The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 M&T Bank Stadium. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens Walk[edit]

Ravens Walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources to indicate importance. — Timneu22 · talk 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to M&T Bank Stadium as feature of that venue. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, no notabilty...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to M&T Stadium -- no independent notability; asa part of the stadium it should be redirected to the stadium article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:11, 25 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tin whip[edit]

Tin whip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:MADEUP. Author contested prod. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original prod nomination, which was to cite WP:MADEUP. -- role^player 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Been awhile since we've seen a made-up game article. In this one, people use a towel to knock down tin cans. "It is imperative that the rules are read before hand to avoid any potential injuries that can arise from this bloody sport." Even more imperative is to not use Wikipedia for a how-to on something that potentially causes injuries. Mandsford 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this game, although after reading the article, I didn't expect to. The game is made up as is its fictitious "international federation" and is accordingly, non-notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tin Deleted -- This didn't qualify for a speedy? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Under which criteria? -- role^player 15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Polyamorph (talk) 18:24, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pvcomputers Library Manager (software)[edit]

Pvcomputers Library Manager (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:Notability A Google search returns only the company's site and this WP article. Likely promotional. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's arguments. From my prod endorse: "Creator has since been blocked for representing the developing company. (Note: probably created after a redlink was removed at Integrated library system‎)." Not even a stable release from this project yet. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix It This is a vaild software which is currently in developement. I've notice that their are other Open source ILS software so why they not gettting reviewed. Just my 2 cents worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobstickman20 (talk • contribs) — Bobstickman20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - fails WP:GNG; thinly veiled attempt at articlespam by a COI, now blocked, user. ukexpat (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 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 List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarisse La Rue[edit]

Clarisse La Rue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Violates WP:N. Although she is a supporting character, there is no indication that she ever played a major role in the series. Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Nothing in Google news or archives, and the only hits from Google books or scholar are sourced to Wikipedia. AniMate 21:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series as she isn't even notable enough to be in the film as she is that much of a supporting character. Lizzie Harrison 18:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but in the following books she is more important, such as The Sea of Monsters, even though it's only for 3 chapters or so. Maybe 10 chapters in all of "Clarisse" content. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to... etc. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. It's a viable search term, but I can't seem to find any sources indicating notability. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series per everyone, especially Harry Blue5.Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:07, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Chi Epsilon[edit]

Delta Chi Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm pretty sure a fraternity with only one chapter is non-notable. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A Google web search turns up nothing except the home site, and a news search turns up nothing at all. Thus, delete per lack of secondary sources, since it fails the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator that a fraternity with only one chapter is not notable. I don't see any evidence that it's considered a notable part of Niagara University, so I can't see a redirect or even mention in the article, other than in conjunction with other Greek houses. Mandsford 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I can't find a third party reference on this group. As a single chapter group, it is essentially a college social club, and does not meet the criteria for presumed notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:18, 25 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. It would be worth continuing to discuss a possible merge on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Solomon[edit]

Clare Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor student union leader , of no particular note. - primary reports from the not notable National Campaign for fees and cuts - a minor student activist group also of no note, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT seem to apply in regards to this person, the created biography was redirected to the University of London which is the best place for it, at least for the time being unless additional notability arises. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as main author). I accept the article is not perfect, but I have found plenty of references for it, and could quite easily find more. She is clearly notable as a student leader, a protester and a widely-quoted source on the protests. I urge people to help the article rather than simply removing the content. To counter some of the arguments above. She is not a "minor" leader, she's the president of the UK's largest students union. AfD when I was still editing, so doesn't reflect the current secondary-sourced version. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the sources already on the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability by the relevant standards, and there are more available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Being in the news over a single event is not what wikipedia is about, we will be stuck with it forever. She is a minor player in a newsworthy event. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  At what point does it stop being a single event? There were I think 4 mass protests in London over the course of a few months, with more planned this week. By that standard you could group, say, the entire 2010 F1 season as a single event. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, well, in regards to living people, a single event in this subjects life, I mean perhaps a couple of lines in one of the articles - 2010 UK student protests would be best, if there is no content there about her already, people of minimum temporary note don't need or qualify for a wikipedia BLP, if there are on-going reports about this person or she is involved in another notable incident then ok, but imo its NOTNEWS and ONEEVENT notability - redirect to a couple of sentences at the protests article, which on investigation are already there. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (minimally) to 2010 UK student protests-- I have grave doubts as to the notability of the subject. Being president of chairman of a university students' union is clearly NN. Being one of a dozen people invited to meet a minister is also NN. On the other hand, leading a protest movement (as opposed to a single protest event) might be. However, it would probably be better for her to be dealt with in a general article on the protests, at least until she can establish her notability by doing rather more. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardic[edit]

Hardic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable fictional language in Ursula K. Le Guin's fantasy world, with an unhealthy dose of WP:OR (the Phonology section) thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unless LeGuin publishes some details (is there any reason to believe she has given it more than a name?), it's a permanent stub. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- some fictional languages are notable, but this does not appear to be one. There does not appear to be any independent writing to support the notability of the language. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:19, 25 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 (A1) by Ronhjones. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear 2 (CD)[edit]

Top Gear 2 (CD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a compilation CD that doesn't appear to be notable at all. Difficult to find any significant coverage discussing this album. — Timneu22 · talk 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• it is notable because it is a compilation album of the greatest driving songs in the world. Many of the songs or the albums from which they were originally taken are on wikipedia. What do i want to... (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a compilation album, it is irrelevant that the individual songs may have come from notable albums. This particular compilation (undoubtedly produced without even the barest notice from the original artists whose managers probably managed the sale of the rights) is not notable as there is no significant coverage. (Given the confusion of results when one tries to search for sources, I suspect there are lots of compilations around with this same name.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I mean the CD released in 1995What do i want to... (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that clarifies which compilation, but there is still no sign of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor was a vandal and is likely the only person who cares about this article. Shall we end this discussion early? — Timneu22 · talk 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NALBUM Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete page creator is evident vandal, page is so short and stubby that it barely has context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:10, 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Facebook killing[edit]

2011 Facebook killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable crime. Media coverage is limited to a few repeated sentences. Renata (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is notable. It is reported on at least 5 continents. In contrast, this crime is not Wikipedia notable http://www.kansas.com/2011/01/19/1681025/armed-man-robs-south-wichita-store.html Also the Baltic Times reports that the crime has shocked the nation. THIS IS NEW AND JUST DISCOVERED AND ADDED TO THE ARTICLE. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad as it is, a 14-year old killing a 13-year old on a date is by itself not notable. Does the fact that the date was arranged through Facebook make this notable? Today it would actually be more remarkable if such a date was arranged through a go-between carrying notes scribbled on paper. The coverage in external sources is not in-depth but essentially consist of repetitions of the original, terse, Associated Press story.  --Lambiam 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly right, partly wrong. The "date is by itself not notable". It is that it is reported in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Australia, etc. that it is notable. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that's been linked to so far has been reprints of the same AP story and a Daily Mail story. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if this were a notable murder, I see no evidence that it is known as the "2011 Facebook killing." That emphasis on the method of contact seems to be a POV slant; I removed the rather atrocious sentence from the article, "This is not the first time that Facebook has been in trouble for a murder." So it seems to be a WP:COATRACK. postdlf (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, keep the article and discuss a change in article name. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of deep notability or even that anyone uses the term "2011 Facebook killing". Several of the references are literally just the same AP story reprinted in different venues. I agree with Postdlf that this may be a WP:COATRACK of some variety. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed all but the two unique references. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not destroy the article. You voted for deletion then you start taking stuff out. Contrary to your claim, you did take out unique references. The Nigerian newspaper had more than the others (the beginning of the story was the same but there's several paragraphs added). Also it shows how worldwide the coverage is, USA, Canada, Nigeria, India, UK, Australia, Lithuania, etc. Donotkill (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each reprint of the AP story is not a unique story. Multiple links to this one story are redundant. The Nigerian story (I assume you're refering to onlinenigeria.com) was a reprint of the Daily Mail article, the original I did not remove (onlinenigeria.com "By Daily Mail Reporter") OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a news story that is unlikely to be remembered as a historic WP:EVENT. As others have said, it was the killing of one person who was lured by another over the Internet. Not the first time that that's happened, but in this case the medium happened to be Facebook. Mandsford 02:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local news story without global notability. The means used to arrange the death is very secondary to the actual event and is only used to rabble-rouse parents and the media critics (I can imagine if we were in another age we'd be talking about deleting 1924 Murder Arranged by Ham Radio or 1673 Slaying via Smoke Signal). Otherwise it should be confined local Lithuanian Wikipedia, where it probably would have more notability (though they might delete on the same grounds there). Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep let's follow the rules, not "I don't like it". It is covered in 5 continents, in many countries because it is notable. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user has made no edits outside of this topic to date. (User also removed the spa tag) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOsborn is lying with the above statement, trying to make me look bad.Donotkill (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Donotkill's edits are in this topic, but there are about five as of this moment that are outside the topic. What is more relevant to the issue here is that Donotkill is the creator of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't heard anything about this, and I consider myself a reasonably-well-informed American. I know that's a subjective rubric, but even so: by that standard I cannot agree that it has received significant coverage on multiple continents. It's sad, but I don't believe that it's notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Donotkill attempted to move the article via a copy paste move to 2011 Facebook related killing in Lithuania, which I have tagged db-histmerge. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was renaming the page according to the wishes of another user. Donotkill (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted 2011 Facebook related killing in Lithuania under criterion A10. There were no edits in that article that were not also in the history of 2011 Facebook killing; everything I saw there was a copy and paste. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a journalism teacher told me, "Dog bites man, not news; man bites dog, news." This is not the first time the Internet has been used as a lure to get a crime victim; other than the age of the offender, there is nothing intrinsically notable in the crime. Looking at WP:EVENT, the three ways I see that could generate notability for this event are lasting effects, depth of coverage, and duration of coverage. However, none of these are present in this case. Accordingly, this is outside the scope of what should be at Wikipedia and should be deleted. (It's probably within the scope of Wikinews, but that's another matter entirely.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I have heard about this. Sources indicates notability (in my personal opinion). But it is a close call decision... most here seems to have decided for deletion but I think I will stay with my weak keep decision. There is enough for info provided for me to feel secure in my decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS. Even coverage on all continents does not grant notability. Coverage for an event must be sustained, and not brief. Several "man bites dog" news stories, thanks mostly to the internets, get brief coverage everywhere, but they are not notable either. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:23, 25 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fronts of War[edit]

The Fronts of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article about this series has already been deleted as failing WP:CRYSTAL and for having no evidence of its existence. It has now been revealed in Thomas Gardner (Director) that the director (and most other things) of this film is 14 years old. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Gardner (Director) and The Dreamer (2011 Film).

