< 16 June	18 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Reflex[edit]

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

The subject fails the notability guidelines of WP:BIO, and all of the sources I found for him were either self-published, or just promoting an upcoming event that he was participating in. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per suspicion of promotional reasons. Clearly, the article was solely created for advertising purposes unless it was a listener or fan who decided to create an article on him. No hits on both Google and Yahoo except for Twitter, Facebook and station page. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is mentioned here and there, but I am unable to find any significant coverage about him that would establish notability. The claim for being a big influence in the LA music scene is unsubstantiated with reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 23 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decay (game)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Any of the sources found online were self-published or just gave a brief description of the game and how to purchase it. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a number of online reviews and interviews, but not from sites that meet our reliability requirements. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Marasmusine. --Veyneru (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys not feeling the Indie love or something? I'm not going to stress myself out by working on the article 24/7. That's never going to happen. I'm working on it bit by bit. I have lots of content in a Notepad document, but I am not going to submit it until I am absolutely satisfied with it. Anyway, it's not as if the article is causing any problems. I think you're being a bit too picky.

xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarythePotato (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's not that we're against indie games, as I have enjoyed quite a share of them myself, but all I am seeing as far as coverage is concerned are coming from reader reviews, blogs, or forums – none of which are sufficiently reliable enough to establish notability. Don't get me wrong that indie games don't get covered by reliable sources, because they in fact do. I'm not seeing it here, though. –MuZemike 06:06, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chunav[edit]

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

Delete – Single edit IP contested WP:PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT#DICT) — Fly by Night (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a dictionary entry, no potential to grow into a real article. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a dicitonary, especially a Hindi one when this is the English Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 23 June 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. Fails WP:GNG. Clear consensus for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Build My Gallows[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Google Books results throw up nothing relevant (even when filtered down to "Build My Gallows" ireland OR irish). Only 'references' are generic song-lyric websites. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your decision, not sure if you use a bot for looking for references, I can see there are no solid sources from any reputable sites, but it is at the end of the day only a fan chant. Plenty of evidence on youtube and from fan sites, but would that be the same for any football chant? At the end of the day, I am an avid Rangers fan and I was just trying to provide some details for the fans, neutrals or anyone else interested. That is afterall what wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.129.22 (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this song to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G3. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3000 (Dr. Dre album)[edit]

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

This may look like a hoax, but it is really a mixtape by Jay-Z filled with his songs remixed by Dr. Dre and DJ Eggnice. Even if the article was fixed up, it would still be non-essential and deserves to be deleted! Supergamer345 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 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. v/r - T P 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange[edit]

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

I've lived in Southern California all my life and have never heard this name; nobody uses it. Just because it's a named interchange doesn't make it notable; there's lots of named interchanges in CA that aren't ever called by that name, not even in the traffic reports. As far as the FHWA design award, that doesn't confer notability upon the interchange and can be briefly mentioned in the 105 and 110 articles. Rs chen 7754 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FHWA hands out those design awards by the dozen every year or so, diluting their significance. As for the rest of the article, it can be covered in the I-105 and I-110 articles, name and all. It does not need to be consolidated in a single location, especially if secondary sources (newspapers, TV stations, magazines) never use the name. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination rationale basically amounts to "I've never heard of it and I'm an authority on the subject, so it needs to go." I am, however, more convinced by Imzadi's argument regarding the significance of the subject's biggest claim to notability. I'm not going to lie; I don't exactly have an argument for keeping this article that wouldn't amount to one of the many ATA, and if I were an uninvolved user stumbling across this AfD I certainly wouldn't !vote to keep it. I started this article before I ever became involved at AfD, and I know a lot more about Wikipedia policies now than I did then. I'll keep looking for more sources, etc. to demonstrate notability if I have the time before this AfD period is over, but I won't exactly throw a fit if this ends up getting deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it just isn't referred to that much in reliable sources - look at Google News: [1]. A Google search doesn't turn up any RSes on the first page, either. --Rs chen 7754 22:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom's main stated rationale is the naming of the topic ("never heard this name; nobody uses it") which has little to do with notability. A notable topic having an obscure official name doesn't make it non-notable. This certainly is a remarkable interchange and this is based on reliable sources. Besides the Federal Highway Administration design award lending to notability, this book calls this interchange, "One of the most esthetically pleasing examples of freeway design," CBS affiliate KGPE calls it "California's - Craziest Intersection.." [2]. --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog is not a reliable source. The FHWA award doesn't lend notability, as described above. You provide no proof that this topic is notable as a stand-alone article. This can be covered with just a few sentences in the 105 and 110 articles. --Rs chen 7754 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." tedder (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of this station." - gonna say no. --Rs chen 7754 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen this many times when a reliable source publishes material under the word "blog." You're mistaking a self published source like someone's livejournal blog with a reliable source like a television news program and its reporters that publish items with the affectation "blog." A reliable source doesn't magically become non-reliable with the word "blog." If a New York Times reporter publishes a "blog" as an official New York Times blog, it's still the New York Times. --Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But no, if you look at the guy's blog linked above, it expressly says "The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of this station." --Rs chen 7754 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's published by a secondary reliable source, just as an op-ed in the New York Times "do not necessarily reflect the views" of the NYT, it would still be considered coverage by a secondary reliable source.--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that's not what WP:RS indicates. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." --Rs chen 7754 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "A statement of fact" has nothing to do with notability. It's only important to verify the content which is not what this AfD is about. If a New York Times op-ed piece gives coverage to something, that's still the NYT giving coverage however opinionated it is. --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information covering the interchange can easily be mentioned in the I-105 and I-110 articles. Change to Keep, interchange appears notable enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a very notable civil engineering example of the Greater Los Angeles area's freeway system. It's official name may not be used in ordinary discussion(i.e the 105/110 exchange), but that is it's name, none the less. The rationale for deleting the article is absurd. The editor does not "recognize" the name...Therefore this rather interesting bit of transportation architecture does not exist, and should not have an article? What next? We delete the article for Union Station(Los Angeles), because some editor has never been there??? The Scythian 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a good argument. Nobody recognizes this name, whereas people easily recognize El Toro Y, for example. --Rs chen 7754 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we could rename the article, but deleting it makes no sense. It's akin to chopping off the arm, to save a swollen pinky. The Scythian 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the thing is, there's really not a whole lot more that can be written about this interchange. Thus, it should be merged away. Is the interchange between 241 and 261 now encyclopedic? How about the one between the 5 and the 133? And on and on... --Rs chen 7754 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, from an engineering standpoint, I would argue that it is. As you said though, there is not much written about it, other than lots of photographs from tourists on their blogs. The Scythian 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scythian77. 89119 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. Keep per Scythian (fine example of civil engineering). Rename per Rschen7754 (use common names). –Fredddie ™ 03:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The naming confusion isn't a ground for deletion. (I tend to think the current name is the best one, since it is the official name and there is--as far as I know--no single more common name, in part because the 105 itself has many different names. But this issue should be worked out in the normal course of editing. ) The interchange itself is a notable part of the L.A. highway system. The design award may or may not convey notability, but the facts noted in that award ("the first intermodal interchange in California with vertical transferability accommodating cars, vanpools/carpool/buses/light rail") do. The lede of this 1989 Los Angeles Times article makes the case succinctly: "There never has been anything quite like the high-flying, $135-million traffic interchange being built in South-Central Los Angeles to link the new Century Freeway with a remodeled Harbor Freeway." Ronald B. Taylor, "Soaring Interchange on Century Freeway to Be One of a Kind", Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1989. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 20 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Chamblin (Duncan)[edit]

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

Not sure how the subject meets the notability criteria. She makes some pretty things that are sold in gift shops. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clearly, the page was created solely for promotional reasons. It fails Wikipedia:V, Notability, and finally Wikipedia:ADVERTISEMENT. This should've been deleted without question. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have been involved in discussion, it is not appropriate for me to delete. But I concur with the rarionale for deletion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be the subject of cross-wiki promotion, but not the subject of prominent recognition or significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:13, 21 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (guide)[edit]

