< 1 March	3 March >

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Warrior[edit]

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

No sources provided, and I've been unable to find any. There's an OTRS message that I can't repeat, but boils down to saying it is a hoax, something I've been unable to disprove. It's Ticket:2011030210013027 for anyone with OTRS access that wants to take a look. Courcelles 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if any hoax is involved, but ultimately, there's no credible assertion of notability here. Delete Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is real his name is David Wadman, but the information about what he has done is false. Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.232.254 (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources at all; even the subject's own purported website doesn't appear to exist.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if everything in the article is true, it doesn't add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Marks III[edit]

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

A politician who apparently hasn't been elected to any public office. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Disclosure - I met his father a few times, who was a notable California legislator. The son is not yet notable. Cullen328 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably could have been prodded. Notability not even asserted, much less demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 8 March 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. -- Lear's Fool 01:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser: My Version[edit]

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

Unsourced, and I could not find any evidence that this is an actual show. Please speedy close this if I am wrong. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G3 the fact that it says "My Version" IN THE ARTICLE TITLE is all the proof I need that some dingbat just made this up on the spot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higgby Act[edit]

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

Delete I can't Can't find any reliable sources to show it's notability (indeed I'm kinda struggling to find proof of its existence. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find any reliable sources on Google. I can only find two self-published Books on Google. Nothing exists on Google scholar nor at Google news. There is nothing at the public search at Findlaw.com, nor at the Professional search engine at Findlaw.com. I even tried that search an alternate search under Higby. Then I looked at the Library of Congress. A search at the same LOC yielded nothing relevant. The bottom line is that I can't verify that it was a law. If it did exist, it was a short-lived, non-notable statute. I tried to look before I seconded the prod, and just did additional searches. If anybody can find any sources, I will change my mind. However, I must depart with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), who deprodded it, on this discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I want to assume good faith, the fact that the edit summary for the removal of the PROD was "Keep and expand, easily sourced" makes me think that they just read the article, which, were it true, would be something easy to find documentation of. I'm guessing they didn't look into the talk page conversation. of course, I'm going to hope I'm wrong about that, and assume good faith that they'll bring a good reason along.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched one more place - The Biographical Directory of Congress - for a Higgby, and found nothing. For good measure, I also looked under Higby and found nothing relevant (William Higby having died in 1887). Since almost all Federal Acts were named for their sponsor, it is extremely unlikely that the Act ever existed. I assume that Mr. Norton, whom I respect, looked at Google and saw there were some random sources. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems like this is an exceptionally well done hoax. It's made it quite a while.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been a very successful hoax. Like Bearian, I looked for someone by the name of Higgby, Higby, or Higbie in Congress. Since bills are occasionally named for deceased Congressman, I thought there might be a chance that one was named for William Higby, but there's no indication that in his later life he was active in anything related to railroad rates -- much less 14 years later. I did find a Higbie-Armstrong Act in the state of New York during the relevant period, but that's not close enough. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur that it is either a hoax or a typo of such magnitude that it defies internet searches. Haus^Talk 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Pause while the N.Y. law gets sorted. Haus^Talk 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My browser history is chock full of "Highby, Higbee, Hibby, and god knows how many others. I almost feel like the creator deserves an award.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, rename~~. There may be a small grain of truth to this article. Robert W. Higbie was the representative for the Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association in West Virginia. He addressed the committee on Interstate Commerce in 1901. His statement was published in the book ""Railway freight rates and pooling." Hearings before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, having under consideration the bills (S. 3521) "To enlarge the jurisdiction and powers of the Interstate commerce commission," introduced in the Senate February 4, 1902" in 1902 on page 86. He did indeed discuss rebates, but I have no idea if this actually became law. It may need more digging before it is considered for deletion. Definitely rename.Froggerlaura (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, you may be on to something. That being said, we really still can't keep the article in its current state if it is not true; while there may have been a proposal by this Mr. Higbie, it doesn't seem like it passed as any sort of act in his name. Interestingly there also appears to be a "Armstrong-Higbie Act" concerning railroads in 1901, although this seems to involve the NY State legislature and not the US Congress. But awesome research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree that it appears to be a state law. Also, it sometime appears as both "Armstrong-Higbie Act" and "Higbie-Armstrong Act". If anyone's considering closing, it looks like it would be worth pausing while this is sorted out. Haus^Talk 03:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, rename~~ - Well, I'll be. Both Froggerlaura and Hous are correct. "Higgby" is a typo of enough magnitude that the correct name "Higbie Act," or actually "Armstrong-Higbie Act" wouldn't show up on any searches with the former name. There does seem to be a lot of coverage from multiple sources on this transportation related law that appears to have had some significance at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Oh I don't know! No prejudice for creating an Armstrong-Higbie Act article. My head is spinning trying to figure this out. This "Higgby Act", while transportation related, is not the "Armstrong-Higbie Act" per below. However, per below also, this might be an actual act as Yaksar is reporting. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm all for creating something on this new act if it's notable. That being said, it is definitely different from the act in this article. I don't really see the reasoning behind keeping in article so that it's name can be changed and its content can all be removed and restarted. It exists, but doesn't seem to have any connection to the current article. But whatever works, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait a sec! This has nothing to do with the Armstrong-Higbie act, but rather Frogger Laura's link, so I apologize for moving us off topic. The document the FroggerLaura linked to seems to refer to Mr. Higgbie commenting in congress on the Elkins act. I don't know if the original creator possibly misinterpreted the document (or, more likely, I'm reading it wrong), but it does not seem that any particular law was passed or proposed after him.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can Delete. Here is what I think is the record for the alleged bill (argued in 1900). The bill is not named and Higbie only gives a a small statement, even though trade publications said he did a lot of arguing for the bill. Unless is was retroactively named "Higbie" after it passed because the guy was so annoyingly persistent, I don't think it exists. Froggerlaura (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finally. It was called the Cullom Interstate Commerce Bill. At least reported by the Baltimore American on August 17, 1900.

Hmm, very interesting. It's awfully confusing, since Senator Shelby Cullom did play a major role in the Interstate Commerce act, but his Cullom Bill on interstate commerce seems to have been passed around the same time in the 1880s. Indeed, there seems to be a reference to the name of the bill you mentioned, in full, in lots of documents from 1886, like this one. I think?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, here is more (with photo!) about Robert Winfield Higbie to prove he did exist [2]. Here Higbie talks about the "rate bill" [3], he mentions two amendments to the previous 1886 act, maybe one was named after him? But I think the 1903 Elkins Act quoted on wiki is actually called Elkins Law and the act was passed in 1906, hence the confusion. Froggerlaura (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, all this makes me wish we could ask the creator of this article what he was thinking of. Ah well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't even figure out what this article is about, much less determine whether that subject is notable. What we have determined is that there was no "Higgby Act"; it may be about New York legislation (in which case the article is completely erroneous); or it may actually be about (using an incorrect name) the Elkins Act of 1903, which already has an article. The creation of this article represents the sole contribution of its original editor Daetwon (talk · contribs), and in over six years has never grown beyond the unreferenced two-sentence stub that it started out as. Delete. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elke The Stallion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person, the grandiose claims notwithstanding; see this. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria; no significant sources found. Shell ^babelfish 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. There certainly is coverage in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, the videos (yes, I watched one of them, and learned something about the culture I live in) show that she significantly and reliably lacks coverage in certain areas. Of course that's personal observation. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, or any indication of notability in the article. --Beloved Freak 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Challenger of Dallas – Singles Qualifying[edit]

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

Consensus at article for deletion in regards to ASB Classic, Qatar Open Brisbane international etc. It was established that theses articles would be created for full tour tournaments. This is a challenger so therfore should be deleted KnowIG (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion that I am referring to. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying KnowIG (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is also within group of nominations by another user, but guess what, not implimented properly hence this nom. KnowIG (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note: An AfD discussion on this (as a group with two others) is currently occurring here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Challenger DCNS de Cherbourg – Singles Qualifying. However, it appears that AfD tags had not been placed on the also nominated pages. Ravendrop 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd like to make note that this article was placed for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Challenger DCNS de Cherbourg – Singles Qualifying and the redirect for this article 2011 Challenger of Dallas - Singles Qualifying wad deleted per AfD consensus. Afro (Talk) 14:33, 8 March 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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. There have been no valid points made by the keep side to state how this article meets WP:NOTABILITY. To quote WP:ALLORNOTHING "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed." Therefore the outcome goes to the argument made by the delete commenters: that this article does not carry encyclopedic value. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Sudbury[edit]

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

Delete Unencyclopedic. WP is not a guide or directory. Also may be original research. A similar article List of bus routes in Downham Market has been deleted.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value at all. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a lot of bus routes on this page. It is as good as List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market which people have tryed to delete (More than once) but failed. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wilbysuffolk. "Pepper "
Keep, while Wikipedia is not a guide a directory neither is this list. Lists of public transport routes in settlements/areas with a significant number of bus routes have repeatedly been determined to be encyclopaedic. See the examples given in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Downham Market (note that I am currently waiting for the closing admin of that discussion to respond to my objections about the closure of that discussion, as the generic points about classes of articles were clearly shown to be incorrect and no reasons to delete that specific article were advanced other than "it's a travel guide", which was also rebuffed). The list needs a better intro, formatting work (e.g. an explanation of the colouring) and better referencing but these are not reasons to delete the encyclopaedic information about bus travel in the Sudbury area. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The encyclopedic value is minimal. If this type of thing has been kept in the past, that situation could be revisited. It should carry no weight in this discussion other than being an example of "two wrongs don't make a right" --Stormbay (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has encyclopaedic value why are you wanting to delete it? If you look at established lists, like that for London for example, you will see that this list has the potential to be far more than it currently is. Just as we don't delete encyclopaedic articles for not been complete or perfect yet, we shouldn't delete lists for the same "failing". Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Minimal" in this case was meant to meant in the sense of "insufficient". Articles like this one and the debate its proposed deletion has generated makes me wish that there was some way to channel this effort into a more worthy cause. --Stormbay (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Are we going to start listing the times, too? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because that would be a directory unlike this article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a directory. A directory gives times. and street by street routing and locations of stops. Bus routes are part of geography, and relatively stable, and this sort of summary coverage is suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 9 March 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 Megatron (other incarnations). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron (Unicron Trilogy)[edit]

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

I decided like Bumblebee (Transformers Animated) that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion. There is a lack of sufficient RELIABLE third person sources to justify a spin off Megatron article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facetious question- if deletion is the minimum, what would be the maximum? What more could you possibly do to this article? Damnatio memoriae? Hehe. Seriously though, delete. We don't need or want multiple articles on the same fictional character based on appearing in different media or storylines. That is clearly in breach of WP:UNDUE. Reyk _YO! 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Megatron (other incarnations). Article is about a notable character and it has sources that can eb transfered. Mathewignash (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all instances of Megatron into one article. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One small point if the mergers are made we need to be careful with the Megatron (beast era) article since that is actually a different character who named himself after the original Megatron and not the same character in a different storyline.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Megatron from Robots in Disguise is actually a seperate character as well, since he was named Gigatron in the original TV series. Hasbro just changed the name to Megatron when it was dubbed for the English audiences because they already owned a trademark on the name Megatron, but he's NOT actually Megatron either. He's Gigatron from the anime series Car Robots. Mathewignash (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burning from the Inside (film)[edit]