• Comment I haven't called for a speedy on the grounds of re-creation as the article differs from the previous version. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per being WP:TOOSOON... just as I opined at the first AFD some 8 days ago. Notability lacking then did not miraculously appear in one week. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as essentially the same article that has already been argued for deletion within the last week. I don't believe the age of the director is an issue so much as his notability. - ManicSpider (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ia Drang Smackdown Delete and Salt: Never mind WP:CRYSTAL, this is a WP:HOAX violation. United States Field Marshals? An Admiral commanding the Army? Songs "bought" from other movies that somehow by that fact lack copyright protection? A song unavailable due to "legislation issues with a website?" World War I veterans serving as lieutenants in Vietnam? A 14-year-old director? Wikipedia is not for "movies" made by middle-school students on the videocam they got for Christmas.  Ravenswing  14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin If/when this it deleted (with or without salt...), Clint Mansell will need cleansing (if it hasn't already happened by then). Peridon (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for mentioning that. I already took a reference out of Stop motion, but I feel uncomfortable changing so many edits this person has made. I did a search on the Clint Mansell thing and couldn't find any references. - ManicSpider (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Film Trailers and Scoring Credits. I wonder if he knows about it yet... Peridon (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the things said, but you have to give credit to the guy, he's starting off from somewhere and he may not know alot about the army. But the age isn't what is being disscussed so i would apreciate it if we left that out and stayed with the subject of the page.Thanks - Greggy 2764. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the director was put in an article by someone... Yes, he's starting off. When he gets somewhere, he'll be welcome to have an article. Writers, producers and directors have to find out about things - that's how I got into Wikipedia. I was researching and found the best articles on what I wanted to know were here. If you're doing pure fantasy, research isn't as important - but still needed. For something based on a real war, research is essential. Critics will check - like we do here. This is like having your first reaction from the critics. Keep trying - unless you're a Mozart your first efforts won't be much good. Watch as much as you can of established stuff - see where things started off. If you can find 'Creature Comforts', you'll see where Aardman got going. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agrre, the dvds will be released soon and Project Rooster will be realesed in 2 days, and The Fronts of War's airdate will not be announced unitl the 1st febuary - Greggy 2746 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're understanding. The release dates aren't important. I'd really recommend you go read WP:NOTFILM, WP:CREATIVE and, most importantly, WP:GNG before you create any further articles otherwise you might find yourself running into the same difficulties repeatedly. - ManicSpider (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Written while the above was being posted...) ::You're still not getting it. 'Keep trying' means keep practising. As my young (15 year old) cousin does with her writing. She's good, but not there yet for finished work going public. Just getting DVDs out means nothing. Getting a book published at lulu means nothing. Anyone can do them. You need to be selling them in quantities - and have proof that we can verify - before you will be considered notable. I have friends who are university trained, one in animation/illustration and one in video work - but I wouldn't consider making an article for either of them yet. If you can't produce references from independent sources - see WP:RS if you haven't yet looked at it - that actually show coverage of your work, you stand no chance of an article here. Peridon (talk) 22:30, 23 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running gag[edit]

Running gag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very short dicdef, tagged for maintenance for over two years with nothing happening. Doesn't seem like it can be expanded beyond dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not "very short". Not a "dicdef". "Doesn't seem like it can be expanded" - it sure has been expanded in both the German and the French articles. Has a good reference and many more can be found. Ok, somebody tagged itfor maintenance, but the tagger(s) didnt care to explain concerns on talk page. Tagged for maintenance is a poor reason for deletion. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nb the French article is a redirect to Comique, where running gags get a couple of sentences. pablo 11:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those improvement tags seem somewhat out of date, appropriate though they may have been for this version. Most articles could do with attention from an expert, so it's hard to argue with ((Expert-subject)), but I don't think it's needed here any longer; the article seems coherent. I don't think that there's any problem with the context either. Anybody else have any ideas? pablo 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a "dicdef" (Wiki-Jargon for dictionary definition). There is a problem with calling it a literary device, since it was widely used on radio and television shows early in their development, and still is in some cases. See Jack Benny or Fred Allen for many examples. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many literary devices apply equally to other modes of storytelling; there may be a better term, but don't take it too ... literarily pablo 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 19:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article is neither "very short" nor a simple dictionary definition. Tags appear mostly out of date--appropriate for when they were added but just not removed as the article was improved. Article is parent for Category:Running gags. Could the article be expanded? Sure, but that's a matter for tagging, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its long enough to have its own article, it just a short dictionary definition. Article has been around since 25 June 2003. If for the final two of those years someone had a tag on it, I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Almost no one pays attention to the pointless tags people spam all over the place anyway. Dream Focus 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's getting there. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable literary term, I would rather it have some examples drawn from reliable, notable sources, it does not work with no examples at all. Redhanker (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the subpage under the article talk page for TV examples. Radio show examples are in Jack Benny and Fred Allen. Literary examples are not so easily found, at least by me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand or delete -- still merely a WP:DICTDEF. Needs material on why a running gag (why is it used? why is it funny?) not just what one is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm sure it can be expanded beyond dicdef. If it has issues, I don't think AFD is the place for them Purplebackpack89 23:01, 24 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Kaur[edit]

Ravinder Kaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a very notable person. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF on the basis of publications, position, or influence. She has mentions in the press, but all of them are one-liners that either mention her as an associate professor and cite one sentence, or they mention her as a member of that Telangana panel--but there is no in-depth discussion of her or her significance. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra, extra: a statement from Kaur and another committee member have raised a bit of dust in the Indian media--see the (few) relevant hits in this Google News search. In my opinion, that does not bring her up to GNG level. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:N. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May have GS cites of 29, 25,16. 16..(?). Not enough yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I'm prepared to believe that a full professor at IIT Delhi may well pass WP:PROF, despite the lack of evidence. But we don't have enough reliable sources that say anything nontrivial about her to write anything in an article here about her. Pretty much the only thing the sources actually say is that she's a professor and a committee member. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 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. Part of the argument to keep is based on the idea that Delamar is a reliable source. Whether it is or not is ultimately not relevant because the coverage is extremely trivial, three sentences that explain what Scorio is and nothing more. (there was an ad after those three sentences, it made it appear the article was over when it was not, which I noticed when I went to close the window.) The other arguments are based on users liking this product and touting its usefulness, which are not valid, policy based reasons to keep an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As you can see I have had to strike through part of that rationale as I soon discovered I made an error. After reviewing the matter further I have decided to uphold the decision to delete as it is still but one source, and that is a review in a specialized publication. It probably is a reliable source, but this one mention is not sufficient to establish general notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scorio[edit]

Scorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I've looked through all the references (the German wiki has the same links) and did not find a single one that passes our guidelines for reliable sources--they're all blogs, online portals, communities, etc. Barring other evidence, I have to say that this article does not pass WP:GNG, nor do I see how it passes WP:WEB. Article had been deleted but was restored; a wider discussion is in order. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Comment I tend to agree with you, but it's a really interesting implementation, so I hate to !vote delete.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell Sarek, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:ILIKEIT. I'm going to throw in some WP:COI, WP:AdminAbuse, and WP:POV, all per WP:CONSPIRACY [I didn't know that existed--I'll read it after I'm done ranting], and ask you to hand over your mop. Maybe you can go find references to save it, if you like it so much! :) Drmies (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Sarek, but there seems to be nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in the past, yes, which is why I didn't !vote to keep. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not clear to me, why the review of scorio at delamar (http://www.delamar.de/pressemitteilung/scorio-kostenloser-musiknoteneditor-musiknoten-8843/) does not pass WP:WEB. It is independent of scorio.com and written by a delamar editor in a rather critical way. delamar is not just another blog, but a respectable news site about the music business. Scorgle (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm glad this has been brought to my notice, because my old copy of Finale is acting up, but unfortunately it does not appear to be notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a side note on this. As can be seen at the (currently) bottom section on my talk page, I originally A7 CSDed this. The author protested, and created enough smoke that I was no longer certain that it qualified for A7 CSD. Enough hints of possible notability to make me second guess myself. And if I'm second guessing myself, then it likely should not be A7 deleted any more. So I restored it, with the intention of, when I had more time, doing a more thorough check of the references in order to decide whether or not to bring it to AFD. I did not get around to that check, but here it is anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I beat you to it. I did see the discussion on your talk page--just to make things clear, I have no problem with it having been reinstated. An AfD discussion may bring in more editors who might help establish notability, and that's fine with me, though I don't see it happening yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the delamar review seems independent and critical enough to me to be considered a valid source, my main point for keeping the scorio entry is that scorio is a free low tech online service which is useful to people who want to discover music notation, but don't have financial or technical resources to buy and install even Capella or PriMus. They might only have access to a community computer (e.g. in a library) or they might not understand computers enough to install software. There are many musically interested people around who are neither technophile nor wealthy. A wikipedia entry about scorio would increase the chance that they can further develop their interest in writing music in spite of having access to little resources. -- Scorgle (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Scorgle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This scorio web site is the first one to offer a comprehensive scorewriter that is fully based on HTML-technologies (no Flash, Silverlight, JavaFX). As such it is the first of its kind and a true and still unique innovation (historical achievement). This makes this website notable in my eyes. And by the way: I do not understand why Delamar (even when you might not like their point of view) does not count as an independent and reliable source. Delamar is legend and Delamar tutorials are a source that's widely respected among German speaking musicians. I vote to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofeu (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Jofeu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete per Drmies' findings — this doesn't have any significant coverage from reliable sources. "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Nyttend (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see a reason why scorio should not be relevant for wikipedia, while other music notation programs such as Finale or Lilypond certainly are. For users who want to learn about music notation software and compare it, an appropriate article is really helpful. I agree with WP:RS that the number of reliable sources is limited, but this is not very surprising to me as the scorio web site seems to have started only a few months ago, compared to Finale (more than 20 years!). Furthermore as stated above scorio seems to be more than "yet another music scorewriter" as it integrates score writing and sharing within a web community. In conclusion I would favor to keep the article and reopen an AfD discussion within a few months in case the number of reliable sources does not increase. -- Ornello (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Ornello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - I totally agree with Ornello. Look for axample at those notation software and competitors of scorio which still have a page in wikipedia like for example MuseScore or Scorewriter. They have even less references or they are internal links of their own website. The critical articles from Delamar or classicalquitarblog give much more details and insights about this new notation software and really help people to decide wether they want to use scorio or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auwetter (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Auwetter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep because of the Delamar review, inclusion in the MusicXML list, wide-spread coverage in the circles of music notation enthusiasts and because of the program's radically different approach. Music notation is a very specialised field which doesn't get much coverage in the general press. Aside: there doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline on notability for software, merely two essays (Wikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Software notability). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much more about the web site/community than about the software. And we more definitely have a guideline on inclusion of web pages. WP:WEB. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One point in having an online scorewriter is that scores can be shared within a community and accessed from everywhere. It is part of the concept of scorio, that the scorewriter and the online community are intertwined. The Delamar review refers to the community aspect, but also discusses the editor software (for example how to enter music). It should not be held against scorio that it does not fall properly in one of the categories software or website. -- Scorgle (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, you have something that falls into two categories. One of those those categories has an official guideline. And the thing (IMHO) fails that guideline. At that point, the fact that the other category only has an essay doesn't matter as much. If something fails a specific notability guideline under which it definitely falls, then it fails notability IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bednarek's point that there is no wide-spread coverage of music notation in the press is supported by the fact that quite a few notation programs that have been in Wikipedia for a longer time do not reference press articles. Here are some random examples: Music_Write (since 2005), MusEdit (since 2007), SmartScore (since 2005) and surprisingly also the well-known Rosegarden (since 2007). In my opinion, the reason for this lack of coverage is that music notation software is targeted to active musicians who do not only listen to music or play it, but also are interested in arranging or composing music. This group is relatively small and therefore not interesting for the main stream music media. Concerning the question whether to keep or delete the scorio entry, I would suggest that an administrator specialized in music topics reviews the discussion and comes to an informed compromise, considering the formal requirements of the appropriate guidelines as well as the pecularities of music notation as an exotic topic. -- Scorgle (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing exactly what I commented about in my "Delete" !vote below. Examples of other articles that may or may not be similar to this article really do not mean much in these debates. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It details why this is not a winning argument against deletion around here.

As for your other arguments, I'm sorry, but these debates are judged by whether or not the article meets existing policies. That's policies as they now stand, not how you think they should stand. If you want to change notability policy, there are ways to attempt to do such. But it's not a winning argument to say that you think it should not be deleted because it meets what you think the policy *should* say, instead of what it *does* say.

WP:WEB gives specific criteria for article inclusion on web sites. The article IMHO does not meet those criteria. It also does not meet the general notability criteria. So IMHO it should be deleted. It's as simple as that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Wikipedia:Notability (web) should apply – it's a scorewriter (see http://www.scorio.com/web/scorio/new-score). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the first line of the article: "scorio ... is an online community for musicians to write, publish and find sheet music on the web." That's why WP:WEB applies. The article is about the website as much as the software. But even if it does not that leaves Wikipedia:Notability (software), an essay, and the core WP:NOTE criteria. Scorio fails both these as well, because it still has, at most, one independent review, and both require multiple. I focused on WP:WEB because it's a Guideline, and so has more community support than Wikipedia:Notability (software). But whichever criteria you look at, IMHO scorio fails them. Ultimately, I will not be judging this debate, it'll be a previously uninvolved admin. But I was wanting to explain to you ahead of time why, as I see it, this is likely to be deleted. 1) scorio fails any of the three sets of notability criteria that could be used to evaluate it, and 2) none of the Keep arguments are IMHO based in Wikipedia policy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB. At best we have one independent review. WP:WEB criteria 1 requires "multiple". And 1 is not "multiple". The arguments from the SPA parade above all are either WP:OTHERSTUFF or argue reasons for inclusion that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 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. Consensus is that a separate article is warranted because it is an amalgamation of two other awards. Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Ballon d'Or[edit]

FIFA Ballon d'Or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completing unfinished nom made by another editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is the new award created by FIFA and verifiable on their website. The old Ballon d'Or and FIFA World Player of the Year awards were merged to create this. Zarcadia (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a lengthy rationale about whether it was a new award or not, but it didnt go through. Regardless, most media report talk about the "new" award as the ballon dor, as such it is premature to declare it a different award from the old award, when a section on the ballon dor article would suffice, if players, coaches and journalists does not distinguish between them. There's additional comments on the talkpage of the article. Sandman888 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks to be a new award that is a continuation of two old awards; therefore it cannot simply be mentioned on one of the old articles, as we wouldn't know which one. It deserves a new article, which it has got. GiantSnowman 13:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per Snowman and this article, which states two awards have been merged, therefore it needs its own article. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is clearly a new award, bringing forward aspects of the two old (defunct awards). It's the same difference between two clubs merging to form a new club (eg Inverness Thistle + Caledonian => Inverness Caledonian Thistle) and an existing club renaming and/or relocating (eg Livingston).
• Keep still a notable award. Would recommend speedy close, not even clear by the nomination why this should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The old and the new Ballon d'or are the same. The deal between Aumaury (publisher company of France Football magaine) and FIFA is only for three years. The Ballon d'or is, and will stay, an Amaury trophy. FIFA and his FIFA World Player of the Year just gave up because they could not compete with the Ballon d'or. Read the France Football Ballon d'or special edition for details. Clio64B (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable. Would recommend speedy close. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Absolutely not. It's a different award from the previous ones... a merge, therefore clearly not a rebranding. It also introduced new awards, for example the best coach award in the women and men's game, although this hasn't much to do with it. Tibullus ^{call me} 17:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It´s an important and notable FIFA "event". Kante4 (talk) 00:26, 24 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) 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1egg1world[edit]

1egg1world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, and essentially advertising.

An attempt by some students to replicate the One red paperclip thingy that apparently hasn't panned out. Admirable philanthropic goal got a few human-interest-type write-ups in the Australian papers, but seems to have stalled. There've only been a couple of trades in over a year, culminating in a Craig Ruddy painting, which is nice but still well short of million bucks. One gets the sense that nobody is really putting lot of time into running this anymore, and they should probably just sell the painting and donate the proceeds, and they probably will.

The Aussie news writeups perhaps put the effort over the WP:GNG threshold, but its nevertheless not article-worthy. Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is basically trivia, and at best in might warrant a mention in the one red paperclip article as an attempt to emulate it. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:36, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Yadav (author)[edit]

Sanjay Yadav (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is vanispam. Look carefully to see the forest through the trees.

Author bases claims on own work:

• "Clare Hall, a Cambridge college, elected him a life-member in 1991"--sourced to the author's own book

Author makes mountains out of molehills looking for notability. For instance, footnote 5, sourcing a statement from the lead about the many publications, reads "See references 19 to 35 below." Those references are at best pointers to primary evidence, and some of them quite shallow, as a sampling shows:

• note 20 is simply a failed link to the LoC
• note 21 does not seem to mention our subject
• note 23 is maybe the best of them all, if "Sanjay Singh" is indeed our subject, receiving modest praise for a rather childish poem with a grammatical error in the first line
• note 24, see page 156

I could go on, but I won't. There are no secondary sources that establish the author's notability. There seems to be one single mention of the author, in a Livemint-associated blog, here (where he is denounced as a xenophobe). The two books listed in the LoC are self-published; see The Invasion of Delhi and The Environmental Crisis of Delhi. This article is puffery and, worse, spam, attempting to create notability for and author and his works which were subsequently cited in contentious articles such as Environment of Delhi and Ethnic groups in Delhi. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I asked Drmies for help on one article which got him to uncover this. I still haven't had much time to look around, but one thing, the worldcat link on the article lists all authors of the same name, looking through the first fifty books on the Worldcat link, I couldn't find one by this person. This is getting to be a walled garden as the author's POV is spammed across other articles now, specifically Ethnic groups in Delhi. —SpacemanSpiff 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hesitant to call this a walled garden, but it certainly has aspects of one. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking deeper, I can't see how this passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG and more importantly WP:V. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity bio--Sodabottle (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:RS, WP:V. Qworty (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - WorldCat finds 3 libraries holding The invasion of Delhi and only 1 library, The environmental crisis of Delhi : a political analysis. It does not find Portraits of India; nor does it find Dilli par Kabza. I do not know if Indian libraries participate in OCLC. LadyofShalott 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You managed to find the books, which I couldn't based on the link within. Indian libraries are not covered in worldcat, so we can't take that at face value. However, BCL and LoC holdings aren't generally indicators, as they tend to hold anything they get a copy of; t. Given the timing of the books and the sensitivity of both topics within the Indian context, I would expect newspaper reviews of the author and/or books to be available online. —SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom -...Captain......Tälk tö me... 05:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article should stay because the person-concerned has been the subject of international reporting (i.e. Christian Science Monitor); this establishes his notability. Besides, the site gets reasonable traffic. Most Indian academics who have had their biographies put up on the Wikipedia have never been the subject of any international report at all; he is an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.18.241 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked at the CSM article, and do not see any mention of this author's name. Am I missing something? LadyofShalott 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The book (credited to him) is quoted in the second page of the CSM article (India's migrant workers face hostility in Mumbai, CSM, April 9, 2010):

  In a 2008 book titled "The Invasion of Delhi," scholar Sanjay Yadav argues that the original inhabitants in and around Delhi have been marginalized by newcomers. He calculates that they now make up just 35 percent of the population and hold 6 percent of the white-collar jobs. He also appeals to environmentalism, arguing that the region has grown polluted partly as a result of too many people with too little connection to the land. He says migration is holding back development elsewhere.

