the claim of time travel claims ("verifiability, not truth" is what counts here, as per WP:V); it is very much besides the point. As well, while some of these are outright hoaxes, some of them haven't been discovered as such. In at least one case (I refer to the woman talking on what Clarke considered to be a cell phone), it would appear to have been a case of a crazy woman taking to a hearing aid in the way that we talk on our cells. A hoax would imply that Clarke doctored millions of DVD collections, which I don't think can find a reference for. L Keeping the information in their relevant articles (perhaps even expanded slightly to explain the background) and using a category allows us to monitor the expanded use of that cat. It's got to be a lot easier than trying to repair at least a half dozen articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that any one had susgested we re-name the page time travel hoaxes. As you seem to acceot that (in the Clarke phoine mis-indetification incident) that in fact this is not a time traveller then calling this page Time travel Myths and Legends seems fair, that is what they are. Un proven (and in many cases unprovable) stories.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't think all the examples listed are notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia, but some of them are (e.g. John Titor, the Philadelphia Experiment), and arguably the general concept of 'time travel urban legends' is as well. It just needs to be watched carefully to avoid gathering too many trivial, unencylopaedic examples. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously mentioned, a category called something like "time travel in popular culture" would alleviate a lot of the impetus to add the trivial, unencyclopedic examples - an article without sufficient sources isn't going to survive long here anyway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree that the items in this article not significant enough to have their own article are unencyclopedic and trivial, and have no objection to there being a category instead of a separate article. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree that withthe exception of those that already have thier own artices non of this stuff is notable in its own right. But I cannot belive that its notable enought to be put in articles about painters, or bridges would be aceptabel but putting it here is not. Our rulkes a clear that material should only be in artciels that are about the material. So Time travellers seen at film premiers or bridge opeings are not relevant to artciels about those films or bridges. So this is the only place I can see them having any relevacne.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrestled with that same point. However, after some reflection, my feeling is that WP:INDISCRIMINATE requires deletion: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Keep in mind, per this policy, that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Thus "while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This same policy applies to constant and wearying struggle to ram the "cell phone" tidbit into The Circus article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are offering a drastically different interpretation of INDISCRIMATE than is accepted within the wiki community. I'd note that the wikilink covers those events without a great deal of citation, which doesn't apply in at least the cell-phone user. The instance of at least one of these has at least a dozen, all from notable news outlets, as has been pointed out numerous times. Unfortunately, the side effect of articles like these is that it becomes a clearinghouse for any material that folk with WP:OWN behavior will turn to to purge their articles of 'undesireable' information (the "cell-phone" user seen in the premiere of The Circus being the primary example here). As for trivia, I think that predicting that this was all just a flash in the pan is a by=product of at least WP:CRYSTAL; of course every argument has been used under the sun to argue for its removal, each more bizarre (and incorrect, let's not forget that no one has been able to use a single policy correctly) than the last. While I think this AfD should conclude with the article's removal (instead noting the information in their parent articles in some minor way), I think a category would work better. Indeed, We have to keep the info in the article for the category to function as intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were to be deleted and replaced with a category, then the notable subtopics (John Titor, etc.) would become members of Category:Time travel urban legends. I haven't voted either way, but if, for example, someone wanted to create Chaplins Time Traveler [sic] as a potential member of this category, then they would have to demonstrate its notability. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I was originally not going to vote here, but after seeing the recent creation of Talk:Time travel urban legends/Sandbox by Stuart.Jamieson, even after we discussed the problems with the old version, I see we have a serious problem with an editor who refuses to abide by RS, OR, and NPOV. Many of the sources in Stuart's most recent version of this article are distorted beyond recognition, and either have nothing to do with time travel, quote blogs and primary sources, or attempt to synthesize all three to come to conclusions not reached in the original source material. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is essentially a list of legends. As a list, what is needed are some sources that discuss the topic of urban legends that involve time travel, as a concept, phenomenon or group (as opposed to what we have... a series of sources that each talk about a specific legend.) I question whether such sources exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential rewrite[edit]