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

No sources, notability has not been established. From what I can tell, concept already is covered in Roadside Picnic, information that isn't duplicate could be merged into that, or a relevant article if possible. SudoGhost™ 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frankly from the content presented I'm not sure what this article is about. Whatever the topic is, it needs extensive second sourcing and clarification for subject matter.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is trying to tie together in-universe material from several related works. Such a topic needs to be written from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF) and be based on secondary sources that address the topic in detail (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article about a fictional guide that does not meet the general notability guideline and that can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Most of the content seems to rely on original research. Jfgslo (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with above - remember to mark as patrolled, doesn't work automatically if you tag for deletion. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:13, 22 June 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Natale[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. He last played in 2010 and is, as far as I can conjecture, not currently with any team this year. Alex (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Truthsort (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with those above. Doesn't meet WP:BASEBALL/N and I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (only routine coverage), so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Hasanović[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Bosnian Premier League. As this league is not fully pro, it does not grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find any evidence that this player meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 20:57, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gyu-seo Lee[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP, possible claims of enough notability that there might be coverage, but through the Korean language barrier I've been unable to discover it. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable hits on Yahoo and Google, except for a Facebook fanpage. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I realize the weakness of WP:MustBeSources, subject is the example cited in the ko.wiki "Junior musician" article here, though unsourced; the absence of WP:RS may merely be language barrier and search terms; many listings, and I admit that I was unable to find any that were not merely fan-based, promotional, or press release/self-published; all material does, however, claim recognition of a career musician (albeit young) at a national level. Dru of Id (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to Dru. The page in question, well, you might want to try automated translation. It's a user page of a first-time editor, welcoming him or her to wikipedia and including a note saying that the KO article on this fellow we're discussing here had been deleted for what I think was reasons of notability, there is also a link to the equivalent of WP:NOT. I do honestly hope that other sources can be found, however. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:51, 23 June 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. v/r - T P 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CoAction.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company. None of the article's references are reliable sources establishing notability: we've got links to the company's own website, the company's press releases as picked up on news wires, the company's Google app store, an entry in a rather spammy-looking "Top CRM vendors" list, and a book where the authors cite a market research report published by the company's predecessor (but don't actually discuss the company itself). Where is the evidence that this company has ever done anything of significance? (The article's sole author indicates that he is the "SEO Head at coAction.com", so there are doubtless conflict of interest issues involved here as well.) Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "an entry in a rather spammy-looking "Top CRM vendors" list", please explain Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are hundreds of self-congratulatory "top x vendors" lists out there whose sole criterion for inclusion is payment of a fee (or reciprocal link or some other consideration), and whose only purposes are to allow customers to claim that they hold some sort of award and to artificially inflate their search engine rankings. As SEO Head of CoAction.com you are no doubt intimately familiar with such tactics. If you disagree with this characterization of the list cited in the article, the onus is on you to prove it's a reliable source rather than mere commercial puffery. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this book "Introduction to Supply Chain Management Technologies", by David Frederick Ross (an Industry Expert) http://books.google.com/books?id=XhL27-Owte0C&lpg=PA114&vq=business-software.com&dq=%2B%22business-software.com%22&pg=PA114#v=snippet&q=business-software.com&f=false (Page 114) having no problem referencing another research by business-software.com. Again did you notice any reference by an expert against business-software.com's research that concludes the bias you just mentioned.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see another recent reference by informationweek.com "To jump-start your review process, Business-Software.com recently released a report listing 10 noteworthy players in the help-desk space."^[1] which perhaps makes business-software.com a credible resource, and people within the industry domain do not find any problem with it.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "and a book where the authors cite a market research report published by the company's predecessor (but don't actually discuss the company itself)". The established authors and their publishers felt it is important and credible to use a research reference from the same company which is now renamed to coaction.com^[2] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having one market research study briefly cited in a book does not imply that the organization which authored that study is notable. It doesn't even imply that the study itself was notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/ebusiness/230800044 (Accessed Jun 18th, 2011)
^ http://www.capgent.com/ "Capgent is now coAction.com" (Accessed Jun 18th, 2011)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant independent coverage in reliable sources about this company under its current or former name. The Top CRM vendor list is from a web site which does not indicate what sort of research or editorial control is in effect for the creation of their lists. In any case, a single list from a single site is far from what is needed to establish notability even if we were to accept business-software.com as a reliable source (dubious). -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 23 June 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. "subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ" beats WP:ITSCRUFT every time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing Madonna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD on this was speedily closed solely because the nominator was blocked as a sock puppet. What strikes me as odd here is that the previous AfD nominator was blocked as a sock of the user who created the article. However, this doesn't qualify for G7 as at least one other (apparently) unique user has made substantive contributions to the article. There has been some discussion on the talk page about whether this merits deletion on notability grounds, but the principal advocate for deletion doesn't want to open an AfD. I'm putting this out there for wider discussion in accordance with WP:AGF. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a capital D. You may be neutral, but I am speechless that this is even happening. I am generally just fed up, really fed up with garbage that accumulates within Wikipedia and takes up time that could go into fixing more encyclopedic issues. Three high school students who form a band want a Wiki-page. Overpass graffiti gets a page. Someone's hamster dying will try to get a page if they can. This is how Wikipedia becomes a joke, not an encyclopedia. At some point we should say enough is enough. These are not encyclopedic issues. And they take up your time, they take up my time. Is there nothing better to do? Now those of you who will quote subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ about this graffiti appearing in a newspaper, please do not expect me to read it. I have better things to do and common sense says delete it. I will not look at this Afd again. History2007 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is not helpful here, because there is a considerable amount of coverage in reliable sources about this subject. The hamster shouldn't get an article, because there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This subject does have several legitimate news articles about it, so it is not in the same category as a hamster dying or about my band. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'm not totally convinced this rises above the criteria at subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ about news events. There are many articles about this subject:
- Lopez, Ernesto (June 17, 2011). "Faith & Values: Local Latinos, Catholics split on 'Surfing Madonna'". North County Times. - Controversy among locals: is it a mockery of an important religious symbol or a beautiful representation of Latino culture?
- there's a lot of different stories outlining the controversy, the offers to take it, concerns about damage to the structural integrity of the overpass, the legal trouble that the artist is in, etc: google news
I guess I'm leaning toward keeping. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient impact demonstrated IAW GNG. Cultural artefacts and events of a transient nature with sufficient impact make fine additions to the encyclopaedia. Fæ (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what all is going on with the socks and what not, but it seems like a work of art that has attracted a lot of coverage. It is too bad History2007 isn't coming back, if he feels so strongly that this should be deleted, he should be prepared to back up his rant with something policy based. Gigs (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample non-trivial news coverage from reliable sources, and from international sources as far away as Canada, Slovenia and China. --Lambiam 23:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate I am notifying other editors that I have added WikiProjects and Task Forces related to the location of this article, and have place please see messages on their talk pages. At this time I do not have an opinion regarding this AfD but hope locally interested editors can weigh in on the notability of the subject of the article that is presently AfD'd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 50 years somebody will want to know about this funny little story. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Or if not Just add it to Encinitas, California. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Appeals to notability criterion. This statue has received international coverage. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 01:07, 20 June 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. v/r - T P 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made In Germany 1995 – 2011[edit]

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

Delete – Can't find any third party reliable sources; only the band's own release statement. Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CBALL). — Fly by Night (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it some time, the announcement was just made today, of course you won't find information on third party resources. Information such as exact release date, tracklist and tour dates will unfold in the next days User:DerBiest (talk)
  - I see it's your article. The point is that the article should not exist before the verifiable sources. Once you can verify the subject matter with reliable sources, then you can create the article. Not the other way around. I'm glad you like my talk tag, and decided to use it. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Without prejudice to the article's recreation once further sources become available. At the moment, the album is more speculative than established. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 June 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. Nearly every, that means with the exception of a couple, of the keep votes are SPA accounts. Delete !votes are based in policy while at least one remaining keep !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. Consensus amoung editors is to delete. v/r - T P 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep sort[edit]

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

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever of notability. The cited sources are blog posts and the like. An amusing idea, but not of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and at 4.133 billion years for a sort, it's unlikely ever to be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a meme database. Lack of secondary/academic sources. Sasquatch t|c 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I heard about the sleep sort recently and it is a nice idea (although not necessarily practical). Original 4chan post seems to be from Jan 2011, but it's not until recently that reddit/hackernews picked it up. Now it seems to spreading as a concept on twitter etc, and google shows various implementations in different languages. However, until it's picked up by a respected authority on algorithms that can be referenced, the article is unlikely to remain.Alexs (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do agree that the use cases for sleep sort are low, and there are no real usages for it in the real world. I do still think that do not automatically disqualify the subject, look for example at Luckysort, that is a joke "algorithm" too. At least Sleep Sort do something/works. Maybe it will work well with a huge quantity of unsorted small numbers (millions, or more). I will test it and compare with Quicksort. -- Nsgb (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it makes no sense to have Luckysort and not have Sleep sort. Neither meet the criteria for Wikipedia inclusion.