• I don't think that is anything to go by for notability. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked and found that there is a reference to him on Yahoo News too. This is the number one online news portal. Additionally, the references to contributions in overseas journals are accurate. He has also contributed to the Hindu, south India's top paper, the Hindustan Times, north's India's top paper and to the Illustrated Weekly of India, the top journal of yesteryears. Overall this is fair proof of notability. So many Indian journalists have sketches on the Wikipedia; but few among them have contributed to overseas publications and few have been alluded to in Yahoo New or the Christian Science Monitor--this latter is among the top three journals of the USA.

Some of the editorial comment shows poor literacy. Thus the first line right at the top of the page says: "Look carefully to see the forest through the trees". This is hilarious! How can you see through a tree? Will you cut a hole in the trunk! There is no such expression, but if you do want to use it anyway, it should be rather 'look carefully to see the trees through the forest'.

I could go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.9.173 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all your comment about the nominator's expression, "seeing the forest through the trees" is just wrong. It is a common English expression for understanding the big picture, not just focusing on small details. That's neither here nor there.

Can you post links to the CSM article (the one I saw had only one page, with no mention of Yadav or his book) and the Yahoo news article? The quote you published from CSM is not significant coverage anyway. If you want to argue that these sources be counted, we need links to them so they can be evaluated. LadyofShalott 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comment about the illiterate use of English by the self-appointed editor is absolutely correct. The correct expression is 'mistaking the woods for the trees' and it refers to a failure to distinguish general issues from specific details. His focus is precisely on small details, so is yours; and his claim is that small details are falsified. The expression is not used in instances of alleged fraud--which is exactly what his charge is.

Another instance of poor English is the expression 'walled garden'. Most gardens are walled, e.g. the Mughals Gardens in Delhi. Nor is the new information technology meaning applicable here. So what does the masked creature from the animal kingdom mean? Nothing! He is just trying to sound more sophisticated than he is. Anyhow, we'll let that pass; illiteracy is widespread.

For the CSM link click the note 11 and then go to page two. As for Yahoo News, retrieval is more complicated because they have archived the story. I am writing to Yahoo to see how it may be retrieved. Other links such as those referring to Gulf News and Minnesota Post both work and demonstrate how the references are accurate. Again read till the end of the report.

It is obvious that these semi-educated vandals are motivated by personal animus and have neither the ability nor the integrity to judge another individual's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.19.59 (talk) 05:55, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TEAS test[edit]

TEAS test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources provided, no indication of importance, no significant coverage shown, probable original research. — Timneu22 · talk 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I moved it to the correct caps. Appears to be an important test in the nursing industry, enough that there are multiple published books on how to study for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unremarkable test; no non-original research sources. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article moved to TEAS test. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good faith newbee editor is warmly welcomed, article created at 16:21, nom for AfD at 16:25, attempted speedy at 16:28. Shouting OR. Without even the most rudimentary background checking. A race of headless chickens. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still no indication of importance. Who cares how quickly it was AfD'd? It's been a day now, and you're voting to keep here but you still haven't shown why, you just argue about how quickly it happened. — Timneu22 · talk 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure are quick, but your work is sloppy. You obviously didnt notice that I added a ref to the page. Why not try some searching, more are available, indicative of importance. MrCleanOut (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad you think my work is sloppy, but it's not up to me to go searching for proof of importance. I did notice you added a single link. And what does that link prove? That the test exists? How about some actual significant coverage? — Timneu22 · talk 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This conversation ought to enter Wikipedia's 10 years anniversary celebrations, on gatekeepers, policy wonks, incremental improvement, and on recruiting to a collaborative project. "The best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire). MrCleanOut (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Amazing how you have yet to comment on the actual content of the article or actual reasons for its inclusion in the encyclopedia. That is, after all, the only purpose of this project page. — Timneu22 · talk 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You haven't put deletion policy into action either yourself, kiddo. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do it is up to you to search for sources to determine that they don't exist, Timneu22. Doing anything else (a) is lazy and (b) belies any claim that you may make that sources don't exist. How can the closing administrator believe that the "no sources" assertion in your nomination is in good faith and well researched when here you are saying that you didn't look to see whether that was in fact the case? (Indeed, how can xe believe the "original research" statement when you've said that you haven't looked to see how the world documents this subject in the first place, before determining that this content isn't it.)

          How much weight should people give to such statements that you make when you state that you don't put in the effort of looking to see whether they are accurate, and by the timing of your edits at most could only have spent three and a bit minutes checking? AFD and Wikipedia don't need editors who don't do their research, and whose unresearched opinions can be so easily seen to be based upon zero effort at all. AFD and Wikipedia need editors who spend more than three and a bit minutes searching for sources before they can confidently and truthfully claim that no sources exist because they've looked and not found any. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • Hey, just what we need! More people not discussing the article! Find me significant coverage of this topic, then maybe what you're saying is worth a damn. — Timneu22 · talk 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's already been found. You simply haven't bothered to even read the source pointed to, observed by Starblind above and cited directly by MrCleanOut, as evident from your quite erroneous description of it. You don't look for sources. You spend a mere three minutes evaluating a subject before deciding on the basis of zero research that no sources exist and that it's original research. You don't look at sources when they're then waved in front of you. And you try to make out that it's everyone else that is the problem? The sheer gall! You; you're the problem. Put the effort in, stop biting novices with three-minute deletion nominations, do your research properly, and actually read sources when they're shown to you. Stop making work for other people and do things properly, Timneu22. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You know what, everything you've said is wrong. The link provided proves only that the test exists. Where's the significant coverage?? Whine all you want about my processes — even though this is not the time or the place — but at least another user here wants the article deleted, there are no strong keep arguments, and there still isn't a single link that shows significant coverage of this topic. Provide it, and prove me wrong. Don't argue about anything else. Holy shit. This forum exists to discuss the article that's being nominated, yet you have consistently attacked my process rather than addressing the failure that is this article. — Timneu22 · talk 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Timneu22 collapsed this section based on "Collapse completely off-topic discussion". Well, it is not at all off-topic, it's about a very bad deletion rationale, and it is an aggrevating circumstance and a major problem that you just dont get it. A bad deletion rationale is relevant to other editiors and should not be hidden in a collapsed section. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, there are papers on G-Scholar describing the test, at least briefly. A short article based on those sources is appropriate, probably describing what it is in general, requirement/acceptance by nursing schools, and its use in evaluating different teaching strategies. EEng (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this source is where? Still no proof that this has been covered significantly. Add it. — Timneu22 · talk 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timneu22, could you please try to control yourself? You could easily have clicked on the Scholar link at the top of this discussion, but here's a refined link I made just for you [1]. It's not required -- actually, I wish it were -- that notability-establishing sources appear in the article itself for the article to survive AfD; it's only necessary that it be apparent that such sources do exist. And you are wrong in saying, "it's not up to me to go searching for proof of importance," because your cite to WP:BURDEN is not apropos -- BURDEN is for content, not AfD. Where you need to be looking is WP:BEFORE: 4. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.

Anyway, why are you so wound up by this? EEng (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Timneu22, how strongly do you need to be prompted to read the source that's already in the article? If you do so you will see that it contains significant coverage, rather than, as you claim, proof "only that the test exists". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did click it, and it merely states that the test exists. Second, I am unable to visit the source again (limit exceeded or something) to see what it says, exactly. You and anyone else who says I haven't clicked stuff... what an awful accusation. Go improve the article if you feel so strongly about it. No one has. The list from "scholar"? Seems like a few passing mentions. — Timneu22 · talk 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link is to five pages of coverage - how did you manage to miss that? I don't feel particularly strongly about this article, but I do feel strongly about your disruptive behaviour that only serves to drive good editors away from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly about multiple, reliable sources that indicate significant coverage. And hey, at least another editor agrees with me. You're going to blame me for chasing away editors? Please. — Timneu22 · talk 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GScholar hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the few passing mentions? Can you point out which hits exactly? — Timneu22 · talk 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but we won't, becaus we don't need to waste our time convincing you. The clear consensus is keep. EEng (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of multiple, reliable sources showing significant coverage doesn't exist. So why would you keep it? — Timneu22 · talk 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have begged, simply begged an editor to provide multiple, reliable sources to show why this article should be included in the encyclopedia. Instead of providing such information, you constantly attack me. This discussion is about this article and my concerns are absolutely valid. WP:RS and significant coverage are the cornerstones of this encyclopedia. So show this information!!! — Timneu22 · talk 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What give you the right to make such demands when, when you are presented with five pages of coverage in a book from an academic publisher, you say that it "proves only that the test exists"? You have made it clear that you will be unconvinced however much evidence is presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy shit. Assume good faith. I am unable to go to that "one" link. Besides that, what ever happened to multiple, reliable sources? Why are you able to ignore this guideline for this article? The order of events here is:
      1. I don't think this article should exist. Looking for multiple, significant, reliable sources provided.
      2. Others say "we added one link". Plus look at GScholar
      3. I say, ok, but where are multiple reliable sources? Give me the specific articles that show notability. I see passing mentions but no significant coverage.
      4. You say, they exist but we don't need to prove it to you.
    • So by that rationale, any article could exist. Our band IS notable, but we don't need to provide the links! Do you see the struggle here? You see why it's upsetting? I'm trying to follow the same procedures from any other article, and you are not providing the proof that you say exists. — Timneu22 · talk 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Timneu22, your Tourette's cleared up! Way to go! EEng (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 500,000 hits on Google, in quotes, indicates WP:N --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the existing references is a PhD dissertation evaluating the test - it is the primary topic of the 198-page book. The other ref currently in the article shows us that McGraw-Hill, a respected academic publishing house, has included it in a publication about the most important tests for nursing students (five tests all in all, in that book). Google Scholar finds a number of academic articles talking about the test (a couple of them discuss the results from the dissertation, others talk about the test itself). Notability seems clear to me. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! broadcast history[edit]

Jeopardy! broadcast history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Far too much WP:IINFO an repition of information already part of the Jeopardy! article. Main article already contains information about hosts, announcers, taping locations and episode status in Jeopardy!#Set and Jeopardy!#Episode status.

WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and the set and episode status sections can be reorganized to include the small amount of encyclopedic information from this article that is not already included in the parent article.

Article has been tagged with refimprove for 1.5 years, and the "Personnel", "Syndication, 1974-1975" and "NBC, 1978–1979" sections are entirely unsourced.

WP:NOTINHERITED, and there is little notability related to the broadcast history of any television program that would warrant an entirely separate article from the parent article. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide, and the exact timeslot and so on of even very notable shows isn't encyclopedic. Most of this information is covered in more concise and better form in the main Jeopardy! article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. The information that can be sourced is already in the parent article; the rest is irrelevant, unverifiable or both. Wikipedia still is not TV Guide. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly not correct, as an examination of the References section easily shows. Robert K S (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or substantially trim and merge: The only content that isn't really duplicative of the parent article is the discussion of NBC's early-to-mid-1970's daytime programming strategy and the Fleming version's resulting moves around the schedule and eventual cancellation. While it's (mostly) sourced, I'm not sure it's all that relevant more than 35 years after the fact, and not as a sub of an article whose primary focus is the current version. JTRH (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke the original research like "Many other affiliates also attempted this experiment, and Jeopardy! continues to air in the 7:00-8:00 PM period across the country," "Starting in 1999, just after Jep!'s cancellation, Jeopardy! began a 'Back-to-School Week', which has easier clues and more accessible material for the younger contestants, but is otherwise identical to the adult version," and "Despite losing the lunchtime demographic which had been its base, Jeopardy! unexpectedly beat the CBS version of The $10,000 Pyramid in ratings, which was then canceled by CBS and purchased by ABC," and then merge the remaining content back into the main article (since there are some sections that are well-sourced from watching an episode of the show, especially the 1978-79 version). RJaguar3 | u | t 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the concerns by TenPoundHammer and Sottolacqua. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : if there are redundancies, I'd remove these from the main article and point to this article, which is decently sourced and allows to get into the detail without clogging the main article. WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not apply IMHO: it's not a TV guide but rather an exposition of the history of the show. WP:NOTINHERITED also seems not proper to invoke, given that this article is meant as a split for size and organization concerns. --Cyclopia^talk 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Cyclopia. Those dismissing this as being somehow like TV Guide content don't seem to have even read the article; it isn't a viewing guide, but instead states timeslots only in the context of behind-the-scenes network programming decisions, which is rather significant information for the history of a show, particularly when a time slot is purported to seal its cancellation or success. I also agree with Cyclopia's criticism of the "not inherited" argument: this is a subtopic split off from the main article, so the only question is whether there is sufficient encyclopedic information to merit the split off or if the main article can incorporate it. "The history of Jeopardy! does not inherit notability from Jeopardy!" is simply an incoherent and nonsensical way of analyzing whether a separate article on that subtopic is appropriate. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge per the above two, especially Postdif. "There is little notability related to the broadcast history of any television program"? Shows live and die by their timeslots, and a show's success or failure can usually be traced to a particular timeslot and its competition there. Jeopardy! (especially the original NBC run) is an example of how it thrived after being moved to one slot and died a slow, painful death after being moved to another – and yes, the move to 1:30 PM (a stiff-competition slot at the time) was because Lin Bolen wanted to rid NBC of games hosted by middle-aged men on technologically-obsolete sets. Daniel Benfield (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The notation about the time slot and Bolen's actions do not inflate the notability of the show's broadcast history to the level of warranting an entirely separate article from the parent article. This can easily be summarized in a few sentences and included in Jeopardy!#Episode status. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Essentially, this is about the Art Fleming hosted version of Jeopardy! that people 40 and over recall, while the Jeopardy! article is almost entirely about the Alex Trebek hosted version that has run for more than 25 years. I always love nominations based on "way too much information". Some of us simply call that "information", but if we must be protected from too much info, then our guardians can use the edit button. Mandsford 00:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepwell referenced and little overlap with main article. A TV Guide? Huh? What is that about?This is nothing like a TV Guide, and we do have tv guides. We have a whole series of charts for what was in what timeslot for each year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, yet another in a long line of Sottolacqua deletion nominations. Despite all the work that's gone into this article, he won't rest until all sorts of valuable sourced information is culled from the encyclopedia. It's tiring to keep responding to these nominations. I could write pages on why all the nomination arguments are bunk, but frankly, I'm exhausted by this process. It really shouldn't be this much of an uphill battle to keep content on the encyclopedia. My sense is that deletionists won't rest until Wikipedia is reduced to nothing. Robert K S (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and suggestion: I've already voted to delete or merge, but I wonder: Would a separate article on the Fleming versions be more noteworthy than a separate article on broadcast history? JTRH (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—If the Flemming and Trebek-hosted versions were vastly different in gameplay like The Price Is Right (1956 U.S. game show) and The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) are, then I would say "yes." However, being that there are a very small number of differences (i.e., increases in clue values over time, the 1978 "Super Jeopardy" bonus game and a separate special tournament played for points instead of dollars), these versions are fairly identical in gameplay. I don't feel a separate article is needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeopardy! has been a highly-rated and popular program for 26 years in its current run. Yet viewers are often surprised to learn that the 26-season Trebek version is not the original Jeopardy! Why didn't the original persist? This is a complicated question that cannot be answered in a small section of a larger article on the subject. The Fleming version was a highly-rated staple of daytime TV for over a decade. When it was canceled, it was still strong in the ratings, the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it, and the host and creator both desired the show to keep airing. Given all of this, why was it canceled? This is a subject worthy of coverage on this encyclopedia. All the best, Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The An entirely separate article is unneeded. "Viewers are often surprised" is opinion and takes liberty in assuming that you know what other people know/don't know. Your response, "The Fleming version was a highly-rated staple of daytime TV for over a decade. When it was canceled, it was still strong in the ratings, the network was contractually obligated to keep airing it, and the host and creator both desired the show to keep airing." sums up what should be added to either a Broadcast history section or Episode status section in the Jeopardy! article. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • ??? This is a proper place for expression of opinions. I don't need to "take liberties" with what others know. I've had thousands of conversations about Jeopardy! over the years. I'm in a room with six other people right now--intelligent, well read people, law students--and took a quick poll. Nobody else in the room with me realized there had been a host of Jeopardy! before Alex Trebek. Misinterpreting the intent of my question, one of them said to me, "If you want to know, Wikipedia it." I explained that certain persons on Wikipedia thought that such information should be removed from the encyclopedia. This dumbfounded my colleagues. "Isn't Wikipedia the place you go when you want to know about something?" one of them asked. "Why would anyone want to delete this information?" I explained that certain people believed that Wikipedia should only be about a certain small subset of information. This was perplexing to my colleagues. They reasoned that the Internet was a big place and there should be room on Wikipedia for information such as this. I could only shrug in agreement. Let's end this destruction. Robert K S (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nom lists three rationales for deletion. However, this article doesn't fit any of the categories of WP:IINFO, is not at all "TV Guide", and is well-sourced, so it's not resting on "inherited" notability. So all three rationales fall apart. And, as noted, User Sottolacqua has an easily verified history of borderline bad faith AfDs on this topic. 271828182 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well sourced article about a broadcasting institution. I was voting "Delete" on the individual player bios a while back, but this one seems well within WP parameters... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 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. I appreciate the impassioned argument to keep this article and the good faith attempt to comply with the relevant guidelines, but it seems clear this band is in the WP:UPANDCOMING category, not the "already made it" category. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unquiet Nights[edit]

Unquiet Nights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There appears to be one or two links that interview Luke Mathers. No real significant coverage of this band appears to exist: reviews of albums and/or concert tours? I don't see that. I also see youtube listed as references, as well as the same article repeatedly cited (don't let the raw number of "sources" fool you!). Further, external links is filled with every possible site to find the band: YouTube, Facebook, ReverbNation, Twitter, on and on and on. Clearly promotional in tone.