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

For background, see WP:Articles for deletion/Nick Peterson. These are five of his productions and, as one contributor remarked during that AfD: "Looks like the guy is creating one big walled garden using various web sites. IMDB has a web that is all about Peterson: a producer who has produced only Peterson's videos, actors who have only acted in Peterson's videos, music by Peterson's alter ego who does music for nothing but Petersen's videos, all reviewed by people who watch nothing but Peterson's videos. Some (not all) of his videos probably exist, but I can't find any notability to them that isn't a trivial mention of their titles, or online advertising written by Peterson himself." Note in particular that these have a total of 13 glowing reviews on IMDb, contributed by 7 reviewers, none of whom has ever reviewed anything except Nick Paterson films. The articles were all posted by mnemonicof (talk · contribs); Global Edge Mnemonics is associated with these films. Whether or not they exist or have been released, there is no indication that they come anywhere near the standard of WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all without prejdice, as this is a multiple article nomination, and addressing the issues of all within a short period of time may be difficult. I have found that Burning from the Inside (film) exists.[4] Speed of Light (film) exists.[5] Writing on the Wall (film) exists.[6] In and Out of Planet Earth exists.[7] Est (TV series) exists.[8] And despite the appearances of a walled garden from an editor with an apparent COI (the films ARE releated through the director, after all), and while willing to grant good faith in the creation of articles about a few of this one director's many projects, there are not enough reliable sources (currently) offered in the articles to show any as meeting WP:NF. HOWEVER, if any can be shown to meet WP:NF through WP:GNG, I would think a recreation of those that qualify could then be allowed. And a note: I was not involved in the deletion discussion of the article on the director Nick Peterson, so I do not know how poorly that article may itself have been written or sourced. I might have even suggested a userfication, but we do have a problematic COI in the author's username. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the particular case of Est (TV series) I would like to suggest that it really does not exist and is a flat out hoax. Compare its visibility in the search above to actual real TV series. TV channels promote their stuff, and the claimed show gets exactly nothing. While the show is just one of the claimed credits of this person, it exhibits a problem in the articles: the guy is systematically putting up fake information in places such as IMDB. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mess of non-notable videos and things that are unlikely to exist at all. For an example of the latter category, try to find evidence that the reality TV series "Est" exists. It just doesn't. This guy has simply registered accounts on IMDB and such sites, posting fake info to make himself famous. Half made up fantasy, half non-notable one man garage band. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. We need independent secondary sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally nominated Peterson for deletion and suggested it was all a hoax, maybe I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that it didn't exist necessarily, more that anything written about it was exaggeration and fantasy. For a taste, have a look at the request for the creation of an article on 'virtual alien' (his musical pseudonym) here. He says he sold 4M singles from his first album, with the album itself selling 1m copies. His second album sold 3m copies etc. As for the films? 'All features are due to be finally released in late 2007 and 2008 in theatres, online or on DVD'.Stu.W UK (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even an inkling that any of these films pass WP:NFILM. gnfnrf (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gretsch players[edit]

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

This list is about a non-defining or trivial characteristic (see WP:OVERCAT) Also, Wikipedia is not a directory (see WP:NOTDIR). Lebowbowbowski (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck this, i was in this list.

Delete Such a list is unmaintainable. There are only references to verify two of the entries, and the list can change continuously as new players come along and older players leave. Also, is a player to remain listed even if they only formerly played a Gretsch? I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play here (see also WP:LISTCRUFT)-------------What a load of shit, wikipedia is full of lists like this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 March 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. Renaming as proposed as an editorial action. Sandstein 05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lukmanier Powerline[edit]

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

PROD contested. No assertion of notability. Google Books turns up no relevant hits, Google Web serach show passing mentions but nothing that says this powerline is particularly notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you try Google Book search for Mettlen–Lavorgo powerline or Mettlen–Lavorgo line, there will be a lot of results. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k

(talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches under "Mettlen–Lavorgo" turn up a lot of studies and results. The powerline appears to be most notable for the 2003 Italy blackout and this article offers much more about the powerline than the blackout article. I would suggest renaming the article to "Mettlen–Lavorgo Powerline" for commonality.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established, with solid references regarding the 2003 blackout. The title probably led to the confusion. I agree that a name change would be good. Nihola (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NortyNort and Nihola. If the result will be keep, rename to "Mettlen–Lavorgo Powerline". Beagel (talk) 04:43, 10 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planes of Fame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Planes of Fame

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

This article is written like a promotional press release (glowing, almost reverential style, and even the prices of the plane rides!), which isn't surprising when one considers that all but one of its references are the website of the organization in question. Wikipedia isn't a free advertising forum. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one of the more important air museums out there. It looks like a supporter put too much brochure material in the article but I don't think that means we delete it. I cleaned some verbiage that shouldn't have been in the article. --MarsRover (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known southern California attraction; the search string <"Planes of Fame" Chino"> yields several hundred hits at Google Books.[9] Article could stand some more cleanup, but that is not a matter for AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of significant hits at Google Books and Google Scholar. Badly in need of a clean-up, of course. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found same significant number of hits as described by Rlandmann; therefore it appears to have passed WP:NN. Article does need a major rewrite to reduce promotional nature, and for NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While the subject of the article may be noteworthy, the article itself is a loser, even with the worst of the grandstanding language removed. It has only two sources; one of them is used once, and is the only source for its section (which is even written in the first person!), so it's essentially a one-source article. More disturbing, the one source is the website of the subject of the article (and the other source is from its section's subject's website), a violation of the self-published source rule (WP:SPS). An article based on its subject's own (self-published) website falls far short of the verifiability standards. Until and unless a collection of proper outside sources is developed, I'd drop this article. It can be re-instituted when good sources turn up. Google-citing guys: here's your chance to go get those "significant hits" and use them to establish facts, while dropping the remaining rah-rah language. --JingleJim (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As JingleJim suggested, I added some secondary citations. As well, I did some more clean up, removed the advert tag and replaced it with refimprove. More secondary sources are needed for the details, I think, but some major points are now covered, including secondary sources that they exist, have a large collection, some one of a kinds, and do monthly airshows. Nihola (talk) 16:32, 5 March 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.

Taşcă family[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Dark Shadows. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Shadows (2011 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This film has not yet begun principal photography, and, as of today (2 March 2011), no casting has been confirmed. The involvement of Pfeiffer and Bonham Carter are only rumors. (See this link that is cited as a reference in the article to confirm the rumor status of any casting.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many big names have started projects of all sizes that have failed to materialize, which is why the standard of 'commencing principal photography' is sound and reasonable. Deletion with no prejudice to recreation once the standards are met. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! I was looking out for this by having Dark Shadows (film) on my watchlist! Anyway, per the notability guidelines for future films, I support a merge to Dark Shadows#Upcoming film. The project has been in development for years, so if it begins filming, it can get its own article for all eternity. In the meantime, I recommend merging the content to the TV series article and merging this article's page history to Dark Shadows (film), if that is appropriate to do. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eric and support the merge/redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that at first the page was full of rumors but it has improved now that I've deleted that rubbish but I also agree that maybe the page should be merged with the TV series page.--Barnabasmcavoy (talk) 14:39, 3 March 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 all Mandsford 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hershaw[edit]

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

Hoax article about a reclusive playwright. The references are to non-existent awards, a non-existent website and a book which doesn't seem to exist either. The only two external links which actually relate to him seem to place him as a very minor figure who had a couple of fringe plays produced in Hannover. The same goes for the related articles about his plays - non-existent websites and lack of reliable sources. I'm nominating them as well.

andy (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. "Hershaw succesfully avoids any kind of publicity" - could be read as "this is an hoax so you will get few Google hits"! If not hoax then perfectly non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all He "succesfully [sic] avoids any kind of publicity" - perhaps we should help him... The http://samuelhershawoverview.edu.co.uk site can't be accessed for a very simple reason - the domain name cannot currently exist. To be exact, there are sites like bloggs-edu.co.uk, but no .edu.co.uk. A point - he's given as an actor in the article. An actor who avoids publicity? His play in German "fressen ficken fernsehen" (translates to "eat f**k watch TV" - fressen being the German word used in connection with animals eating) comes up on two sites, but which share the same page. And that is the sum total for this 'Samuel Hershaw'. The other Samuel Hershaw is well referenced, but then he did patent the corkscrew in 1795. Probably a better contribution to human life than anything I can find in the article. I've delinked 'Derivative Ltd' as the linking went to the mathematical use of the word, and I can find no evidence of the existence of this publisher. Why am I not surprised? I've delinked 'Humbert' and 'Award' as neither went to anywhere relevant, but did look good together. I can't see him having won an award from the Humbert Summer School, and the other possibilities seem to be in the USA. I cannot find the Observer's 2007 List Of Best Literature online - or any other year either. "The author is never important - he barely exists outside of his word" - I am beginning to feel that this one does not exist outside these articles and a German theatre group's web presence. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't believe in the Hershaw Project either... Peridon (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I smell socks, too. The article about the playwright has four editors (apart from the 'maintenance men'), one of whom authored the articles about the plays. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These articles clearly defy WP:HOAX. The article on Feed Fuck Zap (play) links to a Metacafe video[10] uploaded by an account 1 day old[11]and The Observer's website lists no record of a Samuel Hershaw[12]. These are, to me, obvious signs someone is attempting to start a hoax. - Lebowbowbowski (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the evidence of the others, this appears to be a hoax; if this guy does exist, he's very un-notable. Also, if they even exist, his plays are definitely not notable. A search for "Samuel Hershaw" 8:34 returned exactly one hit (besides Wikipedia): http://psyche.entclub.org/8/8-034.html, which is an archive of an entomology journal... --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only thing that throws me off a little: [13], a reference for Being in love is so passé (play). It mentions him. Even if this checks out, however, it's such an insignificant mention that it doesn't lend notability to either him or the play. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That group also is linked to the 'feed fuck zap' one. I'm wondering if the play was actually attributed to Hershaw as a means of anonymity for someone possibly working out of their field (like Terry Pratchett writing a straight Western, or Dan Brown writing romances for Mills and Boon as sideline...). As a matter of interest, I notice that the person posting as 'Samuelhershaw' below refers to Hannover. Interesting because that is the German spelling, and even though we in the UK shared a monarchy with them for quite some time, we spell it Hanover. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Thanx guys, keep up the good work! Great I don't have to that stuff all by myself! (Though I don't think the Hannover people are to be blame for this, they were good folks back in the days - this just keeps happening again and again... sick of it.) S.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelhershaw (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Samuelhershaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

QED, I think. Irritatingly childish. andy (talk) 14:29, 3 March 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. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE there is a consensus here that he passes WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Aponavicius[edit]