Note. Other than this recommendation, the only contributions of this user are to the article Sleep sort. --Lambiam 23:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!, This article needs a lot of work but be careful not to jump to conclusions about its merit. The sleep time does not need to be a full second (it could be a very small fraction of a second), so it doesn't necessarily have to take "4.133 billion years." Additionally, there are lots of scenarios where the upper and lower bounds of the numbers to be sorted are known. Algorithms like bubblesort are rarely used in practice but are interesting enough to be studied and listed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idfah (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Encyclopaedia is not just for practical stuffs, but also things of interest like this article. Wingchi (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've made some changes to the article and while I don't doubt there is a lack of published research, in this case it's because the algorithm is not complicated enough to warrant research, not because it is "non-notable". In fact, half the sorting algorithms on Wikipedia are only cited in joke papers which exist to highlight their "insignificance", it's ironic that this is taken as evidence for notability. Red herrings like "4.133 billion years for a sort" are not useful either, particularly when an algorithm like bogosort which has arbitrarily large worst case sort time is somehow exempt from this criterion. 203.79.116.199 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The criterion for having an article on Wikipedia is not whether the topic is amusing, or has other redeeming merits, but whether it is notable, as evidenced by non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. In this case the sources have not been subject to any editorial control and thus are not reliable (in the Wikipedia sense); the main one is most certainly not independent of the topic: it is a posting by the inventor on a bulletin board. "Other stuff exists" is not an argument for keeping this. The statement in the article that this is a "sorting algorithm" is OR – whether the described process will produce a properly sorted sequence depends on unspecified characteristics of the computational platform, in particular the hardware. --Lambiam 23:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is not a sufficient condition for deletion, and Other stuff exists in fact *is* an argument for keeping this, the article states as much: "The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."" Lack of "notability" is regrettable, however within a couple of years someone will publish a joke analysis in some compendium and this article will be recreated even though nothing really changed, I'm loathe to have an article deleted because I can't read about the subject in the Sunday paper. Incidentally, your claim that calling it a "sorting algorithm" constitutes OR is itself OR, so long as the algorithm puts the elements in some order it has sorted them. 203.79.116.199 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with OR inside an AFD discussion; in fact people are expected to research their claims in cases like this one. OR is an issue for entries, not AFD discussions. As for your main point, "might be notable in the future" isn't a reason to keep an entry. Hairhorn (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is, of course, the total non-notability of the topic, as should be obvious both from my contribution by itself, as well as from the essay "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" to which I referred, not to mention the essential dependence of this article on original research. --Lambiam 18:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, SleepSort raises some interesting questions and deserves to be listed in "Ineffective/humorous sorts" as much as Bogosort, Stooge sort, Luckysort or even Spaghetti sort. And the article looks well documented and critical enough --Goulu 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goulu (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Classic example of original research. The claim "effectively making the algorithm linear time" is difficult to believe (sorting, in the general case, cannot be done faster than loglinear time) and, as explained on the talk page, wrong. This happens when technical articles are not based on peer-reviewed sources. —Ruud 10:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sorting algorithms are linear time, such as the counting sort, the pidgeonhole sort and the radix sort. The issue is that comparison-based sorting algorithms can't be linear. So this is not an argument for delete, rather "strong" delete. Rgiusti (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not general sorting algorithms and only work for bounded integers. The "sleep time" is either unbounded or not an integer. Therefore the operating system scheduler will have to use a comparison sort. Therefore the algorithm cannot run in linear time. WP:OR was invented exactly to prevent the kind of argument we're having here, instead preferring the article to be deleted. —Ruud 11:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithms are a subject of theoretical computer science. An operating system clearly isn't, and the properties of an algorithm are only to be determined by their theoretical workings provided that certain requirements (e.g. the possibility to fork an arbitrary amount of processes and "sleep"ing for a determined amount of time) are given. Therfore, your argument is void. --Natanji (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's wait for the theoretical computer scientists to publish a few papers on this algorithm. In the mean time, it should not be here. —Ruud 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article pretty clearly states at the beginning of the analysis, "Assuming the sleep operation takes constant time", and then goes on to give a case where this is true (n interrupt timers), in which case the algorithm is pretty obviously linear time. 203.79.116.199 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this algorithm is not only interesting, but may serve as a great example for why a lower complexity of an algorithm does not mean that it is faster for any practical use case. --Natanji (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of why the article should be deleted. It has apparently mislead you into believing the algorithm has lower complexity. Any practical implementation, as given in the "Examples" section for example, will run in loglinear time or worse. Linear time can only be achieved using some theoretical oracle, whcih effectively does the sorting for you, or using special hardware and then still only approximately. None of this is discussed in the article, but quite essential for a correct and non-misleading description. We cannot do that however, because there are no reliable sources discussing these points. —Ruud 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues you raise are discussed in the article, and from my reading you actually agree with his point (which is correct). The algorithm is theoretically interesting but practically quite silly- this is an argument to keep it not throw it away (Otherwise we would really only need three sorting algorithms on Wikipedia). 203.79.116.199 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, these issues are not discussed in sufficient detail. No, they cannot be added, as neither you nor I are reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards. No, I do not agree with Natanji. Sleep sort is just a poorly specified insertion sort where sleep is a blackbox insert operation. We might just as well claim insertion sort runs in linear time under the, practically absurd, assumption that the in insert operation runs in constant time. —Ruud 15:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that comparison is complete nonsense. If it doesn't meet some arbitrary notability level that is fine, however someone having a fundamental misunderstanding of an algorithm is not a good justification for removing it (see: 4.133 billion years, "not linear time", "like insertion sort except not", etc...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.116.199 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the topic is original research. This implies I cannot point you to any reliable sources to help you correct your misunderstanding of the algorithm. To prevent the endless and pointless discussion that will unfold in such a scenario, all articles on which no reliable sources exists will be deleted. —Ruud 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR or entirely based on unreliable sources, such as 4chan, take your pick. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The "Sleep sort" is maybe not efficient and just a theoretical concept, but it show that another way of thinking to sort a list exists. And a person who eared about this idea must be interested to know they history — StreakyCobra (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This user has no other contributions besides this "vote". --Lambiam 15:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This user thinks the number of contributions of another user has any kind of influence on how serious their argument is to be taken, and also seems to believe that deletion of articles is "voted" on here on Wikipedia. Both beliefs are utterly false, of course. --Natanji (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "vote", between scare quotes, simply because the edit summary stated "Added my vote". I find it further remarkable when a new user's very first edit to Wikipedia is a !vote in an AfD discussion. In any case, the argument presented is thoroughly irrelevant to the question whether the topic is notable, and would remain just as irrelevant if the user was Jimbo Wales. --Lambiam 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. It is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and I think everyone have had a first contribution. That can explain my misunderstanding between "vote" and "opinion" in my edition summary. But as said before, I believe this must not influence the serious of my arguments. —StreakyCobra (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete. Probably a totally impractical idea but that is irrelevant - the test here is evidence of notability, which it fails. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The simplistic implementation makes it quite friendly and interesting to study. It is also a very good tool when studying/testing scheduler behaviour. I can think of many other examples when this algorithm may come to use other than sorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.lonroth (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So write a paper about it. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to publish algorithms not published in venues considered reliable for this type of work, and 4chan is not one considered reliable. Just look at this article and its talk page: it's full of opinions of random geeks many of whom have made no edits to other Wikipedia articles. And they don't even agree with each other. This is why reliable sources are needed, which for algorithms almost always means academic sources like books by well-known academic publishers and authors or at least peer-reviewed papers, but even those are alone are considered insufficient as WP:PRIMARY sources; see shortest shared path problem for an example of that. This article (Sleep sort) doesn't even have that kind of primary sources. It has zero reliable sources, and that's why it should certainly be deleted. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I completely disagree that this is not a notable sorting algorithm. The cited sources being "blog posts and the like" even implies that there are significant sources that are not just blog posts. Just because there exist sources that are blog posts is not a grounds for deletion. 94.212.43.20 (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that the existence of unreliable sources implies the existence of reliable sources. I can't quite follow the logic of that, but pray tell us, where can we find these reliable sources? --Lambiam 09:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have you no soul?? Motti (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. (No, Motti, we have no soul^{[citation needed]} ) Stuartyeates (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. If it was significant, would have appeared in reliable sources. Someone who cares about it might move to their sandbox or better yet keep it in blogs. W Nowicki (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, it's basically a twisted implementation of Selection sort which uses a different (and less effective) way of finding the smallest variable. I'm also fairly sure that the complexity class is wrong, as finding the place for a single variable (assuming all are unique) requires n timers to be decremented (possibly less, if implemented well, but doesn't matter asymptotically) arbitrarily many times, depending on the input. I think it's polynomial, not linear. Possibly notable as an Internet phenomenon, or if Donald Knuth jokes about it or anything. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Because you editors keep behaving as nazis. I am a German citizen and when I was a young boy watched books being burned. You delete article of programming language because they are "not notable". By your definition, "Puff Daddy" are "not notable" to me. I should propose to delete their article. There is nothing wrong with information. You are nazis. To hell with you. 79.169.56.225 (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a programming language, it's a sorting algorithm. There are infinite possible sorting algorithms. By your reasoning, Wikipedians are nazis because we don't have articles on Hyperzamoan Vectoroid Sort, Rambo-JamesBond-Übersort and the Swedish Salad Sårt, and countless other yet-to-be figured abysmally ineffiecent and complex sorting algorithms with silly names. Please be polite instead of calling people nazis. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being my age, you confuse quite lot. You had a person called Chris that removed several programming languages because they were "not notable". You people say you want to spread information but instead you remove information.79.169.56.225 (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you (79) were there at the Nazi book burnings, old enough to remember them? Then you must be in your late 80s or early 90s. Here we play it by our rules; if you don't like them you are welcome to set up your own website to which anyone can indiscriminately add unreliable information without risk of it getting deleted. --Lambiam 15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am 92. Your rules say that you can and should break your rules. But it doesn't matter, because putting this information does not break rules.79.169.56.225 (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, great joke but original research. — Arkanosis ^✉ 14:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid sorting algorithm worthy of a proper analysis as given here. I posit that analysis of this algorithm is not so difficult as to constitute original research per WP:CALC. We may decide in time that this article should be kept or deleted, but I think it's much to early to make a reasoned call. It really depends on if this algorithm becomes established as an example of how sorting may be done. Check back in 5 years. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on what? Wikipedia popularizing it? Why don't you come back in 5 years with some references. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know this is a "valid sorting algorithm"? I think it's not a sorting algorithm at all. If you read the talk page, you can see this is a hopeless case for applying WP:CALC. Just check for a second what you are left with if all challenged and not properly sourced claims are deleted from the article, as they should be. --Lambiam 19:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There are millions of sorting algorithms that work, and nothing is presented that makes this one more special than other grossly ineffiecent algorithms. I don't believe that sleep sort runs in linear time, and since there's no reliable source doing so I don't feel obliged to either. Basically, this is an Internet meme, until some professional, reliable source picks this algorithm up. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete. It is hard to say the subject is non-notable given Google claims 133,000 hits. However, most of the article content is in fact original research. For example, the article has a linear complexity only if you assume that the counters are decrementing all in parallel. However, complexity for practical algorithms is generally given for a deterministic Turing machine (or a probabilistic one) (and it that case the algorithm has quadratic complexity). It would probably be worth a mention if we had an article on esoteric sorting algorithms or, as 212.68.15.66 rightfully pointed out, maybe described somewhere as an Internet phenomenon, but as an article it's hardly keepable. I must agree it is funny, though. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a small minority of the 133000 Google hits refer to this. For example, there is one that contains the text "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep...sort of", and another that contains "I mean, not as I am now, but really not sleep. Sort of like the Platonic ideal", and one that says "team sleep sort of bores me in general", and "Problem is my dog (a standard poodle puppy) likes to sleep sort of right behind the back seat". Google does a very good job of sorting its hits into order for relevance, so that the first few dozen hits mostly relate to this topic, but further down the list you reach a point where all of the hits are completely irrelevant, so the figure of 133000 is totally misleading. And of course, this is before we even consider the nature of the sources, and whether they are reliable. A large number of Google hits proves nothing at all: only looking at the contents of the pages that are hit can give any useful evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although mildly entertaining and educational, not notable with no peer reviewed references. Even the educational value is minimal, as I can think of countless other text book exercises that would provide equal if not more educational value.Bill C. Riemers, PhD. (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally what should be done, is all these 'joke' algorithms should be merged into one article. While I don't feel any of them are significant enough to justify an article on there own. They are probably worth a footnote on a description of sorting algorithms.Bill C. Riemers, PhD. (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for Rescue [3] by a new user with no other edits ever.[4] What are the chances of someone's first time on Wikipedia, being that? In the AFD we have IP addresses and users who have no other edits other than there or in the article, as well as some who haven't edited in over a year, and never worked on that article, now doing a single edit to say Keep, and nothing else. Seems a bit suspicious. How many people came here because of 4chan? Is this a joke? All references in the article now are links to forums where anyone can post. Dream Focus 13:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the rescue tagging seems a bit odd, and it's probably misplaced as well - this article has already been subject to a lot of attention and attempts to source. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a joke WP:MADEUP WP:OR but not one that's actually notable under WP:GNG, unlike the famous comefrom statement. The detail that items are scheduled is irrelevant to this silly "algorithm" but the Rube Goldberg complexity is distracting: What's actually happening is that it just uses the scheduler to do the sorting. (Ignore races and imagine the granularity of the scheduler is diminishingly small; the scheduler still has to sort things into a list.) This is no different than building a wrapper around any real sort algorithm of your choice and calling it WrapperSort. There's a reason there are no sources to support notability. Msnicki (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a good joke, but not really notable yet. While not relevant for notability, here is how the 'algorithm' cheats: The sleep operation inserts an entry into a data structure in the operating system, which tells the operating system to 'wake up' the process at a certain later time. For this to work properly the various entries must be sorted. In other words, each sleep operation basically inserts its argument into a sorted table. Therefore sleep sort is just a cleverly hidden form of insertion sort – or something similar, depending on the precise implementation in the operating system. The assumption that the sleep instruction takes constant time is where the complexity calculation probably goes wrong on typical systems. On other systems it may essentially be equivalent to an algorithm described in chapter 1 of Jon Bentley's Programming Pearls. (I do not know if it has a name. The idea is to represent each possible member of the set of numbers to be sorted by a bit, then successively set those bits in the set to 1, and then read of the sorted list from the 1s.) Hans Adler 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very relevant but I think you mean Selection sort, not Insertion sort. The program just uses a wonky and inefficient way of finding the minVal to place in the first index. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean, and that's another valid way of seeing it, but I really mean insertion sort. The data structure where the insertion happens is hidden away in the operating system. Hans Adler 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, your view is valid too. In either case, however, this is just a bad algorithm and should be judged as an Internet meme, not by its computing merits (unless you really want it deleted!). 212.68.15.66 (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Others agree this was just a joke, and not a real thing. Dream Focus 07:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. It seems to have attracted a bunch of WP:OR too. Remove as internet cruft. Dmcq (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked every one of the "keep" reasons given so far, and there is virtually no reference in any of them to Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are such reasons as "Encyclopaedia is not just for practical stuffs, but also things of interest like this article" (yes, but only for things of interest which have established notability); "SleepSort raises some interesting questions and deserves to be listed" (the fact that someone who chooses to edit Wikipedia finds it "interesting" amounts to no more than I like it); and so it goes on. Worse still are "have you no soul??" and "Because you editors keep behaving as nazis". We even have some arguments given as "keep" reasons which actually indicate that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, such as "I don't doubt there is a lack of published research, in this case it's because the algorithm is not complicated enough to warrant research, not because it is 'non-notable'" (but by Wikipedia's criteria that does make it non-notable). Then we have "It really depends on if this algorithm becomes established as an example of how sorting may be done. Check back in 5 years", which is an argument for deleting it now, and considering whether to recreate it in the future, not, as the writer seems to think, an argument for keeping now: see WP:CRYSTAL. In fact there is only one argument for "keep" which makes any suggestion that there may be suitable coverage. That one says "The cited sources being 'blog posts and the like' even implies that there are significant sources that are not just blog posts". Firstly, it does not imply anything of the sort, and secondly, a mere assumption that there must be reliable sources (without actually saying where or what those sources are) is not verifiable.The conclusion is that nobody has put forward any evidence at all that there is any coverage in reliable sources. DmcQ's comment "Remove as internet cruft" just about sums it up. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fascinating idea, but without coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources, it's impossible to establish notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a non-notable WP:MADEUP algorithm lacking any reliable sourcing even indicating its legitimate existence. That some "Anonymous" idiot posted the claim "Man, am I a genius. Check out this sorting algorithm I just invented" & some code on a BBS is most certainly not the basis for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Lack of sources. At most a neologism. Simple. Widefox (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's used for educational or theoretical purposes, we need to see evidence of it. So far, supporters have provided no reputable sources showing sleep sort used for anything of the sort. The fact that it is posted on some non-notable websites is insufficient notability. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you want to delete it because it has no practical use, then you have to delete Bogosort too. --PaganPanzerfaust (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it has a practical use has little bearing on this discussion. What matters is whether multiple, independent reliable sources demonstrate that the subject is notable. It is possible for something to be both useless and notable, as with Bogosort or Paris Hilton. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cute, but not supported by WP:Reliable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 24 June 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. v/r - T P 21:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lasalle-Lakeshore United[edit]