Without significant links showing significant coverage, there's no indication that this band is particularly notable, or that they pass WP:MUSICBIO, or that this article exists in any fashion except to call attention to the band. — Timneu22 · talk 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BAND, band without even an an album released yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geesh! I (nominator) didn't even notice that! — Timneu22 · talk 16:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• rael_electrique: Points taken into consideration. This draft is being improved. The band have received significant coverage as you will see Fault are a major London magazine (http://www.faultmagazine.com), and the interview is cited. The band have toured high profile venues with major acts as cited here showing one such ticket from a major promoter. http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1375.snc4/164781_10150114655245815_116745230814_7590566_170827_n.jpg The band have been played regularly on national radio in many countries. The sources for some of these are youtube, I gather this isn't verifiable? Okay, they will be verified then. Please don't treat the article with contempt, everything in here is true and verifiable and the band meet the criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's terms as far as I'm reading. Changes need to be made, that's all. Having a full length LP released is only one of many criteria which may be met. Many others on that list are cited. The External Links have been cleaned up to remove Youtube, Twitter, Facebook style links. The article does not cite only 2 interviews, there are 5 or 6 with major credible third party music magazines. The band have been licensed on major network TV, as cited in the other media category with 3rd party links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rael electrique (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• rael_electrique: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album". I will prove all 3 of these criteria to start with.
  1. Theme for "Le Stream" TV show in Canada hosted by comedian Yan Theriault. Syndicated on over 10 stations. Cited on article.
  2. Included in a notable television show by Surfline TV on ESPN. See 40,000+ web views alone on their site. http://www.surfline.com/surflinetv/punt-of-the-month/leif-engstroms-540_51198
  3. Included on compilation album released by Modirn Records New York. See here on CD baby or the label's website. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/modernreccomp4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rael electrique (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Fault magazine interview looks ok in terms of the publication but it seems to be the only thing that could be considered significant coverage in a reliable source, or at least it might if it wasn't just the band members talking about themselves, with no independent commentary. I don't see that WP:MUSIC is satisifed here. If their previous band had been notable there may have been a case for retaining some of the content, but that one looks equally unconvincing regarding notability.--Michig (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The previous band's article proves itself notable by Wikipedia's criteria having been released by EMI, and cited verifiable proof of licensing by major TV networks such as Sky, National Geographic, BBC, amongst other criteria. This article has been cleaned up as per the user's above guidelines, as in removal of excessive external links, youtube sources, and added verification as to major national radio, touring major venues with major acts, inclusion in network TV, compilation albums,etc. All these criteria are in line with WP:MUSIC as far as I can read, and proven beyond subjectivity in the current draft. Nobody is making reference to the fact that Under The Radar Magazine is one of the world's most influential indie music magazines, which recently included a song by this band in their Best of 2010 edition. This certainly qualifies as per WP:MUSIC as a credible source. To quote specifically why the band are notable I will point to "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.". The band are playing major venues with major acts, example here @Scala London with Bloc Party. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album". Evidence of all 3 are cited. A theme song on "Le Stream", a show by Canadian Hall of Fame comedian Yan Theriault. Notable use of a song on ESPN by Surfline TV, as cited even the web version has 40,000+ views. Inclusion on a compilation album in New York by Modirn Records. 11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. This is totally irrefutable as it is cited directly on the websites of national UK stations such as Amazing Radio, aswell as any number of direct show notes links to internationally syndicated stations such as Maximum Threshold which airs all over the US. Youtube has not been used to cite radioplay for the article's purpose, but if anyone should continue to doubt the credability of the radioplay there are many examples on www.youtube.com/unquietnights also. If further weight to this case is needed, I will point out that the band have been covered (as cited), by multiple reputable, independent, established music magazines exactly as described in WP:MUSIC with a history of impartial coverage. I appreciate the article was not perfect but I hope I have illustrated that this band qualify as per Wikipedia's guideline on atleast 3 criteria.--rael_electrique (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2011 (GMT)
  • The problem here is lack of significant coverage of the band - there's nothing to suggest that this exists in Under the Radar magazine from the citations in the article. Why is the compilation on Modirn Records notable (it doesn't seem to be a particularly notable label, with releases sold via cdbaby). Amazing Radio is not a major station and is not available to the whole of the UK (other than via the internet) and it's clear from their website that they specialise in unsigned artists and that any band can upload music to get it played. What exactly is 'Le Stream'? It looks like web content.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are completely wrong that Amazing Radio is not a national radio station. It is one of the 6 major stations in the UK, is classed as a national in every possible listing. It is a few presets to the left of BBC Radio 1 if you're in any car with a digital radio. Any song registered with PRS and played on Amazing qualifies for royalty payment. It's a relatively new station being founded I think in 2003, you can't disqualify it because you yourself have never heard of it. Maximum Threshold is syndicated in 4 major US cities. Under The Radar Magazine is one of the most important music magazines worldwide and I have proven inclusion by linking to a photo of the page with our album cover. You're ignoring the fact that I have also proven evidence the band are touring nationally in major venues with major acts. We can argue and be pedantic for a long time about this. But I will state again WP:MUSIC No.11 which is that an act "must have been placed on rotation by a national radio station". And to quote Amazing Radio directly "Welcome to Amazing Radio, the only national radio station dedicated exclusively to playing emerging and independent music." The way I found Amazing myself was listed under National Radio in the PRS handbook. I will add that the band have been played many times on BBC which I can't immediately find online proof of. Your assertion that Amazing Radio is only available online is 100% false though. It's a national station available anywhere in the United Kingdom. --rael_electrique (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (GMT)
      • Amazing Radio may be available to most of the UK via DAB but certainly is not one of the 6 major stations in the UK (e.g. several BBC stations, Planet Rock, XFM). The only evidence of coverage in Under the Radar is inclusion of a track on a free CD - if there's more coverage then it would be useful if you could present it. What evidence is there that this band has been 'placed in rotation' by Amazing Radio (i.e. not just played by them)? There's a significant difference.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amazing Radio is classified as major national officially. WP:MUSIC does not require analogue radio stations only, as you know DAB is the prevailing format now. I'll assume I cannot cite it in the article, but if you personally would like to be assured the band get regular analogue I don't know why you won't consult the youtube channel to be personally satisfied. Rather than argue the fact with you of Amazing Radio's legitimacy as a National station, or your opinions about record labels and established music blogs, I will assert that it is verifiable that the band are touring internationally in major venues. ^[1][2] The second link is a scan of the concert ticket by an established promoter, for a major venue, with a major headliner. To be included on the Best of Year sampler for a major worldwide music magazine is more proof of notability than you're giving credit too. The weight of this case will build and I will cite proof of BBC Radio 1 play when I can find a way. It's not obvious how that would be proved online apart from uploading to youtube or showing e-mails from BBC DJ's? There are 5 music blogs cited which are established in different countries, showing subjective coverage of the band. The WP:MUSIC page only requires 1 criteria to be satisfied. --rael_electrique (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (GMT)
          • DAB is not the prevailing format. Far from it, as this article makes clear - 10 million DAB radios in the UK compared to 150 million FM radios - any station that is only on DAB is a minority one compared to those that broadcast nationally on FM. Please re-read WP:MUSIC as none of the criteria there appear to be currently satisfied.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • See also this, and this from RAJAR gives a good indication of those stations that can be considered 'major' in the UK.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I agree with Michig (talk · contribs)'s arguments above that the band having a DAB format does not establish notability. That the band hasn't even released an album yet (per Andrew Lenahan) means that it fails WP:MUSIC. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 26 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. There's a consensus here that the subject itself is notable. If there are any WP:HOWTO issues, which seems unlikely from the discussion, they can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is functions (née Number validation in VB 6)[edit]

Is functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not how-to content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a software instruction manual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability, WP is not a how-to guide. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, with the hope that someone finds a use for it elsewhere. Content is OK, but it fails WP:HOWTO for hosting here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete, despite lobbying on my talk page.

    This is a HOWTO. It has no encyclopedic content beyond a straight reproduction of the language reference manual. There is no context outside the MS VB family, no discussion of how undef, Null or NaN are evaluated by comparable tests in other languages. The scope is unencyclopedically narrow, focussing only on how to achieve one task, on one platfrom. Fortunately it's not as uselessly patronising as the MSDN article, but that's just MSDN for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • What an absurd nonsense of a rationale. Deletion policy doesn't say that articles should be deleted because they don't happen to cover quite unrelated subjects in the same field, or because they are about specific computer language families, or even because (Oh, the very idea!) an encyclopaedia article tells the reader what can be found in another reference work. (Indeed, deletion policy is quite clear about the reverse of the latter point.) I was hoping that you'd notice that you were talking about an article that had changed at the very time that you wrote your rationale, with a simple nudge and a pointer to things that actually are how-tos (which contrast quite markedly with this), but instead you are clinging to a previously formed conclusion in despite of such things. And it's not even as if you truly believe that language-specific articles whose content can also be found in reference manuals shouldn't exist, as evident from the fact that you aren't objecting to math.h and its ilk. Your taking the holding of a previously considered conclusion at AFD to be more important than the actual betterment of the encyclopaedia, with content about a subject that it didn't heretofore cover anywhere, is rather disappointing, I have to say. It's certainly not what encyclopaedia writing is about. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment content has been substantially improved from what I saw but it still is essential a HOWTO and just a rehash of information already available from MSDN. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't bend the policy out of shape to prevent changing an AFD rationale. That's putting the cart entirely before the horse. One thing that how tos have, that isn't in the article before us, is instructional content telling someone step-by-step how to do something. Policy is quite clear that what it is talking about is instructional and tutorial material. This article here is an actual programmers' how to, for reference and contrast with the encyclopaedia article before us, which contains not a single step-by-step instruction and no tutorials of any form (unlike this which was mostly instructional), and is purely reference material sourced, by and large, from reference books, some of which even say "reference" in their titles. Uncle G (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The applicable policies are probably WP:N and WP:NOTHOWTO point 4. On the face of it, the subject matter has the multiple non-trivial references satisfying notability. The article presents as information rather than as "textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" and so good argument can be made that it satisfies the NOTHOWTO advice. And though I can kinda see reasons for not wanting to dissect in minute detail on wikipedia every software platform, I'm persuaded by NOTHOWTO's "Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article", the quality of the subject article, and the fact that it discusses the function in the context of a range of platforms. I suspect, however, that other non-microsoft platforms have is functions and thus that we're seeing only a subset of the information one might expect to inhabit the is function namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) & again at --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is almost trivial to address, since we already have the others elsewhere. And, funnily enough, there's not a peep raised there about the idea that discussion of sets of standard library functions, in other families of computer programming languages, is a "how-to". That's because the whole "It's a how-to." idea is pretty much a red herring. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. You are allowed to vote keep, should you wish, Uncle G. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a discussion, not a vote. It's the actual rationales that count, not how many times someone happens to use boldface. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided: When I first saw this, my eyes glazed over. There are just 11 or 12 concepts for the whole article. But there are 27 citations, 15 sources, 7 further readings, and a 6 by 6 summary table. This brings to mind WP:LINKFARM, except it is done much more elegantly than most spammers. The article does not contain a more in-depth treatment than the sources (History of IsNull anyone?), nor is the information presented in a new way, nor is it any more convenient than anything else published. It is guilty of WP:REHASH, except no one has written that guideline—which is probably a legitimate function of an encyclopedia anyway. The existence of the article seems wrong somehow. It could be saved by having a purpose: more depth, better context, or some contrast to something related. It is effectively one big WP:TRIVIA section. —EncMstr (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well within scope, as a general introduction to the subject. The material cannot be presented without some degree of technical detail. It's unusual for us to have such thorough sourcing for an article like this, but its good when someone is prepared to take the trouble. (Uncle G, I think you are perhaps excessively optimistic about the care that people closing discussions will always take; and we have no way of determining which arguments are good except by seeing the consensus on them.) DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic passes Wikipedia:Notability and does not violate any policies or guidelines. Proponents of deletion primarily cite the policy WP:NOTHOWTO. WP:NOTHOWTO states inter alia that "Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." This rationale was applicable when the article was first nominated for deletion. The remarkable rescue performed by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk · contribs) firmly places the article in the category of informing. Though some sentences in the article instruct, this can be addressed through editing. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 26 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:JamesBWatson, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zōni-gassen[edit]