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

Collegiate athlete last played in 2009. No notable national achievements or awards. Drafted but did not play in the CFL Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played in the highest professional level. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither has Abraham Lincoln.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Libstar --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 03:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than surpasses requirements of WP:GNG based on coverage of college playing career alone. Clicking the "news" link above yields over 600 articles, many which are more than just "routine" coverage such as this one and this one plus a lot of pay-per-view news sites.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Apanavicius was a major story in college football from 2006 to 2009. His walk-on success story in 2006 was the subject of feature stories in multiple major news outlets, including the New York Daily News, New York Post, and multiple feature stories in the Boston Globe. He became the all-time leading scorer at Boston College (a top division team) in 2009 and received further substantial coverage at that time. See, e.g., this ESPN story: [14]. I have added several of these feature stories to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to satisfy WP:V and WP:BLP. Additionally, the linked sources satisfy the "non-trivial media coverage" requirement for college athletes under WP:ATHLETE. --Goobergunch|? 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of how his sporting career measures against WP:ATHLETE, the articles linked by cbl62 above qualify him under generic WP:BIO. gnfnrf (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although notability may not have been clear at the time the article was nominated, User:Cbl62 has demonstrated that he was the subject of significant coverage from multiple, reliable and verifiable sources, and for an extended period of time. WP:ATHLETE is inapplicable. Good work in adding to the article. Mandsford 20:41, 9 March 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 accidental speedy delete as hoax, but I'm sure not going back and restoring it. :-) (I thought clicking on the question mark in Twinkle would take me to an explanation of what qualified as vandal-level hoaxing.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajchuch[edit]

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

Looks pretty non-notable, or a hoax, but CSD A7 was declined and PROD was contested and removed by author. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the spirit of Ajchuch, deleting this article would make me extremely happy. WP:MADEUP, WP:V, etc. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The fact that this is "completely new" and "relatively unknown due to its supreme localization" indicate that it fails WP:N. Additionally the one source given appears to be a blog and regardless it does not use this name or refer to any "holiday". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as Hoax or in the unlikely event of it proving real, Delete as non-notable. Searching for Ajchuch gives one link to someone's profile at MyLife - doesn't look relevant (his initials are AJ...). Otherwise, WP:CB seems to be rather appropriate. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Difficult to see any respect in which this could be argued to meet Wiki guidelines. Non-notable, no sources, made up, etc. AJHingston (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:PROF. Mandsford 20:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyriac Thomas[edit]

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

Creator Bobanmathew (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, likely in a conflict of interest. Notability is questionable. bender235 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly I would advise the nominator to start assuming good faith in nomination statements. Secondly the subject clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 6 as a former vice chancellor of a major university. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger Shyamsunder (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan John[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:CONFLICT. This article mostly gives reference to sources created by the subject. Other references are made to the same small group of individuals with whom the subject collaborates on projects described in the article. While such a specialized community may be notable, in this case the subject does not seem to have sufficiently wide notability to be included in Wikipedia. It appears that this is a type of boutique article designed to promote the subject's notability and personal projects. Indeed, it appears that the article was created by one of the people (Draper) referenced as a source. An additional note to my comments above concerns the significance of the achievements listed in the article. While there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the subject's record, these achievements appear to be relatively minor in nature, known to only a small group of individuals. There are certainly thousands of individuals who have made similar accomplishments in this and other fields, but that fact does not mean these individuals should be included in Wikipedia. Such individuals are far too numerous and their accomplishments far too ordinary to achieve the level of notability envisioned by the nature of Wikipedia. Indeed, if a such individuals were included in Wikipedia, then it would become little more than a database listing the rather mundane biographies of the majority of people alive today. How does one conclude that a certain achievement is minor? A simple search of the Internet reveals if an achievement is of such limited significance at to exclude its designation as being notable. For example, if I produce a podcast that is the 70th most popular podcast in the technology category on iTunes, I would argue that most people would regard me as not being sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. The subject of this article does not even seem to reach the level of notability I described in my example. Rotmo (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Rotmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the co-author of a book, and some DVDs, I could find no coverage in reliable sources about these works that would indicate that this person could be established as notable for creating well known works. This leaves his activities in athletics. Looking at WP:ATHLETE, he fails to meet any of the criteria for a coach. As an athlete, he competes at the Masters events. I can find no indication that he has won a gold medal at the World Masters Athletics Championships as required by the notability guidelines for athletes. This listing shows he was ranked 4th in discus for his age group, so good for him. But that falls short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 25 February 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, -- Lear's Fool 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this article for deletion. I agree with the above comment from Whpq. The research Whpq establishes that there is no verifiable source to establish the subject's notability.Rotmo (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Howling Bells discography. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Chaos[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 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) 01:35, 12 February 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, not individually notable per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball honors house[edit]

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

University dormitory/hall which does not appear to be of much historic importance (it was built in the 1930s). Perhaps it could be merged to Ball State University. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 17 February 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) 01:48, 23 February 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, -- Lear's Fool 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable building. The article isn't really even about the building, but its former owners, who appear to be local notables of little national or international notability. It therefore falls into the category of WP:COATRACK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:04, 4 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Nigamananda[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fairly incoherent article about someone who seems to have been a guru who founded several ashrams. No evidence that he satisfies notability criteria and the article does not cite any reliable sources in support of its statements about his activities. Hopelessly POV. This search has only 428 results mostly irrelevant or referring to a previous WP article, Nigamananda, which was AFD'd for lack of sources and is probably about the same person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:SOAP andy (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable individual. There are no independent reliable sources that say this individual is notable. Thus, delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a repost of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramahansa Srimat Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Dev. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The deleted article is completely different from the present one in every way except the identity of its subject. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a re-post of yet another version, at Paramahansa Shree-Mad Swami Nigamananda Saraswati Deva, but that one didn't have an AFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now hist-merged into the present version, as it was essentially a copy/paste move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if notability as a religious figure could yet be established, the present article with its tone of a religious tract is so irredeemably unencyclopedic that it could not serve even as a first basis for a legitimate rewrite. It would have to be razed to the ground in order to be rebuilt as a neutral article, and until that happens, having no article will be better for the encyclopedia than having this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nilanchal 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Hi I herby answer your queries

1)Non-notable person.

You have not read His article properly. How you can say he is not notable ?. I have seen few simple article in Wikipedia as camper to them my article is more evidence and contain good reference. Swami Nigamananda has obtain perfection in 4 sadhanas i.e. Tantra,Gyan,Yoga & Prema (I already provided reference and proper evidence in my article), did you find any person or soul who had completed these 4 sadhanas at a time. Example : Adi Shankarchary is for only “Gyan” Sadhana similarly Maha Prabhu Gourang is famous for only “Prema” Sadhana. NO BODY IN THIS WORLD, UNIVERSE IS THERE EXPECT SWAMI NIGAMANANDA, WHO HAS COMPLETED FOUR SADHANA AT A TIME AND RETURNED SUCCESSFULLY FROM NIRIVIKALPA SAMADHI. Please think and answer properly.

2) He seems to have been a teacher who founded several ashrams but that's all.

How you can say he is teacher ? After studying this article you treat Swami Nigamanada as a teacher ? I request you understand this article first, read properly. He is a Sadguru not a teacher. Pls read article in Wikipedia. Who is Sadguru? and What is his capability? I will take this issue to Wikipedia's higher authority for a justices, because your this sentence cannot be acceptable.

3) The article does not cite any reliable sources in support of its statements about his activities.

Many article are available in Wikipedia, which contain less quantity of reference as camper to my article. I will take this issue legally to higher authority of Wikipedia. This article is created on holy day, 10th Year Wikipedia day please note.

Before that you have pointed that this article has multiple issue with following: 1) Peacock term 2) No sufficient reference 3) Grammatical error I have rectified all and you have agreed . I am very surprise again to receive the above message. Please do not play with us.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE TILL PROPER JUSTICS I RECEIVED FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY (LEGAL DEPARTMENT) OF WIKIPEDIA.

NB: Meditate Swami Nigamananda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilanchalswara (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I am unqualified to comment on the subject's notability, this article takes the tone of a religious tract and does not display any objective quality. I would not know how to rewrite this entry. The article is so poorly written that rewriting it would be an exercise in futility. Having such an article on Wikipedia militates against the encyclopedia's credibility. I agree with the above comment that deleting this article, even if it is about a notable person, would be better for Wikipedia than having such a biased entry. Rotmo (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are still no reliable sources that state how this subject is notable. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:06, 9 March 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. Sandstein 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biocence[edit]

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

This is a non-notable commercial product. The article contains all kinds of hyperbole ("it was repetitively verified that the BBC was able to effectively eradicate, on contact or in less than 30 seconds (according to verified time kill studies), numerous emerging superbugs" - but that's what all antiseptics do) and marketing-speak ("regenerative powers of natural hydrocarbon components") that make no sense scientifically. Some of the references mention the product, but are not really about this product. This is just advertising. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is a response in opposition to user Deli nk's request to delete the Biocence article. Please let it be noted, Biocence is a notable product registered with the United States Food and Drug administration and sold internationally with the backing of the United States Department of Commerce. To claim something is a "non-notable product" as criteria for deletion, is in itself making an opinionated supposition not based in fact and not in line with wikipedia guidlines. The user's claim that the article contains "all kinds of hyperbole" is inaccurate. The article factually claims that the FDA approved product kills known pathogens in less than 30 seconds and provides references supporting that fact. The user then states "but that's what all antiseptics do", which is a highly opinionated and inaccurate statement not based in fact. It is not clinically proven that all antiseptics can kill or eradicate deadly pathogens in "0" kill time or in less than 30 seconds. Furthermore, with regards to the editors claim that said article is filled with marketing speak and advertising, in particular referring to the phrasing "regenerative powers of natural hydrocarbon components", the editor is not accurately referencing the entry on Vibrational Medicine and the Mortal Oscillatory Rate of cells by which the Science of Vibrational Medicine is based on. To the contrary, if any due diligence was done, it would be noted that all references listed for this article completely pertain to the product and technology for which it is about. Any further suggestions to improve this article are greatly welcome and appreciated. Hong Lou Meng (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is probably spam and is most definitely not notable. The article takes lines directly from a press release to assert its notability. WP:GNG makes it clear that sources for notability must be independent of the subject e.g., not a press release (see also: WP:SPIP) Furthermore, registering a product with the FDA does not automatically make the product notable. The ferocity of the creator's defense, his lack of assuming good faith, and the fact that he has only edited the Biocence article after returning from hiatus, makes me think he might have a conflict of interest Lebowbowbowski (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not spam. Respectfully, I have taken great time and care to write this article in good faith to provide documented information on a notable technology that exists, saves lives, and has documented proof of its effectiveness. I have also compiled references to support the articles' validity and continue to improve upon the article by collecting additional references to support it. Upon close inspection, the article in no way reflects spam. I am a graduate student of Herbal Medicine and have done my best to factually document the history and technology of this notable technology in an unbiased manner. I have no relationship to the company whatsoever nor do I have any personal or professional interest in the company or the creator. Editors of wikipedia who may be drawing conclusions claiming the article is spam have failed to consider the breadth of scientific information provided in the article; and/or the criteria of notability for Academics as well. Furthermore, I am clearly aware that all criticisms are done in good faith, including my own. I suggest that it's vitally important to improve the writing of any article, rather than only insist that it be completely deleted. I believe the article can improve and is being improved upon. Additonally, the statement referring to "The ferocity of the creators defense" is questioned, yet duly noted. If an article can be improved upon, and much time has been spent in compiling factual information to make it comply with wikipedia's standards, then it makes logical sense for the editor to point out constructive criticisms and any areas that might be deficient or need improvement. That is how I am learning to perfect articles here as part of this community. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. I do strive to make this article complete, factual and accurate as I believe it already shows and will continue to show as improvements are made. Hong Lou Meng (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per Wikipedia criteria. To User:Hong Lou Meng, please understand that Wikipedia does not list every product in the world, only products which are notable according to well-defined, objective criteria: the product must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Biocence has not received any such coverage that I can find. Google News (a search engine to see if anyone has written about it) finds absolutely nothing. Google Scholar (a place to look for academic or scientific reporting about the product) finds nothing but the product's own website. The references listed in the article are not independent; for example reference #2, which is titled "US Department of Commerce" to make it appear independent, actually links to a page on BuyUSA.gov where the text was obviously supplied by the company itself. If the product is not notable, as demonstrated by independent coverage from reliable sources, then no amount of rewriting or improving the article is going to help. The problem is not with the way the article is written; it's that the product simply does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 8 March 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 The consensus is that there is no precedent for a list of this nature, nor should there be one. Although it is well executed, the combinations of nations whose states and provinces could be compared to each other is endless. Mandsford 20:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked List of United States and Mexican States[edit]