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

This article has been here a long time and much work has gone into it. However, this is an amateur team in a very low ranked competition and there are no non-trivial, verifiable and objective sources. Individual junior coaches of the team are now getting articles. Porturology (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The team participates in a National Cup. The team competes in a Provincial League (basically 4th level in Canada) whose members are eligible for the Canadian National Challenge Cup. WP:FOOTYN --Coppercanuck (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FOOTYN says "played in a national cup" - which raises 2 points: 1. Does this competition qualify as it is an amateur cup from which (as I understand it) Canadian elite teams are excluded. 2. Has this team ever competed in the cup which, I understand, is between the 1 team from each province. Porturology (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have just noticed that the article specifically states that they have never qualified Porturology (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As they have never qualified for the Challenge Cup, they clearly fail WP:FOOTYN, and there is no indication the club passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 24 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest shared path problem[edit]

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

Non-notable original research. There are no hits for "Shortest shared path problem" in Google scholar and Google books. The article is referenced entirely to the personal website of the associate professor who is promoting these, and self-published sources (apparently conference posters, all but the first of which generate a "403 Forbidden" error). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Lambiam 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an interesting problem but no secondary sources; I tried "shortest shared path" and "shared path problem" as well. History section is basically a bio of one person so self promotion not unlikely. I removed the forbidden links.--RDBury (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete as WP:OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for "shared shortest path" you can find published papers e.g. [5]. I don't know if that's sufficient or secondary coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't seem directly related. —Ruud 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete then, because that's all I could find. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but non-notable, research. —Ruud 11:05, 20 June 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 without prejudice. If I were to blank this article and paste in Andy Dingley's delete !vote it would make more sense then this article does. If someone wants to write a new article on this subject then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping-ponging[edit]

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

This article is nothing short of gibberish. It is so over-loaded with numerous clean-up and warning tags that deletion is really the only solution unless a drastic and intelligible re-write is undertaken. The term appears to be a neologism at best, and the article is entirely unsourced. Agent 86 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be little more than a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. No references, no relevant Google hits as far as I can see. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:10, 10 June 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Delete the junk. On a strict policy basis this is either a clear keep as a notable topic or a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1 for its lack of context. The topic is actually a good one, and far from a neologism (it's 25 years old, to my knowledge). Placed in this contradictory impasse though, WP:Delete the junk should be applied.

The topic incidentally refers to cellular communications, sometimes mesh networking in general. If a mobile station is on the border between two cells, the routing algorithm may see the best route to this station as being through either of the two possible routes, and the favoured choice is likely to vary intermittently according to minor variations in signal. Unless the routing algorithm is damped to take this into account, the selected route is likely to ping-pong back and forth between the two possibles, with no real advantage of one route over the other and wasting some effort at processing the handovers. Serious effort has been put into algorithms to avoid this problem - it's an issue with real money riding on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - Notable topic, unsalvageable fragment. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all other delete comments, Andy Dingley's comments provide a valuable contribution to this afd Satu Suro 09:49, 23 June 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 cannot fulfill the IP's request at the bottom as they do not have a registered account with a verified email address to send the requested information to. v/r - T P 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osulrc-1[edit]

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

This article concerns a prop from a short film. The author seems to think it is important but I cannot see why. The obvious course would be to redirect to the article on the film but this does not exist. Malcolma (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When giving the reason for proposing deletion are you referring to an article that does not exist on Wikipedia for the movie "Elliot's War" from which the prop was used (an article on Wikipedia such as "Forest Gump")? The movie prop has since gained interest as an educational tool (at Sonoma State University) and for that reason is of interest at least to me? Is what you want to see here: a link to a Wikiepedia article on the movie "Elliot's War"? Or are you just saying that you feel the entry is not important even if it was part of a movie? I object to this deletion Gregrank (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it looks like a fun item, secondary sources have not told us anything about it. Without that we really can't have an article. BigJim707 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma of the independent film maker is that not every movie garners box office success or the media attention and debate like a "Forest Gump." The original reason for proposing deletion was because the "obvious course would be to redirect to the film article which does not exist." Once again the article does exist on IMDB and the entry points to the summary on IMDB (and other sources) for this entry. This is the same place (IMDB) information about the movie "Forest Gump" is available. Additionally the Wikipedia "Deletion guidelines" state that one can not delete an article just because you don't personally think it is notable. I have done my best to link to the existing references for this item. Some information taken from "special features" on the movie DVD purchased from the Amazon store (and not linkable). If you still feel it appropriate to delete this item, I won't take it personally. I will however like to comment that just because every item on Wikipedia doesn't have the depth of press as a Space Shuttle" or Star Trek "Enterprise" doesn't mean it is not notable or worthy of an entry.76.103.207.254 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I respect your decision to delete. Personally I believe the link on the Sonoma State University website meets wikipedia's criteria (as the source is notable i.e. a .edu). However, there are several more verifiable sources for this item on the web (a simple web search turns up 20, including user reviews at Amazon for the movie. It even has it's own website: http://osulrc.com Perhaps the problem is I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning how to use the tags and structure. I found a creative commons picture of the machine at a teacher page on another .edu site but If you want a link to something like a New York Times movie review or article on the prop (If that is your idea of "legit source"), I too can't seem to find a source like that. Gregrank (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. The Sonoma State University website, whatever it is, is not a reliable source; there is no indication of editorial oversight, no information on the author, apparently it's not linked to from the main Sonoma State University websites. No other sources given or likely to be found. Huon (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me what constitutes "notable"? Does one article in a small town newspaper count? Or if a small town newspaper publishes an article on the OSULRC-1 will you recommend delete because the newspaper and the town it came from is too small? The irony in this "delete" campaign regarding the OSULRC-1 is that the movie was produced by Big Song Entertainment. The domain name for BSE, http://www.bigsong.com, has been on the Internet since 1995. Isn't it "notable" that the prop from the movie that you all want to delete is produced by a company whose domain name is 5 years OLDER than Wikipedia (verifiable by a simple whois lookup.) The movie and the prop still fall under the category of "non-notable". The author/producer of this movie has also written and recorded over 100 songs, one reviewed (favorably) by Larry Flick of Billboard Magazine adjacent to reviews for Faith Hill and Katie Segal (both "notable" people by the standards you are applying to this entry). This song "Weekend Warrior" (copyright # PA 753-312)is featured in the movie "Elliot's War" the same movie as the OSULRC-1. But how does one link to a song review that was written in 1995 (pre-internet) and not currently available to link too? "Elliot's War" is copyrighted movie, submitted to film festivals and "Big Song Entertainment" is a registered trademark (Reg. NO. 3,253,814 registered June 19th 2007). I am not angry. Please understand, rather amused by the irony. The comment on the post regarding the link to SSU is amusing. As if someone hacked the site and stashed the photo and article there just to get on to Wikipedia? Pretty funny actually. Not every piece of educational material used in the classroom is linkable of the main page but these pages do get indexed by Google (and would get deleted if the SSU information security office didn't want the file there). If you can't leave all of the post up, maybe someone can assist in editing, keep what your rules allow and delete the rest or if you still must, go ahead and delete all. One of the Amazon reviewers of the movie "Elliot's War" is named Steve Meleon, author of the book "The Shroud" reviewed by Ransom Stephens, Ph.D., author of "The God Patent" who is notable as he is listed on WikipediaGregrank (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is explained in the guideline WP:N; the general criterion of notability is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Notability is not inherited; while Big Song Entertainment may be notable (though it currently apparently does not have an article of its own), that does not make all props for all its movies notable. Similarly, the song review in Billboard Magazine may establish notability of the song Weekend Warrior, but again that notability is not inherited by either the movie or the prop. Huon (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this movie prop to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee looks like I'm losing here (though I read this un-deletion process is not a democracy). I would only ask that if/when your version of "notable" coverage becomes available, the nominator of this deletion would consider in a timely manner, reviewing the supporting coverage (reviews, articles, publications)which you require and consider a timely un-delete of this entry in Wikipedia? Can you email me a copy of this material (deleted entry and discussion notes when you pull the trigger?) thank you and enjoy your summer (if you are in the northern hemisphere)76.103.207.254 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 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. v/r - T P 21:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zagros Air[edit]

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

This company doesn't meet notability guidelines. It hasn't recieved significant coverage; any sources do little more than acknowledge its existence. Even the official website appears to be broken. JRheic (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, Its also and advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:44, 19 June 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. Although I have been involved here as the nominator, I am going to IAR and close it anyway, since the consensus is so clear. The consensus is clearly to keep this article (although the consensus is also that it needs to be improved), with no one except myself thinking it should be deleted. I hope some Polish-speaking editors will help make this an excellent article! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kolporter Holding[edit]

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

I have come to AfD, as this article was previously PRODed and that was removed. Although the founder of the company appears to meet the notability criteria, his company does not seem to do so. All the news reports I found appeared to be press releases, or standard reports rather than significant coverage of this company. Even the one reference provided is not significant coverage, just confirming the one fact (about the company's sponsorship). I would be happy for this to be a redirect to Krzysztof Klicki, but I felt a discussion would be best - deletion, merger or redirect would all be suitable outcomes from my point of view. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a significant chain in Poland. Though I'm not sure the holding company is the most notable entity. I would rename the article to Kolporter, or perhaps temporarily redirect it to Klicki's article until someone can write a decent separate article on the company(-ies).--Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be satisfied with that! Of course, if there are some good sources for the holding company in its own right, then that'd be OK (I don't read Polish, and Google Translate will only go so far!). I think in my mind at the moment, the ideal solution would be to create a redirect to Klicki, and then get some articles written up about the individual companies (I realise it's easy for me to say that, as it wouldn't be me that would do that! - perhaps WikiProject Poland could create a task force, as the members of the Project can more easily find references in Polish!) - then an article for the holding company with a brief description/history, plus links to the subsidiary companies could be created.

I notice that the Polish entry for the company has a lot more detail - but unfortunately, no independent sources (in fact, the only reference is to a press release from the company itself!) It lists the companies within the group - which could possibly form the basis for this article, if it were (a) translated into English (again, it needs more than Google Translate can do!) and (b) referenced at independent reliable sources - again, that would be a job for my Polish-reading colleagues! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs expansion. I agree it is notable, but not at its current sorry state. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it really, really needs a fixup. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 137[edit]

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

This is a future sports event that currently fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:FUTURE. A number of footnotes have been added but on examination mentions of the event are either tangential (and do nothing to substantiate notability) or vague as to any details. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page already cites multiple, reputable sources and will be continue to develop as information becomes available. Sources indicate that a title bout featuring arguably the most popular mixed martial artist on Earth will be competing. Ppt1973 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give the people what they want: "Wikipedia article traffic statistics: UFC_137 has been viewed 226424 times in the last 30 days." It's sourced well enough, it's not idle speculation on something that will never happen. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not normally a rationale to keep. If someone were to create List of best porn websites it would get many times more hits than this article but it would still be against a couple of policies. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not normally a rationale to keep, but worth mentioning. Running a plain Google search isn't "normally a rationale" either — and that returned over 400,000 hits on the exact phrase "UFC 137." Did you bother with WP:BEFORE on this one? Or are you making the argument that all future sporting events are non-notable per se? Because, in addition to the sourcing showing in the article, there is THIS VIA THE L.A. TIMES and THIS ON NBC SPORTS and THIS ON THE ALL SPORTS NETWORK. Seriously... That's like 2 minutes of hunting to pull those out. You've got some valid cases below, but you need to withdraw this one, because it's a terrible nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you were to delete this one you would have to delete multiple ones. c.m1994 (talk to me) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Second all of the opinions noted above. tw, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.205.208 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 139[edit]