Zōni-gassen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability. No sources in article, and almost nothing about it to be found anywhere else (only two Google hits apart from Wikipedia, and those two are not reliable independent sources). PROD was contested by the author of the article without explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • NOTE: The author has now removed all content except for the AfD notice and maintenance tags, so the article has been speedily deleted ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). It seems reasonable to speedy-close this AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral certainly appears non-notable at first glance but if it's really attended by 17,000 people it must be notable and have some media coverage. Even if it's decided this shouldn't be a standalone article a mention in Zōni would be appropriate and redirecting there would be harmless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Rica[edit]

Erand Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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 earned a single cap for his club, which does not play in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:21, 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Nordström[edit]

Johannes Nordström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(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) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, as discussed below. GiantSnowman 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - it seems consensus was recently reached that Finland's top division is a fully professional league, meaning this fella meets WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of his teeth by virtue of his single appearance. Bettia (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where? Just a week ago, this AfD resulted in delete for a player who had played in the Veikkausliiga, suggesting that in fact the opposite is true. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the talk page. The discussion ended 10 days ago and Finland was added to the list of fully pro leagues a couple of hours ago. Bettia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Player appears to just about pass WP:GNG. References in the article seem to be reliable and are more than just trivial mentions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 22 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) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Business Platform (SBP)[edit]

Social Business Platform (SBP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NEO, no reliable sources, buzzwordy, generally pretty pointless. —Tom Morris 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obvious article creation by an inexperienced editor. Clear attempt at Dicdef of a neologism or a tradename Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism technical speak. No indication of subject notability, and honestly I'm finding it hard to understand what exactly the concept refers to. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:47, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenimyu[edit]

Tenimyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Lengthy, unsourced and unencyclopaedic WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of performances and list of cast lists. No indication in Google News or Books of substantial third party coverage. Even if such coverage does eventuate, it is likely that the article will need rewriting from scratch Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me if I'm doing anything wrong, but I somehow wanted to share my though on this matter. As it's creating quite a commotion among some fans. Towards outsiders this page might indeed seem to be really lengthy, unsourced and encyclopaedic. In short it seems to have no "greater" value. This enormous "performance/cast list" though has much value among the fans of this Japanese musical production, who can't read Japanese and therefore the official site (where probably all information stated in this article can be found). The whole series has over 20 shows and it's nearly impossible to remember each and every cast name. Therefore this page is probably most of the time used as a useful checklist to find one of the X actors who started their careers through this musical. I do agree this article might need some revision, as the same information might be given in less words, but finding the right way to do so might be quite hard. --Epeir Riku (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia does not exist to provide "a useful checklist to find one of the X actors who started their careers through this musical." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say Wikipedia exists to prove such a checklist. I just tried to explain why this page is important to a lot of fans of the production. Unfortunately something like that is hard to understand if you aren't into the fandom. Anyway, isn't Wiki supposed to be an "encyclopedia"? My dictionary still tells me an 'encyclopedia gives information'. This page clearly gives information, and whether or not it's relevant to everyone shouldn't matter. --Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Right now the article is unsourced and doesn't explain the importance of this show to outsiders, for whom WP is written not fans. Borock (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would there be a need to write down why this is important, while usually only the people who know why this page is important look at it? Besides that, this isn't a topic you'll easily find sources about... or any sources that'll mean anything to the average reader, as almost everything will be in Japanese.--Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • So then suggest maintenance, the standards of Wikipedia has risen over the years and people tend to just copy what is there.--MissEzri (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggested maintenance: (i) Delete the unencyclopaedic list of performances and list of cast lists. (ii) Find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (iii) Write an article that gives WP:DUE weight to what these sources say about the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make MissEzri's argument for xem. No step there involves use of the deletion tool, and all of that can be done by ordinary editors with the ordinary editing tool. What you are describing is cleanup. We even have cleanup tags, such as ((cleanup-rewrite)), for it. AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, just (i) deletion of the entire contents of the article & (ii) finding apparently non-existent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. Yes, the cast lists are excessive and a lot of it is duplication, so that needs fixing right away. But that said there is a core of notability in all this: the cast has a lot of blue links, and it's been popular enough to run for 8 years and be performed in 3 countries. At a bare minimum this could all be summarised in The Prince of Tennis article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so "the cast ha[vaing] a lot of blue links" does not bestow notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself, no, but generally attracting notable actors is a strong indication that a show is notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, I agree... it's really lengthy and needs some cleanup. But it'll be really hard to find any "reliable sources" to write more about it as anything written about it will be Japanese...--Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)— Epeir Riku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• If you cannot "find any [third party] 'reliable sources'", then the topic is not notable, and should be deleted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here's a review from Dengeki Online, and here's another from Oricon Style. Both are very reliable sources. I'm sure there are others; these were found within the first couple minutes of a brief search. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither source appears particularly reliable (media rather than solid news sources), and neither provides much depth of coverage. Both appear to be more puffery than a serious treatment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Appearances can be deceiving, and your response indicates your complete lack of knowledge in this area. Both Dengeki Online and Oricon Style are very reliable sources for Japanese popular media topics (movies, music, manga, anime, books, etc., and since this is a play based on a manga and anime series, it fits right in) Both are considered reliable sources by both WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Anime and manga. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What does "media rather than solid news sources" mean? If its a reliable source, then its notable coverage. Not everything has to be print media. Dream Focus 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify There is just no getting around it. This article is a complete train wreck and I don't see any content, save for the lead section, that can be salvaged. However, there does appear to be enough coverage by reliable source to establish the notability of the subject. I'm almost tempted to say delete and recreate as a stub, but I don't think the article is completely unsalvageable. I'll also recommend moving the article to The Prince of Tennis Musical or Myūjikaru Tenisu no Ōji-sama as that is the actual name of the subject. —Farix (t | c) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best to work with what is there, than erase it and hope someone gets around to rewriting it to your high standards. Dream Focus 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Would this have ever been PRODded if it had been on Broadway? Or even off-Broadway? Notice the CSE hits seem to have some useful hits. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 18 January 2011 (GMT)

• My understanding is that most Broadway musicals tend to be subjected to fairly intense critical review -- "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which does have some degree of relevance to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you seriously believe this ran for 8 years and in 3 countries and the press totally forgot to review it? Sure, there might not be English-language sources, but I find it incomprehensible that this wouldn't have been reviewed at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Judging from the endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless cast lists that is the vast bulk of article, and the TOTAL LACK of anything even vaguely resembling a review or critical discussion of the subject, then YES! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Al right, third-party sources and more "substantial" information have been added. I'm still working on the whole cast list part (and some other details). So, is it's existence getting more value now? Or am I missing some really "substantial" parts that need to be covered in on this page? (And yes, some references are bare. But it's hard to cite a site, while it doesn't say when or by who it has been written. It's "to be trusted" though, because it's the official site... Still working on it, to find a 'satisfactory solution' to this problem) --Epeir Riku (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The amount of third-party sourced information is tiny in comparison to the vast screeds of unsourced/primary-sourced information. Articles should, in the majority, be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. Please read WP:MOSLINKS#Link titles -- you should at the very least provide the title of the webpage being cited as part of that link. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a discussion for the talk page of the article. Harassing everyone who differs in opinion to you here is not productive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry for not putting a reference after every sentence. xD If you really want to, I can do it, because all the information can be found in the articles already referred to. Besides that, a lot of information if gathered from watching the actual shows, so do I need to refer to all the musicals in that case? (btw, don't expect me to find a huge amount of sources in just a few days. I also have a life besides that internet you know)--Epeir Riku (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample coverage has been found from reliable sources. Also, common sense indicates its notable, for anyone who took the time to read the article. A musical based on a manga becoming so popular it was shown throughout many major theaters in various nations. Dream Focus 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup drastically. I'd point out that being able to find information (or not) via google is not a touchstone for notability, especially for non-Western media. --moof (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it needs clean-up. And as a Japan expert (even though I am still undergraduate), I can guarantee this isn't just "some media". (and I agree on that google thing) If I need to, I could write a complete essay about the changes this production caused and the way it effects Japanese life. But to be honest, that would take quite some research (well, need to prove I don't just make it up, right?) and since I don't have the time to do the research... ^-^ --Epeir Riku (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An AfD is not a solution to cleanup, per above I see some things have been found reguarding sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 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) 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Kerry Ellis[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Kerry Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Content has been merged into Kerry Ellis. This page is no longer necessary. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason this page is still necessary is because of our copyright licencing rules. We need to retain the history for attribution purposes. Redirect and keep the history under the redirect. Deleting the page would require a history merge, a somewhat complex task that only an administrator can perform, and runs counter to policy in any case (see WP:ATD: there is a reasonable alternative to deletion, which is to redirect, so we prefer the alternative to the deletion).—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested deletion rather than redirection because the article title is an unlikely search term and the only inward links are from a template. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the point, I'm afraid. (Other "delete" arguments below also fail to grok it.) The merge has already happened, and an improved version of the content with references is now available in the main article, but, User:Stephenjamesx who wrote this bit still deserves credit. See the Terms of use. If there's a compelling reason for deletion then a history merge must be performed, but nobody's mentioned one yet. All the grounds for deletion cited, above and below, revolve around the idea that it's not necessary to keep the page. It's a wholly mistaken idea, but even if it was true, "not necessary to keep" does not mean the same thing as "necessary to delete".—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the sole author, Stephenjamesx would be adequately attributed (List of authors) if he used an edit summary like "merged content from [[List of awards and nominations received by Kerry Ellis]], all contributed by myself" when merging. I added a dummy edit to provide attribution explicitly. Flatscan (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, that's a neat trick with the dummy edit! Yes, that does seem quite satisfactory.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it stands, the article is wholly unsourced, and I don't see anything requiring preservation of article history. It can be deleted without much ado. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already covered (and better formatted) at Kerry_Ellis#Awards_and_nominations, so no merge or redirect is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Earth[edit]