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

Delete COMPLETELY NO USE AT ALL!!! Wilbysuffolk (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly WP:OR. No precedent for presenting it. No reason to either. Mexico is not the US. Nor is Canada. Nor do we want to encourage similar OR lists with the departments of France, or the Prefectures of Japan, etc. It is at best, almanac stuff and probably not in there either. It is a made up comparison by editors. Nor are the states of Mexico, provinces of Canada, Prefectures of Japan, constituted identically to the US anyway. In other words, trying to "compare" apples and oranges. Student7 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could have sworn thi AfD was already existing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of United States and Mexican States By Population. Then I found List of United States and Mexican states by population is somehow a "different" article too. Perhaps one should find out all the duplications and put them in single AfD.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make no sense putting them all in one list—Chris!_c/t 02:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic reason for this to exist. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic reason for this to exist. Random list. feydey (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the following:

List Of United States and Mexican States By Population;
List of United States and Mexican states by population;
Ranked List of United States and Mexican States;
Ranked List of United States,Mexican States, Canada Provinces and Territories

per the reasons previously expressed above. Hwy43 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe that these will have to be tagged individually. Most collective Afds fail. There is always sufficient people wanting to save one article in the list. This usually causes the entire Afd to fail. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If consensus at this AfD is to delete, I presume both the current location and the original location (redirect) of this article will be deleted. An AfD is underway for List Of United States and Mexican States By Population, but not yet for List of United States and Mexican states by population. Should an AfD be initiated at the latter, or should that wait until the outcome of the AfD at the former? Hwy43 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sense in putting them all in one list. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a bunch of lists mushed together Yaksar (let's chat) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Someone's arbitrary decision for contents of a list that has no use. --Oakshade (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vellore. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaraj Nagar, Vellore[edit]

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

Non notable neighbourhood. Resembles a fansite. Out of the 5 references given, 3 are Wikipedia articles, the other 2 have nothing about the place mentioned. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. There are no references to support the claims and the census stats used are for a far larger administrative division.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:03, 6 February 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search turns up hundreds of hits for this neighbourhood suggesting it is a defined area and as such is notable. Travelbird (talk) 01:02, 12 February 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) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to City, but note that the content needs to be wholesale re-written, or severely cut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 8 March 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Noble Sage Art Gallery[edit]

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

Promotion by a single-purpose account (User:Crisoli77), very likely in a conflict of interest. Does not meet notability in my eyes. bender235 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added some references. I don't think the article is unduly promotional. The phrase "Noble Sage" doesn't get any Google hits at telegraph.co.uk or timesonline.co.uk, and only this one at guardian.co.uk. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub. I think there's enough coverage for this to pass notability, but Wikipedia isn't the place for a directory of past events at a venue, unless all of the individual events are notable in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:35, 6 February 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) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more coverage can be demonstrated. V. Anamika looks iffy too. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 20 February 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) 13:56, 2 March 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. The lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False Mirror[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what the problem with the article is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Albums not on important label. Existing refs are False Mirrors own page, a webzine and two about some software he uses that don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the author of the article, so I don't know if I'm really legitimate to join this discussion. The artist/band has been featured and reviewed in some major print magazines here in Germany (Orkus, Sonic Seducer, Zillo), which I see as a criterion for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.". However I have problems to refer to these articles - they are not available online (however some of them can be found on the artist's webpage), so I left them out and I therefore only referred to one online review as an example. Please advise me how to correct that. I know that the relevance of most bands/artists in the Dark ambient genre is debatable, but in my opinion we should allow at least some of them. The problem is that both the Dark ambient article and the List of dark ambient artists are highly inaccurate because most of the bands/groups/artists listed are rather metal/etc bands, with merely some (minor!) influences of Dark Ambient. My aim was to improve the main article Dark Ambient by first adding a couple of articles for bands. I also created the article for Kammarheit and have an article for Northaunt finished (though not published yet because of this discussion). I also collect sources for a couple of other Dark Ambient groups (Svartsinn, Phelios, Gustaf Hildebrand)... In my humble opinion, we'd need much more articles for the Dark Ambient genre (and of course for all other genres as well), I see no problem with relevance here. Maybe we should add the 'this article is a stub' information? Thanks for listening to my opinion. PS: It took quite a long time to find good sources for these artists, so it really is depressing if an article is speedy deleted... Birchhunter (talk) 23:22, 11 February 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) 01:27, 12 February 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) 13:52, 2 March 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. The lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Stone[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 February 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) 01:34, 12 February 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) 13:49, 2 March 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. The lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Sun (Howling Bells song)[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 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) 01:34, 12 February 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) 13:49, 2 March 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. The lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Hearts[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 February 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) 01:35, 12 February 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) 13:48, 2 March 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. The lack of discussion means this is a no-consensus close, with no prejudice against a renomination. However, a bold redirect to Howling Bells discography would not require a renomination. -- Lear's Fool 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Bones (song)[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements per Wikipedia:MUSIC Yaksar (let's chat) 05:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Howling Bells discography. Tracks, label, etc. are verifiable and would add to the discography article.--Michig (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 February 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) 01:35, 12 February 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) 13:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GWAS Central[edit]