Potential rewrite, Collapsed to focus AfD on Original article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Taking on board some of the comments above, I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox Talk:Time_travel_urban_legends/Sandbox Whilst comments below would be appreciated on whether a move to this format would be beneficial (and hopefully change some of the above delete votes) I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion (things like reliability of Sourcing, Manual of Style, etc) be left until (consensus not withstanding) this version is moved into article space. That said I still stand by my original point that some of these items are best placed in a list article not for a lack of notability but for a lack of potential for expansion, once this rewrite is complete it may be that a discussion has to take place on whether the article in it's current state should be retained in List of Time Travel Urban Legends or equivalent.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Stuart has made a good start in his sandbox effort, and I'd certainly have no problem with holding off on the determination of this AfD pending completion of his rewrite. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think its a good start, but it reads like a persuasion article, wherein Stuart is arguing for a particular point of view, using citations. Last time I checked, this is an encyclopedia; we don't do persuasion here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] If that is the case, then please let me know what my bias is so I can eliminate it. I am attempting to maintain a NPOV and was the person arguing most strongly for NPOV in the first version of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] There's no consensus for deletion, so there's no need to try and broker a deal. In the future, it is best to use your user space for rewrites and proposals, for example, User:Stuart.Jamieson/Time travel urban legends. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is not an attempt to broker a deal, it started out as an attempt to sum up the origins and structure of Time travel Urban Legends, during which it became clear that the list structure of the current article could be encapsulated in a article format. However it is reasonable to lay it on the table at the AfD in case it causes any of the votes to swap in either direction. As for your advice about where to write the draft, WP:Subpages is clear that article rewrites should occur in the Talk namespace and that only new article drafts should occur in the User namespace. I have only once reversed this for an article that was closer to a delete and new write and even it has been moved into Talk space from User Space for third party contribution before it gets moved into main space. In general please refrain from giving me any more "advice" of this nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Your personal request that you be "allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space" is an attempt to broker a deal. And, since it is not a collaborative rewrite, but your own personal take on the subject, it belongs in your user space. While it is true that the subpage guideline says that a major draft of an article revision may go in the talk namespace, it is assumed that this namespace will be used for collaborations between editors and in fact, this is generally deprecated in common usage regardless of what the guideline says. In other words, most editors use their user space these days, especially for writing a non-collaborative version of the article as you have done. This is why WP:USERPAGE lists "drafts" as one of its main uses (see WP:UPYES) and why the ((Userspace draft)) template was created (see who is using it). It also appears that you are creating a non-NPOV version with elements of original research restored, even after these problems were raised on the talk page. For example, the introductory quote you cherry picked from Rodney Dale has nothing to do with time travel, nor does the quote from Brunvand. You take a quote from Dégh, which has nothing to do with time travel, and combine it with a quote from Jones to promote your own theory! You are engaged in obvious OR and synthesis, attempting to argue that "the legend that relates a mobile phone user at the premier of Chaplin movie "the Circus", cannot be proven false" based on premises that are entirely unrelated to the subject. Then, of course, there is your use of poor sources. This would not be serious if you were naive and uninformed about the problem. However, you were previously informed about the problem, and it was discussed on the article talk page (and you were given a warning on your user talk page[23]). Instead of meeting the objections, you completely ignored them, and went ahead and deliberately reinstated the problematic material, adding more synthesis and OR than the first version. If this kind of patchwork quilting pattern represents the rest of the article, then you should not be using the talk namespace at all and you should confine your original research to your userspace, if anywhere at all. I hope you can use this advice to your advantage. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] To the contrary, I welcome collaborations which is why it is in Talk space and any editors willing to improve this version are welcome to do so. What I have requested is that we deal firstly with issues related to the AfD; Notability, verifiability, and NPOV and once they are resolved; guidelines that are not grounds for deletion such as RS and MOS can be dealt with. All your claims about WP:Userpage and ((Template:Userspace Draft)) place emphasis on new article drafts - or proposals for articles that are protected or in the midst of an edit war; none of which apply here. I am sourcing every paragraph at a bare minimum in order to avoid these occurring. The Rodney Dale quote that you take offence to is in reference to the whole field of Parascience which is put in context in the previous paragraph of his work - the section omitted from the quote is about flying saucers but the previous paragraph and the previous sentence of that paragraph puts the context that these are just isolated subjects and that he is talking about the wider range of unexplained happenings in making these comparisons. The claim of OR is disproved by the cited ref [24], The Brundvand quote is taken from Urban Legends though better cited, and covers the origins of all Urban Legends. If you don't like the quotes, find better ones that's the great thing about a collaborative project. 12:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC) You said, "I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox...I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space." I'm not seeing any invitation to collaborate, and it sounds like it is your rewrite and we're supposed to let you replace the old version with your draft, even though you have failed to address the old problems and have compounded them with your new version. I'm getting the sense that you haven't read WP:SYN. Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Afraid I have to agree, insofar as the sandbox version has progressed. I liked the initial start, but it has morphed into a version that presents the same problems as the current article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] While I applaud the effort to do a rewrite of the article, it is (as I and others have noted above) severely flawed - perhaps beyond recovery. You asked where the problems exist. The largest failing, as Viriditas pointed out, is that while even though you are working on a sandbox version of the article (and I don't necessarily fault you for putting it in the wrong place as you likely didn't know how to start a user subpage), your version eeds to reflect a version that has been borne out in discussion. If there are points of contention, mark them differently somehow, whether through bold text or whatever, so they can be pinpointed and discussed. Secondly, Viriditas' comment, though a little condescending, is accurate. Your material is the very definition of Synthesis. You are using your own opinions and backing them up with citations to create something that wasn't intended by any of the citations by themselves. That is why I called the version a 'persuasion piece' instead of a wiki article. The citations make all the claims in the article - not you. We do not evaluate, dismiss, endorse or in any way judge the validity of the claims made by the sources. If sources exist that contradict the initial claims, we note them in the interest of neutrality to present a balanced view of the subject. Your sandbox version - put simply - doesn't do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments Jack, and for agreeing that Viriditas continues to present a condescending manner towards me. I would like to address your points - firstly, I am happy to try and recover the article with the support of others and have started marking in strikethroughs and collapsed sections that are being contested. Secondly I am not trying to present my own opinion, although I do agree that unintentionally I synthesised (a policy I was already aware of Viriditas) - in my opinion these are all hoaxes and/or mistaken identity - however the article is fundamentally about a form of belief by a majority of individuals compared to a number of scientific explanations; in comparable religious articles for instance Jesus walks on water the scientific explanations come after the belief and are presented as the minority viewpoint not the majority. Instead this article is being assessed as a WP:Fringe article with the majority viewpoint being represented as scientific opinion and with widespread coverage being dismissed by Viriditas in particular as not reliable (and part of the reason I did not include them in this draft). But if it is being taken as being about the individual opinion then these sources are acceptable - however wording and sourcing need to support that style. It's notable that all of the other sources which reliably approach the subject from a NPOV (such as Fanthrope, Randles, etc) never label the legends as such or as myth or folklore or whatever but simply consider the mythical viewpoint as another possibility amongst many with equal balance despite their fantastical nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Based on the discussion above, there is no support for your revision at this time, and it would be best if you move it to your user space before I also nominate it for deletion; POV forks don't belong in main space, and what you've written violates our OR policy. For more information, see this report I filed. Asking you to use your user space for your personal essays is not "condescending". Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential rewrite, Collapsed to focus AfD on Original article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Taking on board some of the comments above, I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox Talk:Time_travel_urban_legends/Sandbox Whilst comments below would be appreciated on whether a move to this format would be beneficial (and hopefully change some of the above delete votes) I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion (things like reliability of Sourcing, Manual of Style, etc) be left until (consensus not withstanding) this version is moved into article space. That said I still stand by my original point that some of these items are best placed in a list article not for a lack of notability but for a lack of potential for expansion, once this rewrite is complete it may be that a discussion has to take place on whether the article in it's current state should be retained in List of Time Travel Urban Legends or equivalent.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart has made a good start in his sandbox effort, and I'd certainly have no problem with holding off on the determination of this AfD pending completion of his rewrite. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a good start, but it reads like a persuasion article, wherein Stuart is arguing for a particular point of view, using citations. Last time I checked, this is an encyclopedia; we don't do persuasion here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then please let me know what my bias is so I can eliminate it. I am attempting to maintain a NPOV and was the person arguing most strongly for NPOV in the first version of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for deletion, so there's no need to try and broker a deal. In the future, it is best to use your user space for rewrites and proposals, for example, User:Stuart.Jamieson/Time travel urban legends. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attempt to broker a deal, it started out as an attempt to sum up the origins and structure of Time travel Urban Legends, during which it became clear that the list structure of the current article could be encapsulated in a article format. However it is reasonable to lay it on the table at the AfD in case it causes any of the votes to swap in either direction. As for your advice about where to write the draft, WP:Subpages is clear that article rewrites should occur in the Talk namespace and that only new article drafts should occur in the User namespace. I have only once reversed this for an article that was closer to a delete and new write and even it has been moved into Talk space from User Space for third party contribution before it gets moved into main space. In general please refrain from giving me any more "advice" of this nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal request that you be "allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space" is an attempt to broker a deal. And, since it is not a collaborative rewrite, but your own personal take on the subject, it belongs in your user space. While it is true that the subpage guideline says that a major draft of an article revision may go in the talk namespace, it is assumed that this namespace will be used for collaborations between editors and in fact, this is generally deprecated in common usage regardless of what the guideline says. In other words, most editors use their user space these days, especially for writing a non-collaborative version of the article as you have done. This is why WP:USERPAGE lists "drafts" as one of its main uses (see WP:UPYES) and why the ((Userspace draft)) template was created (see who is using it). It also appears that you are creating a non-NPOV version with elements of original research restored, even after these problems were raised on the talk page. For example, the introductory quote you cherry picked from Rodney Dale has nothing to do with time travel, nor does the quote from Brunvand. You take a quote from Dégh, which has nothing to do with time travel, and combine it with a quote from Jones to promote your own theory! You are engaged in obvious OR and synthesis, attempting to argue that "the legend that relates a mobile phone user at the premier of Chaplin movie "the Circus", cannot be proven false" based on premises that are entirely unrelated to the subject. Then, of course, there is your use of poor sources. This would not be serious if you were naive and uninformed about the problem. However, you were previously informed about the problem, and it was discussed on the article talk page (and you were given a warning on your user talk page[23]). Instead of meeting the objections, you completely ignored them, and went ahead and deliberately reinstated the problematic material, adding more synthesis and OR than the first version. If this kind of patchwork quilting pattern represents the rest of the article, then you should not be using the talk namespace at all and you should confine your original research to your userspace, if anywhere at all. I hope you can use this advice to your advantage. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I welcome collaborations which is why it is in Talk space and any editors willing to improve this version are welcome to do so. What I have requested is that we deal firstly with issues related to the AfD; Notability, verifiability, and NPOV and once they are resolved; guidelines that are not grounds for deletion such as RS and MOS can be dealt with. All your claims about WP:Userpage and ((Template:Userspace Draft)) place emphasis on new article drafts - or proposals for articles that are protected or in the midst of an edit war; none of which apply here. I am sourcing every paragraph at a bare minimum in order to avoid these occurring. The Rodney Dale quote that you take offence to is in reference to the whole field of Parascience which is put in context in the previous paragraph of his work - the section omitted from the quote is about flying saucers but the previous paragraph and the previous sentence of that paragraph puts the context that these are just isolated subjects and that he is talking about the wider range of unexplained happenings in making these comparisons. The claim of OR is disproved by the cited ref [24], The Brundvand quote is taken from Urban Legends though better cited, and covers the origins of all Urban Legends. If you don't like the quotes, find better ones that's the great thing about a collaborative project. 12:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You said, "I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox...I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion...be left until...this version is moved into article space." I'm not seeing any invitation to collaborate, and it sounds like it is your rewrite and we're supposed to let you replace the old version with your draft, even though you have failed to address the old problems and have compounded them with your new version. I'm getting the sense that you haven't read WP:SYN. Please read it. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I have to agree, insofar as the sandbox version has progressed. I liked the initial start, but it has morphed into a version that presents the same problems as the current article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I applaud the effort to do a rewrite of the article, it is (as I and others have noted above) severely flawed - perhaps beyond recovery. You asked where the problems exist. The largest failing, as Viriditas pointed out, is that while even though you are working on a sandbox version of the article (and I don't necessarily fault you for putting it in the wrong place as you likely didn't know how to start a user subpage), your version eeds to reflect a version that has been borne out in discussion. If there are points of contention, mark them differently somehow, whether through bold text or whatever, so they can be pinpointed and discussed.