Decision Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsuccessful prod; article is unsourced, highly biased and essentially an opinion piece (gotta love those air quotes), and has shown no tendency to improve whatsoever in nearly eight years. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A poor article but the topic seems to pass the notability test having been reported on in the news media. Borock (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Borock has said most of what I would say, except that I note that it's not just news media reporting, but also some quasi-academic criticism. Note that sources have been added since the AFD nomination was posted. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 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 close. This can be brought up at Proposed mergers. Not here. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link[edit]

Opposition to the Guangzhou-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Merge - Disputed page merge to Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section . The two are closely intertwined, and the protests must be viewed in context of the project. What is more, the target page is only 21k after merger, which makes for a more complete article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No merge - Historic events should always be separate articles whenever possible. Any event with its own name, and of this scale should be its own article. Is the same reason we don't merge Marco Polo Bridge Incident with Marco Polo Bridge. Benjwong (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• bad example, I'm afraid. Temporally, the bridge was built in the 12th century, and the incident occurred at the former in the 20th century. One wouldn't even contemplate merging 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings into Gulou and Zhonglou (Beijing) for that same reason. The rail link protests are intimately linked to the construction of the project itself, and to my mind is well within the scope of the latter. Integration makes perfect sense. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems obvious to me. If possible both sides of a controversy should be in the same article. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest why it is obvious. We are at the point where we have Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers a separate article as Lehman Brothers. So why does this event not deserve its own article? Ohconfucius should also point out why a merge now, a full year after the event. Benjwong (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed now a year since the incident. There is no time limit on undertaking certain actions, and quite right too. On looking back, the protests are already a part of the history of the development of the rail project. I had intended to merge these for some time, but I often like to leave things for a while, so as not to stifle article development. Luckily, probably because of the low traffic/interest, the articles have not become POV forks of each other. I really don't see a rationale for keeping them apart any longer. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. A development project and opposition to it belong in the same encyclopedia article. They are more tightly coupled than the examples given above of incidents at the location unrelated to its construction. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP rule that suggest that. Deconstruction (Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers) is not a reason to merge it with Lehman Brothers. So why is a Construction incident a reason to automatically merge it with a train stop article? This has notability and is not an unnecessary split. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Ohconfucius. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No merge. The protests aren't just related to the railway line, but to the development of Hong Kong's democracy, and as such will likely stand on their own even years from now; and there are enough sources to warrant an article on significance. The railway line, once built, will have technical features to report and will gain an operational history, thus I'm sure that that article will expand significantly in the (near) future. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as this discussion is in the wrong place. Merging is an editorial decision that doesn't require an administrator to hit the "delete" button, so should be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:46, 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) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azalea Iniguez[edit]

Azalea Iniguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was tagged for csd on grounds that the there was insufficient notability for it to be here, but a look through the article suggested some minor notability if only in local awards. I had left a message with the author of the page asking if he or she intended to work on it, but having gotten no reply I have opted to decline csd deletion and instead file an afd to better determine the article's notability. I have no opinion on the article's subject matter or content, I am merely working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWs of substance. A few minor awards, but nothing national. Unable to find independent verification of awards and nominations. Reads more like a Press Release than an encyclopedic article. ttonyb (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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 delete. One vote to keep seems uncertain, and suggests he might be notable if more searching was done. One seems to have looked only at the number of sources and not what they are or the depth of coverage, and the other two are bald assertions of notability without any substantive comment or evidence. As this is not a vote those two were discounted entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Williams[edit]

Omar Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable third party sources that discuss this person in detail. Plenty of references but none are reliable and of the standard that would make this person meet WP:BIO. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "By the early 1990s I had moved into London" – uh, I? Also, its main contributor is the likely SPA User:Jojoclub. Raymie (t • c) 04:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or perhaps the SPA is cut and pasting content from elsewhere in copyvio, and simply did not catch the change of POV. And what's with the name "Jonny Alexander" used in the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep and fix Article is full of removable hyperbole and fluff (please, no pun intended). NYT's InBaseline confirms that as "mainstream" actor "Omar Hibbert Williams" he has a descriptive role in The Fifth Element.[2] His other three mainstream roles as listed at IMDB are even more minor,[3] so his mainstream appearances do not meet those criteria as set in WP:PORNBIO. BUT... the IAFD lists a number of adult film AKAs: Roberto, Sidney Street, Big Willy, Omar Marcovich, Big Omar, Omar, Sydney Street... listing 114 adult titles as performer and 45 as director.[4] AVN has profiles for him under Omar Williams,[5] Big Omar Williams,[6] and "Big Omar" Williams.[7] According to AVN, he was a British 2008 ETO Award nominee,[8] and may have been a 2003 AVN 'foreign performers of the year' nominee.[9] Seems prolific. His name is mentioned in an article in The Guardian[10] and another mention is in Digital Spy.[11] A bio at StarNow claims "several awards including Best Male Actor, Best Video and Best Scene."[12] A July 2010 article shared on xPeeps[13] and Circus[14] attributed to Tom Bristow of The Crosby Herald,[15] explains how Williams was instrumental in restoring a local landmark, also makes reference to these awards. Anyone want to dig futher into Eurpopean porn sources to see who awarded them, and to see if other nominations exist as either an actor or a director to have him meet PORNBIO? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 10 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  07:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough notable (sources + references)Rirunmot (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per references and as epeefleche says it meets GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. No reliable sources whatsoever. None. Most of the cited sources are advertising copy, including the subject's own online promotional resume, and while he claims to have won a fistful of awards, neither he nor anyone else seems to be able to say what they are. Fails the GNG as well; news coverage is almost exclusively trivial, aside from a very local newspaper which headlines stories like "Bicycle stolen two weeks ago" [16] and "Hey musicians!! Sign up for our free open mic listings". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant reliable coverage, and no reliable sources for his award nominations or mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 13:26, 25 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 and rename. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Center, Whitewater[edit]

Williams Center, Whitewater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not sure if it is notable. Could easily be merged into another article. (I'm just the New Page Patroller!) —Tom Morris 02:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge into University of Wisconsin Whitewater. Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. I believe that stadiums and athletic buildings for state-level colleges are inherently notable. They are always used by states for major events and if ones digs around a while you'll usually find something. For instance, this structure was used by the state of Wisconsin to host the 2010 state college volleyball championships [17]. I didn't search very long and I'm sure there are more uses and this article should be allowed to grow. I suggest a rename because this name doesn't make sense. The only other use for Williams Center is the unincorporated community Williams Center, Ohio so there is no disambiguation conflicts with moving it to Williams Center. Otherwise it could be Williams Center (Whitewater) if disambiguation is needed. If this becomes a non-admin closure, I can take care of deleting the redirect to allow the move that I'm suggesting. Royalbroil 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with RoyalBroil about keeping and renaming. I am wondering what oother uses by the public concerning Williams Center. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:44, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet the minimum requirements of the guidelines and I agree stadiums and sporting venues should be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol1946 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

User blocked. Nakon 06:59, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge to Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks, though there isn't much to merge beyond the lede. Makes more sense for a sports venue to go with the athletics article. Nate • (chatter) 11:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge is invalid; it'd transfer the authorship of the content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted then. I'll switch to Keep/rename per RB because he does make a compelling case for expansion since UW-W is a major D-III program. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. Per Royal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the university's article (UW-Whitewater). This is principally the center for student recreational and intramural sports. Thus it is an important element of the campus but not likely to be notable as an independent topic. The attached fieldhouse (where basketball games are played) seems to have a different name. (See [18].) The university article is rather anemic, so it has plenty of space for this topic. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day Pitney[edit]

Day Pitney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was nominated for CSD deletion on notability grounds, with an additional citation to the lack of indpendent sources or references (most citations go to their own web-site and PR). However, the article has been around for nearly two years, and although deleted once before on COPYVIO grounds looks enough like it could be slavaged that I think an afd is better suited to determine its fate. I have no opinion on the article's worthiness to remain here, I'm just filing for deletion to help clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since they appear notable due to their size, and prestigious alumni, and since it seems to be common practice to create these articles as there are over 60 law firms which are smaller that have their own articles. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not in any way notable. No assertion of notability. No independent refs or sources. The fact that there are over 60 smaller law firms merely suggests that 60 more that might be considered here. In any case the size of a company has no bearing on its notability. Wikipedia seems to be rapidly become a directory for certain type of business including law-firms Poor past practice on Wikipedia is no reason for it to continue.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:29, 18 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 Law-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. First couple pages of Google News archive coverage reveals only incidental or routine coverage: mergers with firms, former lawyers with the firm moving on, quotations from lawyers about litigation they're involved in, and so forth. None of this establishes that this firm has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lai Chun-kit[edit]

Lai Chun-kit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

No coverage outside wiki mirrors that I can find. Fails notability test unless his position is automatic qualification as notable. JaGa^talk 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not being able to find coverage may be because the correct search string isn't "Lai Chun-kit". It seems to be "黎震傑". This probably needs input from a Chinese speaker.—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Good point. If anyone can find sources, could they also add a ref or two to the article? As it stands it's an unreferenced BLP. --JaGa^talk 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The hits in Chinese are either from non-reliable sources or are trivial mentions in newspapers who ask him for a quote in an article on another topic [19][20][21] but do not write any coverage of the man himself. His closest brush with notability appears to be a controversy from six years ago when he was denied permission to travel to Beijing [22][23], which got "news of the day" coverage when it happened, but no further media interest. cab (call) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Foreman[edit]

Russell Foreman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unreferenced BLP, no RS found LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. can't find reliable sourcing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:22, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unreferenced BLP. Carrite (talk) 05:06, 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.