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

Most of the article is copy/paste from this website, confusing article- whether it is only a web based database or an organization/company. But in both cases article doesn't fulfill WP:Web and WP:ORG notability criterion. Bill william compton^Talk 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Bill william compton^Talk 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clarify these points in the text. The project is an academic one funded by the GEN2PHEN EU project and we do not seek to make any profit from this enterprise. However, if you still believe there are problems with our page, why is there no problem with articles on other academic databases such as the dbSNP database and another system funded by the GEN2PHEN project: the LOVD database allowed? I feel these are not dissimilar to our resource in scope. --Theboyfree (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the language of article and your comment here, it is quite sure that you've some personal connection with the concern subject; and you're just using it just for advertisement purpose. Articles you're taking about are well written (at least dbSNP) and have enough external references, but this one is clearly absurd. On Wikipedia we've some sort of Notability criterion, but as i mentioned above this article doesn't fulfill anyone of them. I'd advice you instead of writing article before any experience you should refer this Tutorial it will give you some basic ideas about the Wikipedia and editing here. Bill william compton^Talk 13:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The text has been changed substantially to take into account the points raised. The wikipedia entry should not be deleted as the GWAS Central database has an interesting history. It is notable for originating from the first SNP database, and has evolved into one of the most comprehensive collections of summary-level genome-wide association data available. The three incarnations of this resource which have led to GWAS Central have also been published in high quality peer reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyfree (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've amended the ((Find sources)) searches above to include the several previous initialisms for this site, which has only operated under its current name for a year. The resulting Google Books search finds sufficient significant coverage (e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18]) to meet WP:GNG. (Google Scholar finds many hits in scientific papers, but it's hard to identify which of these both give significant coverage and are independent.) --Qwfp (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (qualified - non-expert). I am not an expert in the field, but a glance at the article as it is today seems to indicate it is notable. Perhaps some indication of how widespread knowledge and use of this database is could be added if its notability is disputed? The papers referenced are presumably by people associated with the project. Pol098 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Qwfp. The coverage in those is comparable with that for DbSNP, so what's sauce for the goose... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:32, 8 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot companion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The concept "hot companion" is not a well defined astronomical concept. Rather, it's an adjective - noun pairing in the same way "massive companion" or "cold companion" is, and can be interpreted in several ways. Additionally, the source being relied upon to establish the definition does not actually define it. Instead, the source states that a "hot companion" was responsible for a set of observations. In the wikipedia page, those observations have been assumed to be the defining criteria of a hot companion, which they are not. Nstock (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments on the previous nom. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which comments are you referring to? The previous nom resulted in a no consensus. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion post-nom also leaned towards deletion Nstock (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those by User:Colonel Warden, User:Edward321 (and User:Icalanise's concession to Ed's comment), and User:S Marshall. The discussion you mention appears to feature the same users who favored deletion at the first nom (User:Icalanise, User:RJHall and User:70.29.212.131) making the same arguments; they don't become more or less persuasive with a change of venue.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User: S Marshall appears to advocate for a disambiguation page. More importantly, all three present comments that would apply equally well for wikipedia pages titled 'large galaxy' or 'dim star'. Nstock (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Talk:Hot companion and WT:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion ... totally spurious term, just a mash of hot + companion, with no redeeming characteristics. Just like "hot soup" is a soup that is hot, which does not require an article to describe soups that are hot or list chicken soup, tomato soup, etc, because they are hot soups. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two previous discussions and per WT:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 18#Hot Companion. The term is used in astronomy circles and is notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the discussion at WT:ASTRO archive says that it is not a real term, it is a non-notable intersection of two words. 65.95.15.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment the term "red car" is used in motoring circles, therefore it is notable too? Icalanise (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is referenced and is about an actual term used in astrophysics. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I strongly encourage you to follow the references and see the context in which the term is used (or in the case of the 4th reference, not used). You will not find 'hot companion' defined or treated as a unique term (presumably because the authors do not consider it a unique term). Indeed, after consulting several astronomy textbooks, papers and the Internet, I have been unable to find any definition that was not obtained from this wikipedia entry itself Nstock (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a dictionary definition. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article titles are not required to follow the jargon of any particular field. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it may not be a well-defined term in the professional astrophysics community, the term is used in published literature on the subject to describe a concept for a lay person. A non-astrophysicist wishing to find more information on the topic would find the article to be valuable introduction to the concept. As Colonel Warden points out, there is no requirement that the article follow the jargon of the field. Wikipedia is not intended to be used only by specialists in the subjects of its articles; in fact, quite the contrary. TJRC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As noted above, this argument would seem to equally justify pages titled 'large galaxy' or 'dim star'Nstock (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The article asserts that the term denominates a star which is both hotter and smaller than its companion in a binary system. If that is correct, it's a term of art with implications not described within the term itself, quite dissimilar to your examples where an adjective simply modifies a noun.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what it is. It is "hot" so it must be hotter than the other component. It is a "companion" so it must be the smaller star to the primary. It is hot+companion, and it is still a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's non-responsive. Read what I actually wrote and respond to that. The article says there is a property of a so-called "hot companion" which is not obvious on the face of the term. If a "hot companion" is nothing but the hotter of two companion stars, you might be right (might), but the article asserts that the star so denominated is the hotter and smaller of two companions. If that assertion is true, it demolishes your dicdef argument. Accordingly, a threshold requirement for your prevailing here is to establish that the article is wrong on that point.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "companion" is often used in astronomy to denote the secondary star in a binary system, e.g. [19] where it is used in the title of the article as the antonym for "primary", or [20] where the abstract clearly uses the term "companion" and "secondary" interchangeably. Let's do that as a dictionary definition... "companion (n): in astronomy, used to denote the secondary star of a binary system". There is also the widespread usage of the term "cool companions" as well, guess what these are the cool companions to hotter stars, as opposed to hot companions which are the hot companions of cooler stars. Icalanise (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "companion" invariably means "smaller," then you're in a strong position. Our article Companion_star, however, says that "companion" denotes the less bright of two, not the smaller. "Often" probably doesn't cut it. The upshot is that if "companion" is ambiguous between "smaller" and "less bright," but "hot companion" always denotes the smaller, hotter companion, your dicdef argument doesn't work. On the other hand, if it's a close call—i.e. if "companion star" usually means smaller but can mean "less bright," I suggest writing a subsection of Companion_star to deal with hot and cold companions, merging any relevant info from Hot companion, and redirecting thence to the new section. That's not quite a D&R or M&R, but it might work as a compromise. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, why are you getting hung up on the use of "smaller"... I believe this is a mistake in the article (I have edited the Hot companion article to remove this). In addition, it is not the case that "companion" universally refers to the secondary (contrary to what is stated in the lead of the binary star article - which should probably be corrected). For example, this paper about the systems NN Serpentis and V664 Cassiopeiae is about systems where the hotter star is the primary of the system, and on the first page there is a sentence which reads: "This is a consequence of large temperature differences at the secondary's surface which are caused by the heating of its hemisphere by a hot companion." Icalanise (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify here: "primary" and "secondary" can have different definitions depending on how a binary system is observed: there are cases where the visual primary is the spectroscopic secondary, or cases where which star is brighter changes depending on which band you are observing in. In a discussion of a binary system, the secondary will often be referred to as the companion of the primary, but it is equally valid to describe the primary as the companion of the secondary (as the paper I linked in the previous comment demonstrates). Icalanise (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited the page so that it is as factually accurate as possible. Nstock (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dictdef—Well, it is mentioned in an astronomy poem.[21] Otherwise, this stub article can be made into a dictionary definition. I don't see a list of examples as being particularly helpful here and there is little other useful content.—RJH (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the term "hot companion" is common in astrophysics, it does not represent a specific class of objects, and has no special meaning beyond that of its component terms "hot" and "companion", just as "red car" has no special meaning beyond that of "red" and "car" (and thus does not warrant its own article, despite the fact that "red car" is not an uncommon term). A quick search of the SAO/NASA ADS shows it has been used to describe a whole variety of objects, such as Wolf-Rayet stars [22], main sequence stars undergoing accretion [23], white dwarfs [24], main sequence stars [25], etc. which merely happen to be located in a binary system with a cooler component. Icalanise (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its references. Fotaun (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two things are pretty clear here. First, there are a few users who really really want this article gone. Second, there is neither consensus for doing so (Nstock, RJH, and Icalanise say delete, but Headbomb, Nergaal, Colonel Warden, TJRC, Fotaun, and myself all say no) nor a policy which controls the outcome (if there was, the closing admin in the first nom would have deleted the article on that basis). So deletion is off the table; see WP:DGFA; WP:CON. May I suggest that it would be a more productive use of everyone's time to close this debate and (as a modification of my proposal above) put merge tags on this article and Companion star? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your agenda for trying to close the discussion? Deletion is off the table? This hasn't been open for the full seven days yet! See WP:NotEarly. Icalanise (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda? Gee, you got me, I'm part of a secret cabal working for a loose conglomerate of powerful binary stars who fear their influence will wane if this article is deleted. *eyeroll* See WP:AOBF. My reason for proposing an early close—which is to say, urging User:Nstock to withdraw the nomination, something contemplated by WP:NotEarly which incorporates WP:SK by reference—is far less conspiratorial. I get there by four steps. (1) It seems to me that when one looks at the first nom and the talk page debates cited above, there are a few users who are very enthusiastic to delete the nominated article, and they have all already had their say here. (2) Meanwhile, editors who haven't been involved with the dispute before this nom seem to break clearly for keeping the article. Accordingly, (3) I think there is very little chance that the balance of debate will radically change in your favor (remember, there is a presumption against deletion which you must overcome by establishing clear consensus, see WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete no. 4) if the nomination is left open for another four days. By contrast, (4) given what we have seen in this nomination so far—and in the last one, and in the talk page debates—I think there is a very good chance that the proponents of deletion will contest, harangue, and hammer away at every single keep !vote tendered, regurgitating the same arguments they have already offered ad nauseum. Given these four points, it's obvious to me where we're heading, and since none of the faff-around between here and there is productive to the encyclopedia, we would be better off cutting to the end by closing the deletion process and starting the merge process. (Cf. WP:SNOW.)- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you did vote "keep" before trying to propose early close of the discussion with "keep", so pardon me for seeing you as trying to circumvent the discussion timescale to get your desired result. The closing admin of the previous discussion did not provide any rationale for how they weighted the arguments that were made then. Contrary to your assertion that there is no policy that controls this, there is WP:NOTDICT, unfortunately we don't have the admin's rationale as to why they felt it did not apply. Note that vote counting is not the sole factor that should be considered in a deletion discussion. My apologies if you considered my attempts to provide additional evidence for the "dictionary term" viewpoint to be ad nauseam haranguing. Finally, if you regard WP:AfD as a "faff-around" that is not productive to the encyclopaedia, why do you participate in the process in the first place? Go do something you consider more productive! Icalanise (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and sadly it's probably too late to make a difference, but it concerns me that a lot of the discussion and most of the keep votes seem to be based on a misunderstanding about what a hot companion is, possibly stemming from the assumption that the information presented in the article itself is indisputable fact. As a result, it seems like people are arguing past one another. Nstock (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binary star. There are some specific phenomena (such as mass transfer) occurring in close binary systems, which could justify a separate article. But not all starts which may be denoted as "hot companions" are orbiting so closely. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these: Keep; Merge and redirect to Binary star; or Merge and redirect to Astronomical jargon, Glossary of astronomical terms or List of terms used in astronomy (we need one I think); -84user (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lot of talk lately. I think unambiguous clarification is in order: from my research on the topic, "Hot Companion" means exactly what it says: a 'companion' that is 'hotter' than the primary star. Also, I think it is of paramount importance to NOT rely on what the wikipedia article says, because it is obviously not itself a reliable source. It seems as if the article is being assumed to be unarguably true: it is not, though I appreciate the corrections that are being made to make it more factual. Caveat 1: I have consulted Pearson's A Cosmic Perspective and Carroll and Ostlie's Introduction to Modern Astrophysics generally considered to be appropriate texts for non-major undergraduate students and 1st year graduate astronomy majors, respectively. Neither addresses the idea of 'hot companion' so a definition cannot be obtained from them. Instead, I have deduced the definition from various papers found on arxiv.org. However, none of these papers offer a definition of the term, and use it interchangeably with such phrases as 'hotter companion,' 'hot dense companion' and 'companion that is hotter.' If someone can find a genuine definition of this term in the literature, it would go a long way in moving this debate along. *Caveat 2: While the term appears to be nothing more than the sum of its parts, there are consequences to this definition. As background, 'companion' has nothing to do with size or mass of the objects in question, but the luminosity (essentially, how bright they are). Generally and approximately, the companion is the dimmer of the two stars as they appear in the visible spectrum. Any star that is both dimmer and hotter than the primary will be smaller. HOWEVER, not all stars that are smaller and hotter will be the companions, and not all stars that are smaller and companions will be hotter.Nstock (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, user User:Icalanise is correct that in some cases, 'companion' can be used to refer to the primary star, though I would argue in such cases the term is not being used in a scientific sense so much as a colloquial sense. Nstock (talk) 20:04, 6 March 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Streams TV[edit]

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

This article is written as an advertisement. All the content is advertising the company so if the article was edited to remove the advertising, nothing would be left! Glanis^Talk 08:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should actually have been listed for speedy deletion, which I have now done. Sorry. Glanis^Talk 08:34, 2 March 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} 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Innovators International[edit]

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

looks like an advert and fails WP:CORP. 2 gnews hits hardly cuts it [26]. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Unreferenced advertisement for a print shop that's putting on airs, describing itself in this manner: provides outsourced services to publishers, specifically the production of graphics. Additionally, it has developed a line of Smart Pacs, advertising sales tools that allow the automatic preparation of a personalized sales folders, which include pre-printed samples of the actual ad in different grades of quality placed in tear sheets, thus visualizing the available choices. It's a print shop, and as such unlikely to have had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability in article, and I was unable to find any myself. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark Velasquez#NSFW magazine. This compromise seems to accommodate most contributors. If the magazine becomes independently notable, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 05:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NSFW magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a speedy G11 has been placed on the article. Looks good to me. I second the speedy deletion call. The page is just an adverisement. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Combination of a blog and self published print magazine (through MagCloud, a vanity publisher). No indication that this meets notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This publication is in its infancy, having just published its second issue last month, and therefore does not have a large number of Ghits or Gnews. The primary author is photographer Mark Velasquez, notable for his work on Bravo TV's reality program Work of Art: The Next Great Artist and his strong online following for his writing and photographs. This publication currently focuses on his photography and writing but also includes writing by other contributors. I can understand the criticism that this appears to be a vanity publication but I believe that that is a function of the magazine being brand new. From some contact with Velasquez he says that he has engaged a number of contributors to produce text and images for upcoming issues, which demonstrates a commitment to grow beyond a vanity publication. Publication by MagCloud is certainly a criticism that could point toward vanity but I'd argue that it is a modern publishing platform, the 'zine of our day. JPG Magazine started the same way, using Blurb to publish without having to raise huge amounts of capital to produce a work that was valued by its audience. If anything I'd say that I didn't build up the article enough to meet guidelines. Would it make sense to merge this in Velasquez's entry rather than giving it a stand alone entry? I'd appreciate any perspective on these points.Thecornkid (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Doesn't need to be wiped from existence, but it makes much more sense in the article for Mark Velasquez than its own article. And while I can appreciate that it's a fledgling publication, it's a bad precedent to create articles on presumed or desired notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging is an excellent compromise here. When its suggested that notability of a subject is inherited by some other notable subject, the answer is almost always to merge the article in question into the notable article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is already an entry about the magazine in the Mark Velasquez article. All that is needed is a redirect. ttonyb (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Velasquez is probably notable, but not so notable that every publication of his will automatically warrant a separate article even at the very beginning. Possibly it will, when there are good 3rd party sources, but not yet. The current contents is so throughly promotional, that I'd also support a delete first, and then redirect. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 8 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pelin Thorogood[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing exec lacking independent third party coverage. PROD deleted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I object to this deletion and have worked hard to meet the standards, adding more third-party references and relevant links where possible. Given her background, Pelin is notable. Updated: Addressed a notability requirement; deleted a PR reference and replaced with third-party reference; and include the full headline of the Cornell article. Thanks. Erikbratt (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete, strongly. Typical PR snow job for a PR person. Referenced to her own stories (with titles like The Birth of Customer 2.0. God preserve us!) and PR sources. Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for academics. Whatever Customer 2.0 is, I doubt that the body of human knowledge is advanced by it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As my PROD reasoning previously: Non-notable, based on PR, self-promotional primary sources; lack of independent reliable sources to show notability; WP:BIO. Chzz ► 05:50, 4 March 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. Sorry, but the consensus is that they do not meet our requirements, and Wikipedia is not here to be a substitute web-host. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Croix official football team[edit]

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

I am also nominating Tortola official football team, Saint Thomas official football team and Virgin Gorda official football team.