Secondly, Viriditas' comment, though a little condescending, is accurate. Your material is the very definition of Synthesis. You are using your own opinions and backing them up with citations to create something that wasn't intended by any of the citations by themselves. That is why I called the version a 'persuasion piece' instead of a wiki article. The citations make all the claims in the article - not you. We do not evaluate, dismiss, endorse or in any way judge the validity of the claims made by the sources. If sources exist that contradict the initial claims, we note them in the interest of neutrality to present a balanced view of the subject. Your sandbox version - put simply - doesn't do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Jack, and for agreeing that Viriditas continues to present a condescending manner towards me. I would like to address your points - firstly, I am happy to try and recover the article with the support of others and have started marking in strikethroughs and collapsed sections that are being contested. Secondly I am not trying to present my own opinion, although I do agree that unintentionally I synthesised (a policy I was already aware of Viriditas) - in my opinion these are all hoaxes and/or mistaken identity - however the article is fundamentally about a form of belief by a majority of individuals compared to a number of scientific explanations; in comparable religious articles for instance Jesus walks on water the scientific explanations come after the belief and are presented as the minority viewpoint not the majority. Instead this article is being assessed as a WP:Fringe article with the majority viewpoint being represented as scientific opinion and with widespread coverage being dismissed by Viriditas in particular as not reliable (and part of the reason I did not include them in this draft). But if it is being taken as being about the individual opinion then these sources are acceptable - however wording and sourcing need to support that style. It's notable that all of the other sources which reliably approach the subject from a NPOV (such as Fanthrope, Randles, etc) never label the legends as such or as myth or folklore or whatever but simply consider the mythical viewpoint as another possibility amongst many with equal balance despite their fantastical nature. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above, there is no support for your revision at this time, and it would be best if you move it to your user space before I also nominate it for deletion; POV forks don't belong in main space, and what you've written violates our OR policy. For more information, see this report I filed. Asking you to use your user space for your personal essays is not "condescending". Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a list, it meets wp:list. The entries are referenced with sources that satisfy wp:v and wp:rs. The current title sounds a bit dubious, perhaps it should be renamed Reports of suspected time travel.^walk victor falk^talk 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't meet WP:Source list. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Anyway lack of sources is no reason for deletion, as the subject of the article (that there have been reports of suspected time travel) is notable. ^walk victor falk^talk 22:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the original article has no good reliable secondary source that covers the topic, and was created by several editors from a disparate variety of sources, none of which cover the subject in whole or in part. Can you point me to a featured list that has similar problems? Also, the sandbox revision doesn't meet our most basic policies for OR and NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now a list has to be at FL-level not to be deleted? I think the problem is there is a content dispute between editors (the fact that a subpage with an alternative version has been created is very symptomatic) and AfD is not the forum to resolve it. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a list, all lists, need to be based on sources about the subject. The issues raised here have been brought to the table by many editors not involved in the content dispute, and in fact, have nothing to do with the disputed content, which you are correct in noting as a separate issue. Related issues are as follows: Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Viktor how would you feel about a rename to Claims of time travel? There is already a badly sourced subsection of this title at Time travel#Claims of time travel, this might fit better as a fringe topic rather than as an Urban Legend/Folklore topic?