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

This is a future sports event that currently fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:FUTURE. Fæ (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an easy call, a content-free place filler about a potential future event. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "While not officially announced by the organization" says it all. Ma^t_chups 20:03, 23 June 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 retracted and speedy-closed, consensus to redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Pan American Games medal table[edit]

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

Useless stub article containing a blank medal table for a sports competition that hasn't been held yet. It will no doubt become legitimate once the event has happened, but until then it is quite useless. I tried redirecting it for the time being, but the article creator is edit-warring it back. Deletion without prejudice to recreation or speedy restoration once it can be filled with actual data. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT if there is no compromise to keep. I am against deleting, precedent already set in 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and 2010 Winter Olympics medal table that redirecting is acceptable. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Be bold and do it. No need for this AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is information that lists the sports that will have two bronze medals awarded, which is not present on the main page. Also considering the event is less then four months why delete it? When it needs to be recreated again. Plus I am not edit warring, as edit warring is considered reverting four edits within 24 hours. I reverted one edit, after explaining yo why the article should stay. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 12:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It says on WP:EW that, "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand, but reverting one edit with an explanation counts as edit warring? Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Officially redirected. Intoronto1125Talk Contributions 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if we can agree on a redirect, I'll happily retract this nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 17 June 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson (singer)[edit]

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

Singer with only a link to their myspace after more than a year. If active since 2005, reviews should have appeared by now. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability. AS far as I can tell, he has never put out an album, nor has he been covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 23 June 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. v/r - T P 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makisig Morales[edit]

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

reality TV-related BLP unreferenced in more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of notable sources. No hits on Yahoo, and when I searched Google I only found mirror sites, Facebook and his IMDb page (which is clearly where all the roles came from). SwisterTwister (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dunno if the people here even use the Google News link at the top. 88 legit sources. Let me quote one:
"Makisig Morales showed he has the "super powers" indeed, as ABS-CBN’s fantaserye, "Super Inggo," toppled the pilot episode of GMA 7’s newest teleserye, "Atlantika" in the ratings."
His TV show, which he is the title character was a top rater. I dunno if that's not notable but if it isn't, 90% of actor articles are. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant award nomination (listing at imdb). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 20 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Meehan (producer)[edit]

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

BLP no references that speak of notability in more than a year Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meehan's "colourful" business past is covered in this 2010 news article from The Times. I'll look to reference this into the article later, but he does seem to have a wide enough business history to merit an article. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could do with improvement but is ont completely unsoourced and he seems notable enough. PatGallacher (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article now referenced and trimmed of some of the excess. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like enough references have been added to demonstrate his notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:03, 20 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Medina[edit]

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

BLP unreferenced and contested for more than a year. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LOL "unreferenced". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix article. Carl Francis (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references have been added to satisfy notability, still some cleanup to be done but no reason to delete now. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actress has appeared in several film and TV shows. Article needs clean up though. 120.28.222.133 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 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. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Tennis[edit]

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

WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. This is a made up game in which the article readily admitted (in a prior version) that the first game happened to be played on the day the article was created. No reliable sources seem to indicate that this is verifiable or notable. Originally prod-ed but creator removed the tag. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly something just made up the other day by two guys, not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke articleCurb Chain (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vagabond (person). v/r - T P 21:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drifter (person)[edit]

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

There has been a discussion going on at Talk:Drifter (person)#Redirect? about whether to merge the contents of this article into Vagabond (person) (essentially deleting this article), some editors there are of the opinion that the two articles describe the same concept, whereas some others believe the concepts are distinct. The discussion is getting into a quagmire so it was decided to bring this to AfD for further input. I'm opening the AfD procedurally because the article is currently fully protected so no one else can do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The two articles, and the sources cited within them, seem to treat the two words as interchangeable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per nom, no need for two articles on the exact same subject. Dayewalker (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Keep and/or Improve

Neutral for Delete

Strong Oppose for Merge and/or Redirect (See my explanation here: Talk:Drifter (person)#Redirect?)

Vagabond and Drifter are not the same. Vagabond is a homeless wanderer who doesn't go further than from one end of town to the other, but rarely or never out of the known area. Drifter is a homeless traveler who never stays at one place (be it town, city, or even a country) for a longer time. The only thing a Drifter and a Vagabond have in common is that they are both Itinerants, and it makes as much sense merging them together as would merging apple to orange (fruit) based on the fact that they are both Fruits growing on trees.

I don't have a problem with either article at the present moment (except for the Vagabond article calling Vagabond a Drifter, which may cause a distraction like this), but for those who do think either article is inadequate, it would probably be a better idea for them to work on the article in question to have it improved, make the distinction clearer and overall the subject(s) expanded with reliable sources. 202.111.188.125 (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, so far you have not provided any sources that make this distinction; as far as I can tell you are only reporting your personal language intuitions. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I provided sources to prove that an apple is different from an orange, for one simple reason: I don't have either at hand, nor do I have the time to look for them. We have been over all this at Talk:Drifter (person)#Redirect?, so I'm not sure why you are even bringing this up again, other than the fact that you have a personal issue with certain editors who have turned a redirect into a decent article. 202.111.188.125 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary. Besides that this article seems to be an attempt to create a neologism. The source says only: "A person who is continually moving from place to place, without any fixed home or job." The article says, citing the same source: "Drifters are self-sufficient anticonformists who never stay at one place for a longer period of time, and continually move from one location to another with no fixed destination, living a completely free, fulfilling life."BigJim707 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia already has too many irrelevent articles.64.206.83.25 (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish for your !vote to be considered here, please clarify what you mean—why do you think this article is "irrelevant"? rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Now you are deciding whose vote counts and whose doesn't? Someone needs to bring this whole thing to Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents, including the stuff that was discussed on Drifter's discussion page. It's obvious now that this group (you - the administrator, the other editor, and the IP) want this redirect/merge forced through. I would do it myself, but I'm busy with other stuff in real life. 202.111.188.125 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a good case for proper application of the policy WP:DICDEF which tells us that "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.. A vagabond and a drifter are much the same thing per the OED which has:

drifter, n. A man following an aimless, irresolute, or vagrant way of life.

vagabond, n. One who has no fixed abode or home, and who wanders about from place to place; spec. one who does this without regular occupation or obvious means of support; an itinerant beggar, idle loafer, or tramp; a vagrant.

It is therefore correct to cover them together. Note also that we have many other such words and related concepts which are listed at itinerant and so the main question which arises is which is the best title for this concept of the wanderer/vagrant/vagabond/drifter/itinerant/nomad/&c.? But we do not have to settle this question here, just decide that the title should not be deleted and so remain a blue link. Warden (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, the distinction this article attempts to make between a 'drifter' and a 'vagrant' (that the former are self-sufficient free spirits, and that anyone who 'drifts' because they're not able to function in mainstreem society is not a 'drifter' but a 'vagrant') is uncited. The only sources available treat the terms as essentially interchangeable. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without prejudice to vagabond, which mentions romanticized notions of the drifter in Hollywood films. "Vagrant" has been used in a more cruel and legalistic manner and doesn't seem as close a match to modern ears. Eventually reliable sources (especially literary sources) may emerge to draw a distinction between drifters and vagabonds, but the distinction is too fine for it to be productive to keep separate articles at this stage in development. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a response to Rjanag who started this AfD and has tried to silence me with an attack on my personal talk page - no, you are not being unfair and trying to get the article deleted, you are in fact being unfair and trying to get the article redirected, that is why you've opposed my opinion from the start, and that is why you've opposed the opinion of another person here who said the article should be deleted. Let's face it, you, the other editor, and the IP all showed up on the same day trying to do the same thing, and arguing that the article Drifter needs to be merged to Vagabond because they are similar. They are not the same articles, and because the Drifter article is currently a stub, it needs to be expanded, not redirected. It could be deleted because then there would be no nonsense like confusing Drifter with Vagabond or other types of Itinerants, but it certainly doesn't make any sense to merge it, unless you are redirecting it to the Itinerant article itself. 202.111.188.125 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 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. v/r - T P 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Smith (whipcracker)[edit]

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

not sure if can be considered athlete as whip cracking is hardly a major sport. regardless fails fails WP:BIO. the only source appears self published. trove doesn't reveal much. google news not much either [6]. nothing that Wingham is the town she comes from. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that an eleven-time national champion at anything ought to be notable, regardless of whether it's seen as a major sport. The only issue is finding appropriate sources. For what it's worth, a search of the Factiva database reveals articles about her in the Hills Shire Times, 17th March 2009 (219 words, headline "Champ gets cracking - CASTLE HILL SHOW") and in the Daily News, Warwick, 9th February 2010 (364 words, headline "Competitors get cracking to win whip titles"), both verifying that she had won ten national titles at that date. And there's the Wingham Chronicle article hinted at above. It's not much; I'll leave it for others to discuss whether this is enough. Jowa fan (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia indicates that whipcracking is a competitive sport in Australia. That's unsourced, but if it's in Wikipedia it must be true, per WP:MUSTBETRUE. A multiple time national champ at a competitive sport would seem to be in like flynn if the titles pass the verifiability threshold, yes? Carrite (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And she's A THREE TIME WORLD CHAMP, too, or so she says herself. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsoring organization is the AUSTRALIAN WHIPCRACKERS AND PLAITERS ASSOCATION, which notes that whipcracking is "a great family sport." Carrite (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, yep, THEY CONFIRM that Fiona Wilks Smith is the champ of champs in Australian competitive whipcracking. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources you provide are third party. We need third party coverage. Secondly I do wonder how genuine competitive this is, how many people actually compete in this very minor sport in Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the multiple-time national champion of a competitive sport, esoteric though it may be. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