None of these teams is notable. All only play against each other in the Virgin Islands Championship, with some having played in the past in the Leeward Islands tournament. There is very little information available on either tournament. The Virgin Islands Championship has been tagged as unsourced since October 2006. All teams provide a link to a website called roonba. The original links are all dead and google searches of the new site reveal 0 hits. I tried 'Tortola site:roonba.com' and its variants. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these teams have done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 14:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football teams. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the maintainer of the roonba.com website, which was previously hosted free at roonba.50webs.com. In its previous incarnation, I had a separate page for all sub-national and non-FIFA teams, with a list of all their results. I decided to remove these pages a few years ago, as someone took it upon themselves to simply copy and paste the details into Wikipedia, and make claims of official status/national team status for teams such as those mentioned above, as well as countless others.

Of the 4 teams mentioned above, St Croix and St Thomas played regularly in the now defunct Leeward Islands tournament, and also participated in the Virgin Islands Championship, which involved the British Virgin Islands of Virgin Gorda and Tortola. Tortola has also participated in the Leeward Islands Championship and has played a single friendly match against Dominica. The Virgin Islands Championship's purpose in some years seems to have been as a qualifier for the Leeward Islands tournament. One of the 4 Virgin Islands made it to the final 4-team competition. However, as the Leeward Islands tournament is no longer competed for, I'm not even sure if these separate island representative teams exist. The Virgin Islands Championship is a bona fide tournament, and was played annually from 1996-2002 as can be seen here: http://www.rsssf.com/tablesv/virgin-4isles.html 92.18.158.143 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both tournaments, and the teams competing in them, is the paucity of evidence that suggests they are verifiable and notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication that any of these teams are notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 9 March 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. Sandstein 05:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-730[edit]

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

This is an article about an exoplanetary system candidate, essentially an unconfirmed data point. Previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI 701.03, demonstrated candidate objects are not considered notable and contradict WP:CRYSTAL ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last time for KOI 701.03 -- WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all astronomical findings are essentially unconfirmed, until such time as they can be directly observed. Viz the extraordinarily long discussion about Gliese 581g's existence or Nemesis (star). (nb as I've edited the article several times I may not be impartial here) Kernalk (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kernalk's statement of astronomical findings are essentially uncomfirmed. Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this statement (from the source) still violate WP:CRYSTAL? "[T]he remarkably commensurate period ratios of these four candidates give us strong confidence that they all will eventually be confirmed as planets." (emphasis added) Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, it is not confirmed yet (otherwise it would be named "Kepler-xxx", like other Kepler confirmed finds). Right now, it is nothing more than what should be a footnote in the Trojan planet article. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is decided this article be deleted, please instead move it to either my userspace or to Kernalk's (if he wishes)? Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no problem with that though I'm rather new at this editing lark... Kernalk (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I entirely agree that, "the overall topic is undoubtedly notable, the specific objects which may or may not be planets or even exist at all are not "automatically notable,"" (Beeblebrox 05:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)) surely the trojan orbit(s) and the unique orbital resonance alone make this topic notable enough to keep; however a list of Kepler candidate findings could be a better place to keep this information. The information in the article is noteworthy, and the sources referenced in the article indicate that those in the know (Ames, et al.) think that this information is plausible enough to publish. Kernalk (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list of Kepler candidates might indeed be a viable alternative. Comments on this idea should probably be directed to the article's talk page, though (to avoid cluttering up this PROD). Ajl^talk 09:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until confirmed by radial velocity measurements. Please see my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI 701.03, which also applies here. Modest Genius ^talk 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kernalk.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." This system is subject to scrutiny in the research paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0543, as well as coverage on several media sites Nstock (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article references. Also, KOI 701.03 vote count was 3 keep, 3 delete, 1 keep or merge, 2 delete or merge, and 1 merge- not really a deletion consensus. Fotaun (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of a deletion discussion is not solely based on vote counting (at least, it shouldn't be). Icalanise (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be disagreement over WP:Crystal. Fotaun (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regardless of whether the planets are confirmed or not, the star designated KOI-730 does exist. Nevertheless the article as it stands does not go into any details of the stellar properties, and at the moment there has not been much followup of this system so these properties have substantial uncertainties. Icalanise (talk) 21:21, 5 March 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} 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevis national football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. I am also nominating Saint Kitts national football team.

The St Kitts and Nevis FA website makes no mention of separate teams for each island. There is a Nevis FA but they seem to be involved only in school-level and possibly club football, much like a county FA. The Leeward islands tournament gets a mention in this FIFA article, but it suggests that the tournament was played by the Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team, not a team representing only one of the islands. The confusion may be caused by the fact the whole entity is often referred to as 'Saint Kitts'.

Please note there is also a Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team - this is a member of FIFA and not part of this AfD. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources provided. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this team has done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 14:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football teams. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:07, 8 March 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} 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Eustatius official football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:N. Alleged to have played a number of matches against national teams of the caribbean. I can find nothing on them, the only listed link is dead. This is an island of 2500 so there may be info out there that I haven't found. Whether or not that could establish notability is another question. All players would also be eligible for the Netherlands national football team as this island is part of the Caribbean Netherlands, meaning they are more like a county side than anything else. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this team has done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:04, 8 March 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} 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaire official football team[edit]

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

This article fails both WP:N and WP:V. Bonaire is an island that is part of the Caribbean Netherlands and whose footballers would be eligible to play for the Netherlands national football team. The team's article only has results from matches against Aruba and Curacao. These three islands were at the time all part of the Netherlands Antilles so this was at best an internal competition. It looks like they played each other once a year from 1960-1988. And that's it. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) For the sake of full disclosure, the closest I could get to finding anything notable was by searching 'Bonaire voetbal -hotel -wikipedia' in google, then using translate. Turned up a few bits and pieces but nothing notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this team has done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 14:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only has this team done nothing of note, but apart from the few matches against Aruba and Curaçao, they appear to have done nothing at all. In any case it is quite clearly not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:03, 8 March 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 towards a redirect to Progressive Youth of Poland if that article is kept. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Youth of Poland[edit]

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

No sources are provided to establish notability of this youth organization. An external link verifies their existence, but no evidence is provided for notability. A search in news and scholarly sources in both English and Polish produced no results. Unless multiple, independent sources can be found that discuss this subject in detail, it should be deleted per WP:N. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this group and Progressive Youth of Poland are the same. The name may have changed, same article author. My searches for both don't bring up much and both are listed in some sources as communist groups. There are a few messages from the Progressive Youth here: 1, 2. I don't see the notability of the Communist Youth and would strongly argue the Progressive Youth (already de-PROD'd) be added to this nomination as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're not sure if they're the same group, and since it looks like the might have slightly different notability (I don't know if those links you provided are reliable sources), probably the best thing is to nominate them separately. It won't hurt to have two different AfDs. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are straight from one of the groups and I wouldn't consider em' notability-establishing. Anyway, agree to delete this article based on my research for notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Progressive Youth of Poland. I favor the lowest possible barrier for inclusion of political parties and their youth sections. The Progressive Youth of Poland seems to be an affiliate of the World Federation of Democratic Youth which may well be an indicator of an organization of significant size, despite the current badness of that particular stub article. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that we can be pretty sure that Communist Youth of Poland is the same group as Progressive Youth of Poland, as the claimed official web site of the former leads to Postępowa Młodzież Polski (Progressive Youth of Poland), but its url contains "kmp", presumably standing for Komunistyczna Młodzież Polski (Communist Youth of Poland). Phil Bridger (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll go ahead and AfD that one on the same grounds. I think it's too late to combine them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per redirect proposals. KMP1917 does not seem to be too notable. Its ononline presence is here - a forum with 5 posts... and yes, the forum confirms that KMP1917 = PMP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think merge suggestions are a good idea, because the other page is also up for deletion and I don't see it likely that that will be kept, either. Since neither page has any proof of notability, I don't see how either can be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any indication of notability. If the other article is kept, a redirect can be created. Sandstein 05:51, 10 March 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} 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitel[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or notability guideline for corporations. The references in the article are mostly unreliable sources such as blogs, or primary sources such as press releases. The others either do not mention the company or mention it in a fleetingly trivial manner and do not establish notability. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also unambiguous advertising. It's a solution provider. It connects global brands with consumers and is rebuilding trust in global supply chains. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking at the references, I've got to make the same conclusion as the nominator. I had a fairly thorough look for any coverage in other secondary sources on the net (where I would expect them to be for an IT company), but was unable to find anything of any significance or verifiability. This one fails WP:ORG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM (MonaVie)[edit]

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

This article about a "leadership development company" lacks reliable third party sources. The only live third party refs in the article now, [27] and [28], do not appear to even mention this company. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 17 February 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) 01:41, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about an MLM, a spinoff of Quixtar, apparently. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Howard Ebison. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Ebison[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable for an article in his own right. His involvement in The Apprentice is sufficiently covered by this section. Nothing he has done outside of The Apprentice is sufficient to warrant an article. TigerShark (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of significant coverage other than for his involvement in The Apprentice. I'm not sure whether a television series such as this is "one event"; if not, it's still unlikely that a separate article is needed. List of The Apprentice candidates (UK) is very long - it should probably be split into separate articles for each series. Peter E. James (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Howard Ebison as a useful redirect which allows a reader of Wikipedia to arrive at information related to his query. No need to merge as all the essetnial info is already there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 16 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 23 February 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) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect He is non notable but redirect as per suggestion from Whpq seems a sensible solution. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Rabinovitz[edit]

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

non notable director of a local theater group, the sole reference is a passing mention WuhWuzDat 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference from Indiana Public Media added. Loren 18:27 pm, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabinovitz is in fact "A person who made a widely recognized contribution" in his field as he has directed plays by Israel Horovitz, Michael Healey, Jon Marans and Wendy MacLeod. It is true that regional theatre is not as widely publicized as other forms of entertainment, but within Rabinovitz's field he has made considerable contributions. Loren 18:38 pm, 16 February 2011 (UTC)— Bpplitmanager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment "new reference" is yet another passing mention. WuhWuzDat 18:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe wikipedia article for Rabinovitz states that the New York Times has noted his work-not that it has written on it extensively. The fact that he has been reviewed by the NY Times makes him notable-as well as his work in regional theatre with very notable playwrights. Please refer to the 'Accomplishments At The Bloomington Playwrights Project' section. Loren 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpplitmanager (talk • contribs)