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Still needs work and improvements. JJ98 (Talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Courage the Cowardly Dog[edit]

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

Clearly, this article and the list of characters has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus of this discussion is that there have been sources produced that establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganfyd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website as require per WP:N and WP:WEB. The website doesnot meet the criteria for both policies. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet two guidlines of WP:WEB

The website or content has not won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).
The sources mentioned are not Independent of the subject and the website doesnot have significant coverage.
It is a website with a few editors editing on daily purposes link and mostly it is a dead website.
The articles mostly in it are unsourced stubs mostly copied from Wikipedia or other free medias Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:From its first nomination till to date this article has not improved from a start-class to a C or B class article. The goal for every article on Wikipedia is to get featured! This article is not going to get expand even in the next coming months because it has no notability, no distinguishing features, no large userbase Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has been covered in respected professional journals and is indexed in the medical-profession search engine TRIP (which is no small thing and could be considered as fitting in spirit "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"). Wickedjacob (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not seen this written any where, but I was under the impression it was bad form to vote on a AfD you initiated. Not trying to make trouble, just wondering. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - not necessarily, you can vote to Delete as nominator of the subject of the AFD, but that's it. Barking Fish 12:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
further comment Also, I hate to be a jerk but the nomination came from a user who is very active on medicalopaedia, which is an ad-supported website with similar goals to the subject of the article in question. I'm suspicious about WP:COI. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The AfD is indepenedent of my link to medicalopedia, the decisions made on Wikipedia is for the benefit of this website and decisions made on Medicalopedia are for the benefit of that website. It has nothing to do with rationalization of any of the two projects or just making mess on Wikipedia. I hope you can understand! Secondly the article was also nominated before but the consensus was NO RESULT; so a through discussion keeping in mind the old one would be better rather than discussing who nominated it and why ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominating reasons. Η936631 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability limited to a small group of users. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of pages on TV shows is only for a small group of users yet we do not delete these.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one, fails for notability, fails for WEB inclusion guidelines, and with it being so restrictive (registered med. practitioners only) it doesn't look like it will get any better soon. Alexa rank for this site is 642,612. It gets little traffic, little usage, not worth an entry here. Burn it with fire. Barking Fish 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site has been covered in medical journals and has further coverage in publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in Medical journals, and, as a larger medical Wiki, is especially notable. Ronk01 talk 22:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [Declaration of previous involvement: I nominated the article for deletion in October 2009; the result then was "No consensus".] I was invited to comment by Burhan Ahmed. There has been little change in the article since the previous AfD. Again, the references mention Ganfyd only briefly; they do not provide significant coverage. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear to me why I have been invited to comment while User:Midgley has not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He had been invited on 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC); you can see User_talk:Midgley#Nomination_of_Ganfyd_for_deletionv Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you that "inviting" people to comment could be construed as WP:Canvassing, which would be grounds for invalidation of thej result of this AfD. Ronk01 talk 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, Burhan. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have people tried to find third party refs? Here are a bunch in books [25] and a number more from google scholar [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Doc James is having a WP:COI with other editors here! He has restored the WikiDoc article which was deleted by consensus! Now he is actively participating in two other discussions 1 2 and voting to keep articles which have no notability on Wikipedia ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Doc James: I understand that you are a doctor and so I am but it doesnot mean that we have to keep fighting for projects which are not notable on WIkipedia. I agree that they may be notable in the medical field but they doesnot meet the Wikipedia guidlines! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth I do not work with or on any of these other sites. It only takes a quick look to find a fair number of references for all these sites. Why not improve rather than attempt to delete. In this edit you removed your association to http://medicalopaedia.com/ [27] which is not better supported by refs than any of the other sites that have been put up for deletion.