national champions should get national coverage, all this person gets is primary source coverage and small regional newspapers one of which is the small town she comes from so not entirely third party. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further what you mean by "not entirely third party"? We're looking here for sources that are independent and reliable. Lacking evidence to the contrary, we should assume that a newspaper has editorial independence: she didn't write the article herself, right? And the definition of "significant coverage" at WP:GNG is that sources address the subject directly in detail; it's nothing to do with whether the source is published locally or nationally. Can you point to a policy or guideline that discourages the use of regional newspapers as sources? Footnote 3 of WP:BIO says What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. Jowa fan (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the wingham chronicle is hardly a major newspaper. my point is, a national champion should get national coverage, even a passing mention in a major Australian newspaper. she does not. as per WP:SOURCES. " reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. " LibStar (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a metropolitan newspaper, but I don't see that it's not mainstream, which is the test Wikipedia suggests. In any case, both of the articles that link to the Wingham Chronicle website can also be found on the site for the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, which, as noted below, 'is the most-read suburban newspaper in the Sydney Metropolitan Area'. (You can find them here and here.) That suggests Fairfax syndicated the stories throughout NSW, and possibly the rest of the country. There's obviously no question that something syndicated in Fairfax would be considered both reliable and third party. But the same clearly applies for the Leader on its own, since it's nowhere near Wingham. BlueThird (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's worth raising this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jowa fan (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found and added independent verification of the world titles; updated her tally of national titles – it's now 12; added various other tidbits, including the fact that her three international wins were in mixed-gender competition, and that she won all three categories in each of those years. If whipcracking deserves a page – and it has had one, unchallenged, since 2006 – then it seems blindingly obvious that FS does. Her dominance might say something about the lack of competition – or might not, I've really got no idea – but quite clearly it also says something about the woman. No one makes achievements like those, in any field, without some hefty measures of talent and dedication. She's absolutely worthy of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Made further improvements to the article. Impossible to know if the last reference I added made it to the print edition or just the website, but the Leader 'is the most-read suburban newspaper in the Sydney Metropolitan Area' so she has at least some metropolitan coverage. BlueThird (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the most-read suburban newspaper in the Sydney Metropolitan Area" applies to the St George Leader not Wingham chronicle. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I said. BlueThird (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable for her role in a competitive sport, with sufficient references to pass notability, obscure as the sport may be. Orderinchaos 04:17, 20 June 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. v/r - T P 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Harmon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and the article content is an assortment of unreliable sources. The last AFD saw assertions like "one of the first amateur adult stars on the internet with a significant following", which I cant find any sources other than the interview published by the same person who commented at the AFD. They may have been one of the first to have an amateur porn website that took off, however only an idiot would assert that the internet didnt have amateur porn stars with a significant following until 2000. In any case, "first <x> porn on the internet" is not a reason for notability, just like "first <x> porn on video" and "first <x> porn photograph" are not. The distribution media is not a relevant aspect of the notability for porn. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three fundamental objections: the lack of independent sourcing, the lack of encyclopedia-worthiness, and the spammy, promotional content. What was the name of that website again? One more time??? Got it! (Please have your credit card ready!) Carrite (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unencyclopedic content and lack of reliable third party sources. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every pornstar in the universe. SwisterTwister (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree with nominator that pioneers in porn are not notable. However I agree that this article should be deleted because there are no reliable sources to support the claim that she is a pioneer, nor to support the article in general. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morbidthoughts' sound analysis, more detailed in the 2nd AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only she was a pioneer (which would make her notable) there are reliable sources in the article... Interviews like this one, where SoHo (magazine) is the source. I do think the article shouldn't be using her site with the scanned version, but instead quote directly the magazine. The article needs adjustments, not deletion. Maddox (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the same SoHo magazine that has the wikipedia article. Its reliability is completely unknown for notability purposes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 23 June 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. There does not appear to be a consensus at this time for deletion. If there are concerns that some of this material should be in other places instead, then a merge discussion should take place, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of events of the DC Universe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic of this article fails the general notability guideline because there are no third-party sources that cover "events of the DC universe" in direct detail. Whatever sources exist don't go into detail, and do not allow us to reliably discriminate between events and non-events. Most of all, this article will never be anything but WP:JUSTPLOT with a few sentences of introduction, which is WP:NOT what a Wikipedia article is for. There is no obvious role for any non-plot information to enter this article that isn't redundant with the main DC Comics article, indicating this article might even be a WP:CONTENTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Commander timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Ultima Universe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline and alternate timelines for the Warcraft lore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Kain timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A story timeline of Another World Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost island timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent Möbius timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal gear solid timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowrun timeline (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Worms Timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-Files Timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellboy fictional timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball alternate timelines Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Command & Conquer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Grand Theft Auto III canon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Valiant Universe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Phantasy Star series Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Harry Potter fan fiction Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlesean Timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zork timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannara timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bionicle timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nosgoth timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanth timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sopranos timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Batman Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowrun timeline (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degrassi timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Timeline Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlander Timelines Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlevania timeline

Extended content

Comment from Nominator As seen from the numerous AFDs listed in the "extended content", these fictional timelines are generally deleted as WP:PLOTONLY WP:CONTENTFORKs that violate WP:NOT. Keeping this article would go against policy and consensus practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article you nominated isn't a fictional timeline, it's a publication timeline, a timeline of the real world. The things you compare it to are fictional timelines. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's probably impossible to build a fictional timeline for the DC Universe, what with all the reboots it goes through every few years. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a timeline of publication history, like that novel series have with the date the novel was published, is a reasonable list to have. As we have articles for each of these series, it should be navigable by year of publication. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- if this is kept rename to Publication history of DC Comics DC Universe 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is this list is not created as a publication history of DC Comics, which would begin in the 1930s and be much more comprehensive. It's an indiscriminate list of favorite issues of a few editors, beginning in the 1980s and selecting a few issues and excluding others based on the indiscriminate taste of comic book fans. A legitimate publication history is best covered at DC comics#History, and this list is not in any way a publication history. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTFINISHED; clearly it is incomplete. It would not be best covered in DC Comics, since any such list would be large, so should be a separate list article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not clear. "Publication history" (as you have put it) is different in scope than this "list of events". Defending this article by saying it should be something totally different will mean that you're accepting huge editorial changes if it is kept, including the pruning of plot information and greater focus on publication. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists of novels have this format, date, title, summary, ISBN ; True, it should have more information, but WP:NOTFINISHED. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has no conceivable use for non-fans. It must be maintained by a fan wiki, not by Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 14:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of DC Comics crossover events and prune accordingly. This seems to be the closest thing to whatever this list is trying for that would have clear inclusion criteria and be an index of notable topics (all of the crossover events have articles to my knowledge: Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, Invasion!, etc.). As it is, there is no apparent inclusion criteria; it includes limited series, single-title multiple-issue story arcs, and crossovers. postdlf (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find sources which discuss these major events. For example, we have Comic Book Collections for Libraries, aimed at the professional librarian, which discusses in detail the way that these major events were used to manage the continuity problems of the elaborate DC universe. The contemporary comic book superhero discusses the impact of such events upon the readership while The Routledge companion to science fiction calls one of these events "the most significant storyline of this decade". These sources demonstrate the notability of these events in critical analysis of the output of this major publishing house and so deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Note also that the same nominator brought this same topic here earlier this year with much the same reasoning. Our deletion policy advises that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In all fairness, it's a bit passive aggressive to state such a rule in the abstract, accusing by implication rather than coming straight out and saying that you believe this AFD is disruptive and why. Do you mean to say that this AFD is disruptive? I don't think it is, considering that the previous AFD was closed four months ago as "no consensus". postdlf (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two or three paragraphs are not enough to make a stand-alone article, which requires "significant coverage". At best, the sources presented here can be used in DC Comics, but they don't make this article notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to belabor this discussion. But you've found sources that talk about individual storylines such as Crisis on Infinite Earths and Identity Crisis (comics). There are no obvious policy issues with the individual articles listed here and I'm not nominating them for deletion. The problem is a lack of sources for this "list of events" in aggregate, whatever an "event" is supposed to be. Right now, it's just a loose collection of storylines, including some, but excluding others, at the whims of the editors and the flippant use of the word "event". According to WP:LISTN, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I believe it's possible to provide some information that's WP:NOTJUSTPLOT for the individual storylines, but nothing in aggregate. That's why I'm not doing anything with the individual storylines, but nominating this list for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:GNG, WP:PLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) The list includes (almost exclusively) list of comics crossovers which are themselves notable. 2) It addresses them not from an INUNIVERSE perspective, but chronologically based on date that the comics were published. While not every list entry must be notable, a list of notable entries with a cohesive theme (in this case, fictional works with the same publisher and setting) should have a really compelling reason for deletion. The nominator errs when he compares this to in-universe timelines. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I'm making an error. The list is dominated by in universe details. The "notes" column is most of the substance of the article, and sometimes breaks into entire paragraphs of plot summaries. So my conclusion is that this article is just an extended plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is not. If the emphasis is supposed to be on the publications, then someone should rewrite the article that de-emphasizes the fitional details and offers more of the publishing context. I can't envision how this article would become something else, and I don't believe that's what this article is trying to achieve. So I'd ask that someone try to actually fix the article instead of just saying "keep". Shooterwalker (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you going to go around and list every list of episodes for TV shows for deletion then? They are mostly summaries of episodes, combined with airdates and titles. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are very different. For one, they're discriminate. It's not just "moments in a TV series", but a discriminate class of episodes. For two, they're usually organized by season, which means it's trivially easy to find a source that can talk about "season 3 of tv series", where you also list the episodes after you've discussed the broader class. At the heart of all of this is sourcing. There are lots of sources about seasons of TV series, where you can expand on it with a list of episodes in that season. There aren't sources that talk vaguely about events in any kind of fiction. If there are, then they talk separately about specific events, and would best be

included at the article specific to that event, rather than a list of "all events". Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would suggest it be called 'List of major crossover events...' but the article seems to have legs, and does make a useful frame of reference for non continuity obsessives! Not that there'll be any continuity shortly. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the most recent entry on the deletion list above, Chronology of Star Wars, the totals of Keep !votes for the repeated AfDs is as follows:

1st nomination:  7
2nd nomination: 17
3rd nomination: 21

4th nomination: 0

It would normally be difficult to conclude that editors had chosen not to participate in an AfD, but the numbers speak for themselves here. The keep !votes in the last AfD were replaced by a small but unanimous opinion for Speedy close because the nominator was a sock puppet and the nomination was in bad faith, and so that the AfD could be reopened "by a human being". Neither the editors nor the closing admin mentioned WP:Banning policy, and the closer simply noted in the absence of keep !votes that "the consensus to 'delete' is clear". Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion page for this article states, "This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale." I don't know how the encyclopedia should deal with this but I find it questionable that a High-importance article should be nominated for deletion. Is there a noticeboard for questionable AfD nominations? Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Project importance ratings are only relevant among project members, are made at the members' own discretion, and have absolutely no value at the global community level. Of course, any comics fan is likely to deem of the utmost importance any comics-related topic...but that doesn't mean the article meets community-defined quality criteria. So please don't mix up the two things. This nomination is not questionable at all since the list discussed here violates at least two major policies, WP:NOTPLOT and WP:V, and doesn't even meet the notability guideline. On the contrary, if one behavior is questionable here, it is yours. That's the second or third time I've seen you attempting to disrupt a deletion process with blatant policy distortion and threats to a nominator, just like you did here, so it would be better for everyone if you could just be reasonable and let deletion processes end.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens. These kinds of articles always seem to go up for deletion, and always could use more sourcing. That said, they do serve a purpose. Dayewalker (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not evidence that the list meets the criteria of notability for stand-alone list as the list topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Even with a search engine test, I do not see reliable secondary sources that give significant coverage to presume that the list meets the general notability guideline. In fact, all links appear to be for mirrors of this very article. Even changing the search terms to events and "DC Universe", I do not see reliable sources that give significant coverage. With no third-party sources, there is no presumption to have a list article. And while the list tries to give a focus on the publication history, it does not have a clear inclusion criteria, which means that the events are added if editors feel that they would count as an event, which implies that they are using original research to reach that conclusion as this is not a topic covered in third party sources. With no third party sources that have a similar list or references to back up the content, I do not think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because the list falls into what Wikipedia is not by being an indiscriminate collection of information and I also believe it is an unnecessary content fork of the several DC Comics articles. Jfgslo (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. It has remained wholly unsourced over its five year life. No non-inuniverse content. No analysis or critical commentary. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notable events have links to articles that cover each of them, so this is a good list article. These events are significant to get coverage in places that review comic books. Dream Focus 20:49, 25 June 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. v/r - T P 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threed[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources that can WP:verify notability and provide details that are WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as with the other nominations. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article would suit better as a mention on the main subject's (Earthbound) article. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional town does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Like other Earthbound-related articles, all content fails verifiability since it uses unreliable sources and Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Jfgslo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Happy Village[edit]