Please review WP:Notability. WuhWuzDat 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. 'ably directed by' is the best I could find in the two refs. What's needed is something independent reviewing or discussing HIM not just a bare mention. It would look odd if they didn't mention the director at all, wouldn't it? Working with people who are notable doesn't mean the notability rubs off. He may well be notable. It's claimed, but not shown. What's that American state with the catchphrase "I'm from (?state) - show me!"? It's a principle here, too. "We're Wikipedians - show us!" Peridon (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 February 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) 01:46, 23 February 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) 01:18, 2 March 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} 14:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Science Club[edit]

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

does not pass notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability for this social club. MLA (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 2 March 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 Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid al-'Unaizi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One source mentioned the name of this individual followed by OR that list the things we do not know about that individual. IQinn (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --- The last time I worked on this article the DoD had not published a list of the individuals released from Guantanamo. On 2008-11-26 the DoD did release that list -- so it became possible to match the name "Khalid al-'Unaizi" with Khalid Sulayman Jaydh Al Hubayshi". Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and as such is non-notable under WP:GNG. Of course there is no reason why the information cannot be included in a parent article or list, however there is not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anotherclown, this man has been widely interviewed, including the following interview by the Washington Post, and is one of the most vocal of the returned Saudi captives. Could you please explain why you do not recognize this as "significant independent coverage"? Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Faiza Saleh Ambah (2008-03-24). "Out of Guantanamo and Bitter Toward Bin Laden". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-12-18. mirror
  - Caryle Murphy (2010-09-11). "In Saudi Arabia, re-educating terrorists held at Gitmo". Global Post. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23.
  - Sonia Verma (2008-09-11). "Terrorists 'cured' with cash, cars and counselling". Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23.
  - Faiza Saleh Ambah (2008-03-25). "From terror camps to day job; Saudi man fought with terrorists but now supports the political process". Hamilton Spectator.
  - Carlyle Murphy (2008-08-21). "Saudis use cash and counseling to fight terrorism". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23.
  - Andy Worthington (2008-04-28). ""They All Knew He Was Crazy": The Strange Case of Gitmo Prisoner Abu Zubaydah". Alternet. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23.
  - Caryle Murphy (2008-08-26). "A creative release for militant minds". The National. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23.

My internet is too slow to load most of these so I will have to leave it up to other users to assess whether this constitutes "signficant independent coverage". That said you yourself have stated that these sources refer to Khalid al Hubayshi and not Khalid al-'Unaizi (the subject of this Afd). I'm guessing though you're argument is they are the same individual (hence the merge proposal). Deletion still seems suitable to me though as it now seems this individual never even existed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as Geo suggests. There is not really enough material for an independent article. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 5 March 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. by clear consensus that this does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krestianstvo SDK[edit]

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

Just WP:PROMO of none-notable software, written by the software's developer NikolaySuslov (talk · contribs) in an obvious WP:COI. bender235 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete: a concept of virtual learning environment for mathematics; also as collaborative, highly portable, end-user/programmer framework for building-then-exploring rich multimedia discs on art... Not sure if this is actually about software, if the article says it's about a "concept". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Krestianstvo SDK - is a Software and not a "concept" - look here (http://vimeo.com/14910620). More, it is Open Source and working software (could be downloaded here http://www.krestianstvo.org/sdk/Krestianstvo1.2.zip)
It has a number of unique features, like integration of Seaside (software) and Croquet Project; the multiuser collaborative version of Jeffrey Weeks (mathematician) Curved space explorer software developed by me in Smalltalk (as example of virtual learning environment); (TUIO/Kinect support in Croquet Project (look for the reference at http://www.tuio.org/?software);, XUL/CSS user interface; ect.
As I am Russian, the most of published papers and projects has been done in Russia (look at Projects page from 2006-2010). NikolaySuslov (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC) — NikolaySuslov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 01:49, 23 February 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) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If there are citations in the russian language that show notability, those who are voting to keep this should add the citations to the article rather than simply claiming that they exist. Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Looks like it is quit easy to delete/close the very new appearing Open source software, wich poses a really threat to a commercial applications. The only arguments of 'Deleters' are: 'this is none-notable software written by it's author, it is a spam, promo, concept' ect. But, all these 'well-known arguments' are just null and dirty. Moreover, users who nominate the articles about software for deletion are even not from technical specialties! (bender235 - is majoring in business and economics). Again and again, I'll repeat: Krestianstvo SDK is working software, anybody could download it and run (check video demos http://vimeo.com/14910620 or try it by yourself). It would not be called 'Krestianstvo SDK' and I would not decided to write the Wikipedia article, if this software hasn't it's own quit unique features. Check some of the urls for notability in Smalltalk community:
http://astares.blogspot.com/2009/09/krestianstvo-sdk-russian-smalltalk.html
http://squeakingalong.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/croquet-in-squeak-4-1/
http://www.esug.org/wiki/pier/Conferences/2010/InnovationTechnologyAwards/Submissions

Very sorrowfully, NikolaySuslov (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm an economics student doesn't mean I'm not allowed to judge notability of any other topic. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for technical specialists. --bender235 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

struck double !vote OSborn^arf_contribs. 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Delete: I searched for evidence of notability a second time and found none. All online cites lead to the authors blog. I also note that the author (of the Wikipedia page and of the software) has voted "keep" in this afD twice so far (the only keep votes so far), but rather than adding citations to the article showing notability as requested, assumes bad faith and attacks other editors, as seen below. Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hey, The history knows not only just 'deletions', but even 'burnings', like Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600. Don't think that any citations to his really working computing model could helped him to avoid the burning, moreover don't think they even been existed at his time. Science - is not a social network, and the Truth could not be determined just by voting, citation's calculation, ect. NikolaySuslov (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted WP:AGF warning on User talk:NikolaySuslov. - Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disregarding the obvious and massive promotional and COI problems, there appears to be a complete lack of coverage in reliable, third party sources. What few mentions are listed in the article only verify it exists (or are small blog posts), not that it has any notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here, in this concrete list of Software-related deletion discussions, we discuss the concrete really existing software, as artifact with it's own history 2006-till now: Krestiasntvo SDK. Nevertheless, arguments of 'Deleters' are none constructive, abstract, applicable to nothing. There is no any chance to be sure that 'Deleters' are real users and not just a spam-bots. If you claim something like COI problems, massive promotional, ect., please, confirm it by providing real statements to the incorrect source, that could be founded in the Krestianstvo_SDK article (text, images, links).NikolaySuslov (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted WP:NPA warning on User talk:NikolaySuslov. - Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply this discussion is not about whether the software in question exists, but whether it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria- one of the main criteria for being included here. As for your conflict of interest issues, it is quite clear you are associated with the software product. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The history of Krestiasntvo SDK has started in 2006. And it's intensive life till now has accompanied by a lot of projects, being built on it: Igrishe installation (Russia, Moscow), several multimedia discs on art (Russia, State Tretyakov gallery Moscow), CCSE virtual learning environment (virtual museum), Man'j (Moscow, Art strelka), Multitouch table (Russia, Vologda) and more. Encyclopedic wikipedia's article is right about the software technology (Krestianstvo SDK here) hidden behind all these projects and just only.NikolaySuslov (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply All of those sources are from your blog. The notability guidelines call for reliable, third party sources. OSborn^arf_contribs. 20:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply check these links below:
http://web.archive.org/20071213061211/http://www.opencroquet.org/index.php/Current_Projects#Croquet-Based_Realtime_Art_Installation (Croquet project site is on reconstruction for now).
http://julianlombardi.blogspot.com/2009/07/seaside-and-comet-control.html
http://www.arseniev.org/content/?s=52&a=80 (On Russian language at the end of the page: "Программное обеспечение «Крестьянство / Игрище»")
http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/ru/museum/publication/multimedia_editions/

NikolaySuslov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

- Reply Nikolay, try to understand why we do things this way. Would you like a Wikipedia full of spam and advertising? That's what we would have if we allowed anyone to write a page and base it on nothing other than blog posts they themselves wrote. If that was allowed, everybody who works in marketing or public relations would create dozens of worthless Wikipedia pages every day so they could get free advertising. The rules about notability are not just some stupid rules, and they were not created to hurt you. They are good rules. They are rules that make sense. I strongly suggest that you read the rules and follow the rules instead of ignoring the rules and attacking other editors who follow the rules. Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Spam, advertising!? You are joking? Who have allowed you to take such abstract dicisions? Where are your concrete arguments, I have asked for? Again, be concrete and please, do not attack this "list of Software-related deletion discussions", with spam. Look at the bottom of the Krestianstvo SDK article, where you could find just one, two, three and four server platforms for 3D virtual worlds (OpenSimulator · Open Wonderland · Open Cobalt · Solipsis). Krestianstvo SDK - is the fifth platform. And where are your "dozens of worthless Wikipedia pages" concerning to 3d virtual worlds and software technologies related to virtual learning environments? And nor reading nor following the rules here, could not help to you. "No matter, the Earth is still rotates..." NikolaySuslov (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Can't find anything on GNews.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply So, for example, if Sputnik_1 would not have been founded in the news in 1957, there would not be Sputnik_1 as artifact in the history, which is known by all? Or, you think, that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia completly based on the news and public relationships, which are often represent distorted sources. The article Krestianstvo SDK is about an artifact beeing appeared in the history of software. NikolaySuslov (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Yes. (Although the time when Sputnik was covered is not important). If nobody anywhere documented or covered Sputnik 1, we wouldn't care. Wikipedia articles do not have to be completed based off of news reports- academic journals, etc are all fine sources and can establish notability, but the sources must meet the reliable source policies. No such coverage exists for this piece of software- its existence alone does not grant it inclusion in Wikipedia. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glynn Thomas[edit]