I have researched the medical wikis that are available online for a paper that is currently in publication. Could you please link to something which shows I have a WP:COI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would support merging all the medical wikis into a single page called Online medical wiki encyclopedias including Ask Dr Wiki, Ganfyd, Medcyclopaedia, Medpedia, Radiopaedia, WikiDoc and WikiSurgery. Per COI User:Burhan Ahmed runs/works on Medicalopaedia [28] and User:Midgley runs/works on Ganfyd. All of these pages have about equal notability.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources referenced in the article, as well as the many blue-chip sources found by the Google Scholar and Books searches linked above, demonstrate a clear pass of the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:WEB states that a website is considered notable if it meets any one of the criteria, listing the ones it is not in the manner in the nomination is an attempt to misrepresent the guideline. I'm also concerned about the apparent COI that has been mentioned previously. -- Iscariot (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - academic notability firmly established in references - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references and WP:WEB.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (to say the least). Most of the reasons for retention leave more to be determined, but weak evidence of assertion of notability has come forth. –MuZemike 22:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hovid Inc[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, Non-notable company in Western Country doesn't make it Non-notable in Asia, right?Felixlhk (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some reference by the history book written and Hovid's history was part of the development in economy in Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia mainly the after World War II, tin mining industry boosting to be major economy of the country.^[3]

I had no idea why the hyperlink I added is not working, so I post the full link here, apologize to flood the screen. Ipoh, When Tin Was King Thanks! Felixlhk (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP is all I would say now. Felixlhk (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominating reason. Η936631 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, notable widely to Malaysian & Singaporean, they had company in Philippines & Hong Kong as well. Ho Yan Hor is their patented Chinese herbal tea recipe, well known to Chinese community. Since my grandfather era, the company bring economy and medical contribution to Ipoh, Malaysia. 219.95.123.254 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable company. Peter E. James (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of the book. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable company since my grandparents era, a reputated chinese medical manufacturer in South East Asia Kwfoo (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better search links:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FTM-350R[edit]

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

Non-notable brand product. G11? CTJF83 chat 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs provided to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs); reason was "‎A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Upadhayay[edit]

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

Biographical article of what I assume is a living person. Has all kinds of claims, none of them sourced. Google doesn't really seem to show anything pertinent either, just lots of twitter, facebook and similar pages. Has a strong smell of hoax. Travelbird (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by one Ankitupadhyay99 who puts the text of this article as the content of his user page[29]. No previous contributions. No academic sources mention him or have him as an author. Agree strong smell of hoax.--LittleHow (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7; tagged as such. Vanity autobiographical page; Googling his name only results in the usual suspects; a modified Gsearch including the supposed college s/he attended only comes back to this article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected. No other suggestions made after 10 days, and I don't see anyone else objecting this, so I'm being WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Destinee & Paris[edit]

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

Only sources are blogs, Amazon, interviews and otherwise poor. Article is very spammy. Gnews search shows only JustJaredJr.com, which is of dubious notability. Also claims that they're signed to Interscope, but Interscope's site doesn't list them and their own personal website is offline. Close, but doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC despite having other members of a less marginally notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Clique Girlz. There's not enough content to stretch this across two articles, and the bulk of their achievements seem to be in the prior incarnation/name of the group. However, the title will remain useful as a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there is plenty of evidence listed there to prove that it is a real band and it meets WP:MUSIC. They are listed on Interscope's website (http://www.interscope.com/artist/default.aspx?aid=1178 ^[4]), which is also provided as an article reference. One of their recorded songs was included on the "Despicable Me" movie soundtrack - which was the #1 movie at the box office on July 11th, 2010. It's Amazon product listing is listed as an article reference to prove that they are on the soundtrack. Their personal website points to their MySpace Page, which lists several of their recorded songs. Many artists use their MySpace Band Page as their main website. Any Google search proves that this is a real band. Jasmith1990 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon and MySpace are not reliable sources. It's not proving that they exist, but proving that they meet WP:BAND — the first criterion of which requires coverage in third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Regner[edit]

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. This 2nd year AHL player is currently his team's eighth defenceman. He is nursing nagging injuries and has dressed for only 18 games to the halfway point of this season. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: May not meet WP:NHOCKEY, but certainly otherwise achieves notability through WP:GNG. I don't have links for all the articles (aside from this), but in a search of the Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database at ProQuest.com, I found quite a few non-trivial articles about the subject. (ie: "Scouts can take a bow: Rookie Regner the latest undrafted nugget unearthed", The Province, November 8, 2006, p. A55; "Standing out in a stellar back end; Regner's been one of the team's best defencemen in the playoffs", The Province, April 10, 2007, p. A54; "Regner's taking Giant steps; Defenceman out to prove size doesn't always matter", The Province, January, 20, 2009; and many more). Plus routine coverage of him being signed to a contract, as well as regular coverage for just playing and putting up stats in pro games. I'd say he passes WP:GNG no problem. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you can find anywhere that would take this all you have to do is ask Courcelles 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Future Is Wild species[edit]

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

The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in the documentary The Future is Wild. The species + the periods are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, the introduction of the eras and the length of this list, I have treated this list as an article here. L.tak (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really just a rehashing of the show. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wonder if this can be tranwikied somewhere. I loved that show and I would love to see a FIW wiki. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Transition (Chipmunk album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transition (Chipmunk album)[edit]

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

The name isn't even confirmed, the first single hasn't even been released, there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ARTICLE FOR WHICH " there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date". ALSO FLYING HIGH WAS RELEASED LAST YEAR.19:37, 7 January 2011 Keep