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

Sourced entirely to fan wikis, which are not reliable sources. Even so, there are no reliable independent sources that can explain why this is notable. Without neutral and independent sources that can WP:verify notability, this fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as with Moonside and Eagleland. Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earthbound's article. The fact that all it cites are EarthBound Wikia pages doesn't support much of an important article. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional village does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Like other Earthbound-related articles, all content fails verifiability since it uses unreliable sources and Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Jfgslo (talk) 14:48, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonside[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG because there are no third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Sourced entirely to self-published sources and fan wikis. Even if they were reliable, which they aren't, they only verify fictional details. Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, and need information about significance and reception according to WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, does not attribute reliable secondary sources. These can be redirects if need be. Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional location does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Like other Earthbound-related articles, all content fails verifiability since it uses unreliable sources and Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Jfgslo (talk) 14:44, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleland[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG because there are no third-party sources to WP:verify notability. Sourced entirely to self-published sources and fan wikis. Even if they were reliable, which they aren't, they only verify fictional details. Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, and need information about significance and reception according to WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not attribute reliable secondary publications, nor could I locate any. Marasmusine (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional nation does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. All content fails verifiability since it uses unreliable sources and Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Jfgslo (talk) 14:41, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Gonzaga[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; no gnews hits for her acting (some local media mentions of success in student speech competitions circa 2000.) Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page needs to go. It seems the creator of the page is a fan of The Morning After and has also created a stub for Brian Kimmet. As the editor of The Morning After page, I have found nothing to make either Brian or Ginger notable in an encyclopedic way. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Agreed - delete. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you and the merry little band of shifty, faceless buereucrats to know that I won't go down without a fight. I stand for FREEDOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping for you guys. In your pursuit of ascent on this buereaucratic ladder you have lost your ways. Who is to determine what is notable or not notable? Is the simple action of taking a breath or blinking an eye notable? An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!---Yours Truly, Very Concerned

Plus you are NOT a true fan of the Morning After — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for bureaucrat... can I get a bureaucrat in here? Preferably one missing a face. And with masterful powers of deletion. Knowledge227, encyclopedic content must be notable, which means a major impact on human events that people have taken note of. It must be reliably sourced, which is to say if a verifiable reference cannot be found to vet the subjects notability, it is still not notable. Brian Kimmet is very talented. So is my sister, who's a nurse. Neither of them are notable... yet. They're just talented. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I want to hold the people down...especially when they can't source their article, and the subject doesn't meet WP:N. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 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. v/r - T P 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kimmet[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Only source is IMDB, cannot find other sources. Notability in question. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely concur. It seems the creator of the page is a fan of The Morning After and has also created a stub for Ginger Gonzaga. As the editor of The Morning After page, I have found nothing to make either Brian or Ginger notable in an encyclopedic way. ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am tired of the faceless bureacracy that is threatening to destroy everything that Wikipedia stands for. It used to be in this country that a man, a dream, and some hard work was enough. What would the proprieters of the American Dream think if they had to find "credible sources". So in conclusion, DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources which provide verifiable evidence of notability are "what Wikipedia stands for". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some sort of "American Dream" manifesto. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously never heard Jimmy Wales expound on the topic, my friend! Carrite (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS can be found. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: First Amendment. And you know what, in the wild there is no such thing as a "Bearcat". I'm tired of having to deal with people who can post this stuff in a dark room. Oh, the times they are a changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were under the impression that the American constitution held water at Wikipedia, because it doesn't. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 13:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you and the merry little band of shifty, faceless beureucrats to know that I won't go down without a fight. I stand for FREEDOM.Knowledge227 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Ooh fancy signature SO STOP AUTOSIGNING ME[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Unsourced fragment of a snippet of a short piece. No sources = crushing by the faceless machine... BTW, does anybody have the username ManBearPig? That would be a good one... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, Carrite is a wierd username and ManBearPig would be even worse. Two, I would like an audience with Jimmy Wales on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad for you jaded editors. Too obsessed with code and regulations you have lost sight about what Wikipedia is really about. So cut the trash and answer my questions. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.7.235 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for bureaucrat... can I get a bureaucrat in here? Preferably one missing a face. And with masterful powers of deletion. Knowledge227, encyclopedic content must be notable, which means a major impact on human events that people have taken note of. It must be reliably sourced, which is to say if a verifiable reference cannot be found to vet the subjects notability, it is still not notable. Brian Kimmet is very talented. So is my sister, who's a nurse. Neither of them are notable... yet. They're just talented.ComposerDude ^(TALKIE)_*contribs 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping for you guys. In your pursuit of ascent on this buereaucratic ladder you have lost your ways. Who is to determine what is notable or not notable? Is the simple action of taking a breath or blinking an eye notable? An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!---Yours Truly, Very Concerned

Are we plagiarizing Tolkien now Mr. Knowledge? Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to even cite my comments now ((Mr.)) Karl? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your move well-read buereucrats--Very Concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs a faceless bureacrat who wants nothing more than to hold down a man's dream of course. Well that and no sources. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys are simply hilarious. Except for Mr. Roving Ambassador. Taking the words of a impassioned man and turning them against him. How can you sleep at night? Hey I've got an idea you guys should write for SNL #PSYCH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge227 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, Mr. Knowledge, here's the deal. Getting hauled to AfD is like getting a ticket when you drive your car. Some cops are jackasses, some are reasonable sorts, but the fact is, your article is in traffic court. At Wikipedia, articles aren't cautioned or fined, they're either given the death penalty or set free. It's a tough neighborhood. Singing Bob Dylan songs or railing against the demons or Mordor ain't gonna get the piece on the judge's good side. You've gotta scramble like fast to find two or three significant independent sources indicating this article topic is encyclopedia-worthy. So get your Google on, brother. Just to be a good sport, I'll help now. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a shitload of hits on this dude, he's probably notable in WP terms even though finding three things that pass muster is proving to be time consuming. Here's number one: A BIO OF KIMMET FROM NBC.COM. Carrite (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I convinced myself already. Delete vote stricken. Now working on the page... Carrite (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His profile on the web page of a show he actually appeared in does not constitute coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not people. –MuZemike 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little crystal-bally, but given his corpus and the forthcoming lead role in the film P.O.V. it seems this guy does indeed merit a Wikipedia bio. I'm having a hell of a time digging up another reliable source or two, but I've satisfied myself at least that there should be material out there. The bio is looking a little better... Carrite (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough reliable sources except for Twitter and Facebook page, IMDb and official website. If this article wants to become epanded, it needs good sources. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Georgia. v/r - T P 21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Plain Research Arboretum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. 2 gbooks hits are LLC Books which uses WP as a source. google just shows directory listings as a place to visit or WP mirrors. no evidence of indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article lacks second source references it does appear notable. It is however, a stub.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, please provide evidence of sources to meet WP:ORG. The article is unreferenced. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Georgia, as we usually do with university departments that have limited independent notability. A better search than the one automatically linked in the nomination is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several references to the article. I think it's at least marginally notable. I disagree with the proposal to merge it into the university article, for at least two reasons: (1) Arboretums are visitor attractions in addition to being (in this case) university facilities, so there's value in documenting them separately. (2) There's no article for the Tifton Campus of the University of Georgia, so there's no decent destination to merge the article to. The campus is not even mentioned in the main University of Georgia article. It is mentioned in University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, but barely. (University sports are thoroughly documented in many articles, though.) --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 02:37, 24 June 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 (G11), once by Mike Rosoft and once by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Pgallert (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portioned learning[edit]

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

An neologism based on a blog of the same name. Not notable and no reliable sources exist that could support it. Singularity42 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UnscientificCurb Chain (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 23 results on Google, and description given sounds like any kind of learning. —Tommyjb (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, does not seem to present anything new. Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 17 June 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) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution[edit]

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

This book is not really a bestseller (ranked 157,610 at Amazon) and not cited. The article about its author is also nominated for deletion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google hits are all places that sell the book, nothing that amounts substantial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Note that the author's page was deleted after an AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerd Leonhard. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:27, 21 June 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. v/r - T P 21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 J's[edit]