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. Things like this always look like advance promotion, placed to whip up enthusiasm among the fans (or readers as the case may be - this happens with books too). There may well be other articles in the same position. They should go too. Because they haven't been caught yet doesn't mean this one gets a life. When there's a release date, title and definite track list, that seems to be the generally accepted (by Wikipedians, not promotors...) earliest time for an article. Personally, I don't see why every record by every artist deserves an article. 'Tubular Bells' and 'Dark Side of the Moon' are examples of albums that are definitely notable both on artistic and sales grounds. There are many more - but not every Tom, Dick and Lil Twitch's record. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when I went to click on this discussion's link. I was expecting to find an album by Alvin and Co being debated. I hope Chipmunk doesn't suffer from people who are also expecting small squeaky voices. Peridon (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered there really is a 'Lil Twitch'. The mind boggles... Peridon (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the album "Transition" has been confirmed on several interviews and articles. The album is officaly active since it is first single "Flying High" has been released and charted at 72 in 2010. 11:53, 8 January 2011. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.137 (talk)

That doesn't make the article notable per WP:NALBUMS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the single has been released, albums do not inherit notability from released singles. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to the artist or Incubate. We know the title, we know it's due for release in early 2011, and we know some details about the album. There isn't really enough for an article yet, but there are better options here than deletion.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per above. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 07:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. This article has no sources or real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, go ahead. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 01:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete just based on the fact that this thing is SO LONG. (That is to say, the article gives far too much coverage to something that does not need it.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive plot summary. Most of it seems to be just fan speculation and there is not a single reliable source. Reyk _YO! 06:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Short (Christian Brother)[edit]

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

Not notable. The only sources cited for information on the person are a court document and an article in a college newspaper. I'm glad that he was caught and punished for his crimes (assuming that is true) but that is the job of the police and courts, not WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sources are very poor, with only one - the student newspaper - actually mentioning him in any context. (The court documents have the subject's name in two titles, but nothing more is available, and they wouldn't be reliable sources for the allegations in the article). At best, I don't think he's sufficiently notable. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I say weak keep as I want to give the opportunity for the creator to do improvements. As it seems to be more of a problem concerning the quality of the article rather than notability or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that WP should not have articles on people whose only notability is being convicted criminals.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G12. A Google search of the article's first sentence showed that they had been lifted from the book Semper fi-- Vietnam: from Da Nang to the DMZ : Marine Corps campaigns, 1965-1975. I've also blocked the editor who started this article as they've repeatedly breached copyright. . Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Dong Ha[edit]

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

Detailed account of a battle. Either this was taken from a book or another source in which case it is a copyright violation or it was written up from personal memory by the author in which case it is OR Travelbird (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 10:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 10:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeraz[edit]

The name of this article is already insulting to azerbaijanis. The people from the Historical Western Azerbaijan never named themselves Yeraz and they consider this word as insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 2011/01/05 13:15:23

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is very well sourced to an array of neutral WP:RS, it was previously vetted for WP:DYK, and the only argument being pushed here is a very political WP:IDL --which violates policy and is not a valid deletion argument. The nominators use of the term "Historical Western Azerbaijan" shows significant WP:POV as well. This is not the article for alternate theories of border/race politics. I would argue that this is a subject that will fall into the existing arbcom issues over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and all the nationalist silliness that's caused those articles/editors to be watched. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just for yucks, here's a recent report by the International Crisis Group that clarifies the word with the same conclusions as the article above. --Bobak (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I'll ask the nominator to propose a move, so the issue of the article name can be addressed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hilary Duff concert tours. Per IP, no reason not to redirect (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hilary Duff concert tours[edit]

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

More comprehensive list already exists at Hilary Duff concert tours. Fixer23 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold redirect - no real need to delete since redirects are cheap.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Provost[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced vanity page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious biospam, as are the related pages created by a sock account: Life Juice, The Provost Group, Provost Living & Entertainment, Southeast Power, and Benefit Arno, which are all up for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Before PROD tagging it, I made a good-faith search for sources without finding anything at all that met WP:BIO. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced vanity page/bio spam. Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of footnotes with references have been added, but those that are accessible through the web rather strengthen the impression of lack of notability; most of them don't mention Provost and the two that do are trivial mentions. None of the references that I have been able to look at actually verifies the information they are supposed to be sources for - and as for the print sources, some of them are clearly irrelevant (for instance a 2006 source supposed to verify facts about the years after 2006, including the text Provost got his big break in the year 2011 however when he released his first official single Show Stopper). It's not unusual to see enthusiastic article creators adding every minor mention of things that are vaguely related to the subject of the article as references, and I'm assuming that's what is going on here. In any case the references don't appear to be relevant, which is what matters in this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After wading through the list of refs, I agree with that, Bonadea.Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability for this subject does not exist. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Harisis[edit]

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

The only Google results I can find are Wikipedia mirrors are other people with the same name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Odds are pretty good that this is a hoax; note this edit, in which the article creator claimed that Harisis was an American philanthropist. I'm betting the article is nothing but this guy having a bit of fun. Zagalejo^^^ 04:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with hoax theory.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: There is a pro basketball player called Christos Harisis and another basketball player called Kostas Harisis. But from searches on Greek Google I can't find any pro basketball players called Nick, Nikos, Nicholas, Nikolas, or Nikolaos Harisis. There might be a son or relative but not on Greek Google. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:Verifiability. Kugao (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Tagging Theory[edit]

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

The topic of the article, while interesting, seems to me to fail WP:Notability Prod was declined by IP. There are potential WP:COI Issues here as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources independent of the theory's originator. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on GS. Looks like OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was '. redirected by nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Does not give reader any information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should probably have been a mass nomination, considering this is just one of dozens similar template-style articles created for the upcoming 2011 Southeast Asian Games. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but this does seem like a notable event.. If there's nothing to write about yet then suggest redirecting all of them to 2011 Southeast Asian Games#Sports. -- œ ^™ 16:43, January 7, 2011
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011 Southeast Asian Games, it can be reverted when the Games are upon us. It should, along with all the other sport articles for the 2011 games, redirect to the main article, and populate the category Category:2011 Southeast Asian Games (as redirects until they are implemented in November). 65.94.69.242 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by nom. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatics at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Gives reader no information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the reader no information at all is not a valid rationale for deleting this article, there are perfectly valid stubs around, including this one which an event in all possibility would happen this year. If something happens we can always discuss it in a future AFD, but right now it's a Keep Secret ^account 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011 Southeast Asian Games, it can be reverted when the Games are upon us. It should, along with all the other sport articles for the 2011 games, redirect to the main article, and populate the category Category:2011 Southeast Asian Games (as redirects until they are implemented in November). 65.94.69.242 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is a Circus (2004 film)[edit]

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

Article fails notability criteria for films Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Ras Barker as the film was written and produced by him, and while it may not merit an independent article, it did win an award for Best Film Dragon*Con and a redirect to its notable actor/producer would make sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MQS. Unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this film in depth a separate article is not needed but a redirect makes sense and it preserves the history for a selective merge or a later spin out should coverage be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere (2005 film)[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria for films Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Ras Barker as the film was commissioned by him, and while it may not merit an independent article, a redirect to its notable actor/producer would make sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film is still being shown at festivals all over the world and copies of the original release are selling on ebay. Worthy film for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The big ben (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Without coverage in reliable sources the fact that it has screened at festivals or is available for sale does not mean that it merits a separate article. Nevertheless, a redirect that preserves the history for a selective merge or later spin-out should sources emerge makes sense. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Pavis[edit]

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

The only source I found that wasn't non-trivial I found was at the blacklisted suite101.com. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A google book search or scholar search shows numerous sources proving that Pavis has "made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline" as required by WP:ACADEMIC. He is the author of several highly cited academic works. I'll start adding these in, the article as stands is a stub, certainly, and has much room for improvement. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial presence on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I think that when a French academic affiliated with an English university gets significant coverage in one of the leading Argentine newspapers [30], it's a sign that he's notable. Also, more sources from Romania [31], Spain [32], Poland [33] (trivial coverage of him, but calling him a "renowned director"), etc. So as well as the pass of WP:PROF#C1 indicated by ManicSpider and Xxanthippe, I think there's a strong case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Fisheva[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. I searched gnews for her name in English and Azerbaijani and got nothing. 1 gnews hit in Russian. gbooks only gives her 2 hits and one of them used Wikipedia as a ref. article claims her career started in 1930 yet she was born then? LibStar (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G3 obvious hoax; she couldn't have started career in the same year she was born. No hits anywhere for "History Laid Away on Archive Shelves" either; if the article existed I'm sure it'd turn up at least something. The external links make no mention of her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Delete Hullaballoo has done some work here but I don't think it's enough. The sources are very thin at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Keep per HW's improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax as the spelling "Nina Fischeva" gives hits indicating she is indeed the director of the state film/photos institute whatnot, but way too little coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per awards in sourcing found by HW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from a bit of poor phrasing inserted in the article by a non-native English speaker (which I've repaired), the problems in the article seem to stem from the fact that there's no standard transliteration of the subject's name, and that most of the coverage isn't English-language. But the central facts in the article can be verified via the online-accessible obituaries and subsequent eulogies (some of which I've now cited in the aricle. The honors and awards mentioned in those texts should be enough to demonstrate notabiliry: the subject played an important cultural role in her country, and received both official honors and significant professional recognition in her field for her work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Lovetinkle (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I came over here after an AN thread discussing her notability. I found two articles co-written by Fischeva, either in English originally or an excellent translation, plus an American piece that gives her special thanks as a resource. Definitely a notable person. Krakatoa Katie 06:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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