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

Some blogs and some social sites are found in this search, but nothing of substance--and the one source provided with the article only mentions the term once in passing. The article is of course an account of the career of the three of them with some interspersed gossip. Note the final paragraph--this term is really an excuse for sports writing. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks independent references that have this article topic as the focus. In the absent of reliable sources focusing on this topic, there really shouldn't be an article. I could definitely see a mention in the articles about the players. I hope whoever created this article will continue good work here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with LonelyBeacon; deserves mention in the players' articles, but not sourced enough to merit it's own page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete For those of you who don't me, I, Mr. Brain, am the creator of the article about The 3 J's. I am a registered member of Wikipedia, but I don't have a user page yet, and for that, I do apologize. But nevertheless, please give me more time to find more information. Some help from fellow members would be appreciated. Thank you. Mr. Brain (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Brain, I hope no one will hold the lack of a user page against you--no need to apologize. But here's the thing: your article's subject needs to be notable via WP:GNG (sorry for the alphabet soup; just follow the link), and for that it needs reliable sources (see WP:RS) that discuss the subject in some depth. I could not find those. And I'll tell you--I'm a huge Kidd fan, so I tried. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 21 June 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. There is a consensus here for deletion at this time, but some strong keep arguments were made. I'd have no objection to a user working further on a draft version in their userspace, if they so desire. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:MUSIC, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. All GNews and Gbooks hits, both for the performer and mixtape name, appear either trivial or spurious. Urban Spice/Urban X awards and nominations, by consensus, cannot establish notability; other noms are limited to a single year. No significant, useful, reliably sourced biographical content; her claimed mixtape is documented mainly by a site that is devoted to "free mixtapes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The chipping stops here. Satisfies criteria 3 of WP:PORNBIO through her contributions to ethnic (black) pornography. Those multiple Urban X/Spice Awards over multiple years are evidence of it. The whole point of those awards were to recognise the contributions of performers in a niche genre of pornography that is often overlooked by the AVN Awards. Pinky is one of the most popular black pornographic actresses out there and those awards demonstrate that the pornography industry think she's one of the best. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's look at sources, shall we? Adult Video News? XBiz.com? Personal web page? That dog don't hunt. Fails GNG, regardless of whether or not she's made a demo tape. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment look at WP:PORN, Xbiz.com and AVN.com are commonly accepted reliable sources for articles about pornography, except obviously press releases (and a quick look indicates that this is not the case). Your comment appears off topic and quite demagogic. --Cavarrone (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Morbidthoughts - award-winning performer in entertainment niche. Wefihe (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as far as I understand it specific guides inform our interpretation of, but never superceede, WP:GNG. The fact she can meet WP:PORNBIO and fail WP:GNG so spectacularly show exactly why PORNBIO is seen as the lowest of low-hanging fruit when it comes to BLP notability. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what you mean. I cannot find where the article "fail WP:GNG so spectacularly", WP:PORNBIO is part of WP:GNG... and however WP:ANYBIO, criterium 1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.". The question is whether in some cases Urban X/Spice Award could be considered, or not considered, a significant award as AVN Award, FAME Award or XRCO Award. Plain and simple.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. From WP:N: "Failure to meet these [specialized] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Specialized notability guidelines (SNGs) are valid only to the extent they are good predictors of GNG outcomes. The community has, for some time, been at best skeptical about WP:PORNBIO, which Jimmy Wales has criticized, and the fact that such a large percentage of the performers whose claim notability rests principally on the Urban Spice/X award don't pass the GNG indicates that, even if the PORNBIO SNG is valid, that the award doesn't qualify as "well-known" or "significant," which in this context is a higher standard than "notable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply talking, I understand what you say, but I still do not see where article "fail WP:GNG so spectacularly", WP:ANYBIO talks about well-known and significant award, WP:PORNBIO talks about well-known award, different concept but very similar... Maybe the subject passes WP:GNG, maybe not, but clearly it doesn't fail spectacularly WP:GNG, also considering what you wrote. The deal is around the Urban Spice/X award significance-status, at the moment I don't have a clear opinion about this award's importance, however I'm waiting to read more substantive arguments. Obviously the two delete votes, as now, are really weakly argumented --Cavarrone (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid I must side with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on this one. Frankly, I am offended by implication that the subject's ethnicity imparts notability. African Americans are no longer as rare as they once were, though, assuming Good Faith, your neighborhoods may differ. I don't think that merely being of African descent constitutes Notability anymore, and I believe consensus will back me up. We learn from the article that the subject copulates. Well, we all do this, individually and in concert with others, given the opportunity, don't we? Indeed most of us-- regardless of ethnic background-- would not be here today without someone having copulated with someone or something else. As such it is no different from any other bodily function done on a semi-regular basis... Moving one's bowels for example. The "award", I regard as simply a pat on the back for a job well done. Who among us has not given his or her partner a pat on the back after a rousing bout of sex? (Indeed, even if it were not so rousing, simply out of common courtesy.) To carry the analogy further, this would be no different from showing one's spouse a particularly impressive bowel movement, and getting a "Wow!" or "Wouldja look at that!" out of him or her. Again, who among us has not done this? So the "Keep" votes boil down to claiming that Wikipedia needs an article on every (1) American of African ancestry who has (2) had sex and (3) received a pat on the back. This is like claiming we need an article on every (1) Irishman who has (2) taken a really big dump and then (3) shown it proudly to his admiring wife. Ridiculous. Gentlemen, I urge you to consider Wikipedia's reputation as a bastion of reasoned discussion, and join me in voting Delete. Thank you. Dekkappai (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impeccable logic, Chewbacca would be proud. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if it were up to you, Wikipedia would be a collection of articles on defecating Gaels. Whatever, dude. I, however, have joined my esteemed colleagues in a higher, purer vision for Wikipedia. The shining intellects of Wikipedia's ruling elite have put together Notability standards-- among other things-- which exclude subjects we don't feel should be covered here, while allowing the most trivial subjects that we do like... And if they don't do that sufficiently, they can be easily interpreted one way at one AfD, and another at another AfD to make it so. No less magnificent a personnage than Jimbo Wales himself agrees with opinions every bit as logical as my argument, such as if one newspaper errs once, then all newspapers are unreliable... when they are used to source something we don't want to see here, that is. As for your mocking my argument, Qrsdogg, I suggest you follow the example of our compatriots here on this page, and indulge me in strained silence, as if I had just stood up and farted loudly during a church service. Good day to you, sir. Dekkappai (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the crapping Celts, and substitute "Worlds Best Grandpa". It's a much more refined argument. In my defense, though, HB has been doing this thing much longer than I have... So... If this article is allowed to stand, I swear on the grave of my World's Greatest Grandpa that I will flood Wikipedia with stubs on every recipient of the World's Greatest Grandpa award! Don't tempt me! Dekkappai (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observations, I shall ponder them with the mute silence of a devout parishioner smelling the result of day-old curry. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I just wonder which performer the "World's Greatest Grandpa" down there !voted for-- er, patted on the back-- four times, no less... Dekkappai (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Morbidthoughts, it looks like there's a good argument that she meets PORNBIO #3. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PORNBIO #3 refers to performers who have made "unique contributions" in a "specific pornographic genre." Perhaps you could explain what the argument relating to this criterion is. None of the pertinent keep !votes so far do so. Even allowing "ethnic pornography," broadly, to be a "specific genre," the only claim seems to be that she's "popular." How can that possibly be a "unique contribution"? The "popularity" argument, along with the related "prolific" argument has been soundly rejected by consensus at prior AFDs, and isn't supported by the PORNBIO guideline. It seems to be no more than a hand-waving attempt to turn winning an award that isn't well-known or significant into the equivalent of winning one that is. And if that's the case, I want my own "World's Greatest Grandpa" article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not making a popularity argument with the awards. Just evidence that she is considered the best in her field which is only recognised by the mainstream pornography awards in the movie categories, not performing. For whatever reasons, the performer nominations for AVN always ignore the actresses that perform mostly in ethnic lines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the AVN Awards don't accurately reflect industry opinion? That's part of the import of your argument. But, homing in on the target, the Urban X performer awards are just popularity contests, and not very well run. I went to their site this afternoon and voted four times (cookie manager). And I still don't see any explanation of the supposed "unique contribution" called for by PORNBIO #3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For certain genres, the AVNs are a terrible gauge kind of like the Grammys are a terrible gauge for certain styles of music (at least in the past). The ethnic market is large, especially in the inner city. I'm not familiar with how the Urban X Awards are run or figured out. I didn't even know the public could vote for it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These awards don't announce any information about how nominees and winners are selected -- hardly a good sign, since the "sponsoring" organization exists only to hand out the awards. Just the fact that awards exist doesn't make them significant. There are all sorts of "red flags" on the award's website, beginning with the advertising, that don't exactly inspire confidence in the validity of whatever process is involved. Not only are the "talent" awards voted on in a website poll, but there's also a "special" award that can only be won by videos from a single studio [7]. This looks much more like the awards for self-published authors, for webcomics, and similar "honors" that don't qualify to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if one were to take seriously the concept of "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" (people having sex are just people having sex, no matter what their skin color is), such contributions are not documented (let alone reliably sourced) in the article, and notability is not otherwise established. Sandstein 07:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It states that she has won the 2009 Urban X Award for porn star of the year, which is accompanied by a third-party source. So not only this passes WP:PORNBIO but it also passes WP:ANYBIO too. Minima© (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. There's been a consensus, going back about two years, based on repeated discussions at AFD and DRV, that the Urban X/Urban Spice awards do not satisfy the "well-known" and "significant" standards of PORNBIO and ANYBIO. See such examples as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Jay (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress), and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24#Carmen Hayes. The DRV may provide the clearest discussion. If you can provide evidence that the award is "well-known" and "significant," which is a higher standard than notability, please do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet any of the associated BIO standards. Not notable enough. TerriersFan (talk) 15:34, 25 June 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. This is potentially a contentious AFD. The nominator was banned for sockpuppetry which should result in a procedural keep. The !votes appear about even which might result in a no consensus. That said, there is an SPA who makes a very poor case. With the remaining three editors, the only keep vote does not make any sort of argument for keeping. The two remaining delete votes make clear arguments to delete based in policy. v/r - T P 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mouse That Ate The Cat[edit]

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

There's nothing to be found online to prove this band exist, Playlists from BBC and Metro sites are not reliable sources, none of the citations are of any value. The band has no discography. The whole section titled "New songs and live performances (2011)" says nothing of any substance, it just looks like any local unsigned bands myspace page. The ridiculous trivia section was removed, but it shows just what sort of article this is, riddled with pov and devoid of facts.We're all depressed (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BBC playlist is a reliable source, but it doesn't establish notability. No coverage, no acclaim that satisfies WP:BAND. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The nominator was blocked as a sock of The abominable Wiki troll.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for a rewrite. -Gryllida 23:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band doesn't even have any releases yet, much less any successful or acclaimed ones. Only claim to notability is one of their songs supposedly reaching #5 (but note that the cited source only confirms it reaching #13) in something called the "Amazing Chart", which I have to assume is not notable, since it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't take stuff like this away - a great way to get people better informed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.193.70 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does an article on any band(much less one which hasn't done anything of note) "get people better informed"?--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 17 June 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 : I have reviewed the article. There appear to be no third-party references, with the exception of IMDB, and some of the links don't mention Billy Moses at all. So I am speedily deleting the article for a lack of any claim of notability. (The article should not be re-created without reliable third-party sources.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Moses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unremarkable person - failed public access and radio host. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - according to the deletion logs, this has been deleted almost 20 times - it may be time to salt this one. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And that's not counting multiple attempts at hi-jacking William R. Moses Porturology (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Person might be failed, but this does not interchange his notability. 70.0.177.222 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)— 70.0.177.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep -- Moses is currently hosting a radio show in Los Angeles on KTYM. 184.234.6.169 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)— 184.234.6.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Billy has made multiple appearances on CNN and NY1 in New York for opinion related on-air commentary. I believe Billy to be a notible person now. TrickyRicky420 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)— TrickyRicky420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete -- Billy Moses is stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.157.170 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE SALT - this has been deleted more than 20 times and the current form is no different from previous. A man with a big ego but not much else Porturology (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/salt; not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SALT -- I never authorized this article to be made about me. Plus, it's been deleted over 20 times. BillyMoses (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References have been added. 173.147.128.38 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)— 173.147,128.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of which are independent, verifiable or mention him in anything but passing Porturology (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Delete and Salt - Any topic that has been deleted this many times shouldn't even make it this far — it should have been whacked like a mosquito when the first administrator heard the first buzz. That it is the product of a single purpose account does nothing to lessen my misgivings. That an editor by the same name wants it gone seals it. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate referencing and no visible evidence of notability. Wefihe (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 June 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. v/r - T P 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reddams[edit]

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

We don't really have a speedy for something someone made up last week. This would be a good candidate. Non-notable game, unverified, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd originally redirected it, but it's definitely made-up. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable. Why don't we have a CSD for this sort of thing? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think we probably do have a CSD for this: ((db-hoax)). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; I don't think db-hoax applies in this case; if anyone ever actually played this and used the name, then it's simply insignificant and uninteresting rather than a hoax. It's the entries that say "here's this new game sweeping the world" that get speedied; this one seems pretty modest. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I had applied that tag to an early version. That brief statement, which was impossible to verify, could be called a hoax. The creator removed that tag and expanded it, and that expanded version, it seemed to me, could not easily be called a hoax, which is why we're here. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable game madeup one day. I agree this doesn't appear to be a hoax. That doesn't mean it's a subject we need to have an article covering. LadyofShalott 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the creator of this page and it was not meant as a hoax in the slightest. I am new to wikipedia which is why the original tag of an early version if a one sentence line. I was merely testing. The page is expanded now and I hoped it would become a feature in which I could direct members of my club. I would then update this page with rules and winners. Please tell me what I could do if it doesnt meet your specifications. Owencolinadams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which seeks to record information about subjects which have received significant coverage in established sources. It is not a free web host for a club to use as a way of posting information to its members. The answer to "what you could do" is to find somewhere more suitable to host your club's information, such as blogspot, or facebook. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 June 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) 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Strong[edit]

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

WP:NN actor: A few minor roles and one v/o credit. Fails WP:ENT Plutonium27 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see how he passes general notability, much less the guidelines for actors. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 17 June 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) 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merkantilt biografisk leksikon[edit]

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

This is an excellently written article about an early Norwegian who's who. However, the article's creator has been unable to find any secondary sources on the topic, making it seem to fail the WP:GNG. All of the article's current references come from the who's who itself, in either its online or digitized form. Since a DYK nom is currently waiting on this one, I thought I'd give it an immediate trial by fire. If anybody sees a reason why this passes the guidelines, I'd be glad to be overturned. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One such reason would be the existence of offline sources. This might give a hint on when it was published -- late July 1935 (the preface in the book itself is dated February 1935). It would be possible to search newspapers like Aftenposten, Morgenposten, Morgenavisen, Morgenbladet, Dagbladet and Sjøfartstidende on microfilm. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the encyclopedia is frequently cited in works listed at the webpages of National Library of Norway. [8] I haven't been able to find much information about it in secondary sources though. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also cited thrice in the latest edition of Norsk biografisk leksikon. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator did adress a very real problem. I have now bought access to Aftenposten archives and added its book review (which was very unfavourable, I might add). The article now has at least one source independent of the subject, maybe two of you count Project Runeberg. And there is ample potential for more -- see the newspapers I mentioned earlier. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte. --Lambiam 23:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aftenposten coverage provided by Geschichte. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:18, 18 June 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.