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

The article does not meet the WP:ARTIST criteria using sufficient reliable sources and appears unlikely to be able to have that addressed in the near future (the article has been tagged as needing sources since 2007). The first few pages of GNews matches shows only others with the same name and I fail to find evidence of significant impact in GBooks. I have been unable to verify the claim of having works in the Ashmolean using their online catalogue and being commissioned is not of itself notable. Fæ (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, delete. Difficult to tell using GNews because of all the other Glynn Thomases out there, but ultimately the onus in on the article creator to prove notability (or anyone who fancies trying to rescue it). As none of the claims are seem to be backed up in independent sources, this article is not reliable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If his works are in the museums stated, he does pass WP:CREATIVE. But refs are needed. I have found one, in the Museum of London catalog, [29] and search for his name. (For some reason the complete link triggered our blacklist, which seems extremely odd.) Others however need to be found. I am not sure of the completeness of the Ashmolean online search. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MOL example might not be what it seems - I think this artwork was used on one of the illustrative posters about the history of London rather than being on exhibit in the sense intended by ARTIST. However, I am uncertain as it has been about 5 years since I was last there and we could do with confirmation as to the significance of the work being on display (i.e. just for graphic design or illustration purposes or exhibition as a stand-alone work of art). For those that may not be aware, the MOL is a history museum rather than intended as a space for art display. Fæ (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline seems a solid established printmaker; it's little use looking for much coverage online, but that does not mean he is not notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 20 February 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) 01:50, 23 February 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) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to lack of outside sources indicating notability--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Mr. Waller, Vol. 2: Jiving with Fats Waller[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:SmokeyTheCat, Reason was: "Irrelevant and defunct compilation album, all the songs available elsewhere, unavailable for decades and of no historic importance". Pgallert (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in news, nothing really in books. Neither Vol. 1 nor Vol. 2 (see Category:Fats Waller albums) have received sufficient coverage to maintain a stand alone article, likely because they were released after he died. Delete, then redirect to Fats Waller. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same rationale as Vol 1, non-notable compilation. AllyD (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Mr. Waller, Vol. 1: Jiving with Fats Waller[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:SmokeyTheCat, Reason was: "Irrelevant and defunct compilation album, all the songs available elsewhere, unavailable for decades and of no historic importance". Pgallert (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in news, nothing really in books. Neither Vol. 1 nor Vol. 2 (see Category:Fats Waller albums) have received sufficient coverage to maintain a stand alone article, likely because they were released after he died. Delete, then redirect to Fats Waller. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 23 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr Waller was indeed amazing but there's nothing to indicate this as any more notable than the many other compilation selections of his music. AllyD (talk) 23:14, 2 March 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) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partho Sen-Gupta[edit]

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

Blatant autobiography by Psg116 (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:ARTIST in my mind. bender235 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG [30] and pushing[31] at WP:ANYBIO. Article needs cleanup aqnd beter sourcing, yes... but since it appears the author User:Psg116 stoped editing it back in 2006,[32] and it has subsequently received numerous edits from those with no apparent COI,[33] I think we can keep it and fix it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:49, 24 February 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) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been edited extensively by a variety of editors for five years, so is no longer an autobiography. The Indian Express article is a solid reference and good evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wiktionary.. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panatheism[edit]

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

This page should be deleted as it has been moved to Wiktionary. However, my PROD was deleted because the page has apparently been PRODed before. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should redirect somewhere. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary, surely.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary, at best. It is not even clear if the word is really used, outside of to make an example. Even then WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Annie Dillard, author of Teaching a Stone to Talk: Expeditions and Encounters. The term as used in the book gets a bit of discussion in other sources, but nothing I am finding really indicates that we should have a separate article. I have added pan-atheism to the find sources template above, as it seems to be used interchangeably with the hyphenless, and older databases care about such things. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with that merge, as the target article has no mention of this word or even of atheism, and barely mentions the book in question. Also note the book is a collection of essays, only one which mentions the word. This is just more ammo to the delete/Wiktionary argument. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 08:14, 27 February 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) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Wiktionary or merge with Nontheism and redirect. Either way don't keep! The article doesn't tell me anything about the term beyond a definition. The Russell quote may express the same sentiment as the person who coined the term, it doesn't establish notability that a well-known philosopher happened to say the same thing. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a term, not notable. Just atheism.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The above editor (Antwerpen Synagoge) has been identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of the a blocked editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה/Archive. Rmhermen (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. I don't think that we do soft crossproject redirects, or do we? Sandstein 05:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chefs Center of California[edit]

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

Insufficient verifiable, reliable sources to establish notability of an organization. Only one online article mentions the center by name; another one mentions a previous name for the org, mainly in passing. Otherwise, the claims to fame are being somehow involved with a handful of locally notable and tasty new restaurants (including some I've eaten at). tedder (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weed out the promotional content and keep. A notable economic development endeavor of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including Bloomberg Businessweek, passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A quick google news search registers 272 hits, and 2910 hits for a more general search on google. This article may fall under WP:LOCAL. If it is to be keep the promotional nature of it needs to be changed, and it needs to be improved greatly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the gnews search you are using? In quotes, I find zero. Without quoting the subject, it's just a string of very generic words. tedder (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki entry is straight out of their monthly email newsletter. The style of writing is exactly the same. Cross-reference with a google of EHALA news letter.

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, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no extensive coverage. 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weak coverage and all local. Stormbay (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified. Most of the links at the article refer to other facilities (primarily Mama's Small Business Kitchen Incubator), rather to Chefs Center of California. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mama's and Chefs Center are the same organization: Mama's Small Business Kitchen Incubator was the original name, later changed to the current name.[34]--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe the article should be moved to Mama's Small Business Kitchen Incubator - since that name has sourcing and the current title doesn't. (The sourcing for Mama's is minimal but might be enough for bare notability.) The current title finds only a single hit at Google News Archive, and that's just a passing mention. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 10 March 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} 14:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Yui Hoi[edit]

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

I don't think the world's oldest snowboarder is notable. Only news source I can find, which is the reference used in the article (now dead), is an article on "Canada's contributions to world". Person was mentioned in the 2001 edition of The Guinness Book of Records. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 February 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, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not appear notable. Stormbay (talk) 03:34, 9 March 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessentially Group[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Part of a spam campaign for this entity and its subsidiaries. All sub articles have been speedily deleted and founder articles redirected. This article has been chopped down from a spamfest to a stub, but reliable sources do not provide the significant level of coverage required for notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says this is a luxury lifestyle company, whatever that's supposed to mean. I gather this is some kind of catalog sales operation targeting the rich, but they can't bring themselves to say that, it makes them sound too similar to Sears. The Guardian piece discusses this in the midst of a general story about the trend. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is basically provides services to busy rich people. The Times has profiled the founder, as well providing some coverage about the business. The New York Times has also profiled the founder and written about the company. It is covered as part of an article about concierge service companies in India. And it's move into the Indian market was covered. The New York Post has written about it, and Newsweek confirms Elliot's relationship to Camilla Parker Bowles. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage above. I've taken out some dubious information about the company, but I do think that it passes WP:ORG since it has significant secondary sources discussing it. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:25, 26 February 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) 01:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a group of links to third-party coverage of the company in the press to the article's talk page. I have not expressed an opinion on whether the article should stay or go, as I have a conflict of interest which has caused trouble already. I am therefore just adding some information which I believe displays notability. Thanks. Prdharmer (talk) 12:23, 9 March 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} 14:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baby killer[edit]

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

A synthetic accretion of three uses of a term, with no source to tie them together. Not encyclopedic; not helpful to a user searching on the term. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I proposed this for deletion, which PROD was removed with the comment "I see two reliable sources cited in the stub, therefore it meets WP:GNG." This however is not true, as WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not passing mentions. See also WP:NEO, which says that for articles about terms, sources must be about the term and not merely attest its use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states: " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So if every sentence is tied to a reference, by definition "no original research is needed to extract the content". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that user Richard Arthur Norton has since added one source that discusses the history of the term. My vote is still delete, because one source won't cut it. More, possibly. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO is not applicable to a 100 year old word. "neologism" means new word or phrase, it can't be a new phrase if it was in use 100 years ago. The article sails by using WP:GNG. I suspect people are voting based on emotions and not actually reading the article or looking at the reliable sources already in use in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. (or WP:NEO). I don't see a need to transcode because the majority of our content here is already largely at Wiktionary. In general, articles about terms, rather than ideas, require substantial coverage about the word or term, rather than the idea that that word or term expresses. Sources that do provide that sort of information (e..g, a putative "An Illustrated History of the term 'baby-killer') would provide that coverage, and while I didn't see any, it's possible that I've missed something, so additional sources that do discuss the term, it's history, and so forth, are welcome as always. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the article is quite in flux, it's more than trebled in size since I made ~~this~~ the above comment. Will reevaluate when it's settled down. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Affirm my vote as of reading the article at this point, again, based on the policy WP:NOTDICT. That policy bears repeated reading as a whole to make sense of, but at its essence is an idea repeated many times within that policy document, e.g., To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. Addressing the seven sources, I find:
The On the Media source is entirely on-point, and is an appropriate reference that goes towards notability here.

The Vietnam War source misses the point, failing where our policy states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That policy is at the core of my complaints with this and following citations. This source provides three usages, but no significant analysis or in-depth coverage of the term.

Great Expectorations contains two uses of the term in quotations but no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.

Salon article, ditto. A couple references, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself,.

Killing Babies in America: Confuses a generic term "baby killer", with a nickname "Tiller the Baby Killer", which, for an article about a word rather than an idea is inappropriate. In any case, no signficant analysis or coverage of the term itself.

Dr. Tiller Abortion.... : Does not use the term at all.

NYT: 1 usage, no analysis or coverage.
As such, I do not find that at present the article current has sufficient sources to establish notability under the WP:GNG, and the article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'll add that in my experience it has been typical here at AfD in evaluating WP:NOTDICT claims to require significantly more than two on-point sources to demonstrate notability. Another independent source or two like the first, though, and I'd reconsider. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it on the history of the usage of term and only the opening line is a definition. It most certainly isn't a neologism if the article points out usage from over 100 years ago. Neologism literally means "new word", maybe it was new 100 years ago, but not now. It also isn't a "synthesis" as the nominator states, there is no new conclusion that isn't already in the sources. If the article was to conclude that baby killers are happy people or baby killers are sad people, that would be a synthesized conclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a POV content fork--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. Lots of things to point to that are called "baby killer". 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other Wikipedia articles to disambiguate, there is a song called "baby killer" but it doesn't have an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"baby killer" is a nickname for many things. Hence, a disambiguation page can be built. Such as the zeppelin bombers used in WWI over London. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, the Germans were called "baby killers" after the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby not the zeppelins. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The zeppelins were called "baby killers" [35][36][37] -- 65.95.15.144 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article content has no cohesion; it is only a patchwork of various usages of the phrase. The phrase itself does not mean the same thing at each use. Telling history means telling a story and there is no story to tell here,no arc of development, no conflict, no resolution. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While your critique may be true on my writing style, it doesn't argue any valid Wikipedia rule for deletion based either on notability of verifiability. WP:GNG states clearly: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a topic. If it were a topic, it would not be a patchwork mess. It is a pair of words that have been used for this, for that, for a bunch of meanings. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am still not following your logic. Your words are a critique of my writing style. All you did was pick out a word from the definition and say that wasn't met without really explaining. "Baby killer" is an epithet, I do not see how it has multiple meanings other than a "killer of babies", and even if it did have multiple meanings there is not Wikipedia rule that disallows articles on the meaning and usage of words and phrases with multiple meanings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then list me under WP:NOTDICT. There is no possible way for anyone to write this as an article, a clearly defined topic. It's not your writing that is a problem, it is the fact that "baby killer" cannot be stated clearly as an encyclopedia topic. The best that can be done is to list the various times the two words have been used together, which is what you've accomplished. That's not good enough to save it. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if it was a satisfactory topic for Brooke Gladstone and her On The Media show, then it has enough "cohesion" for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not an encyclopedia topic make. If you can find more sources, then the phrase might be suitable for an article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I removed the Prod because, while controversial, we don't censor ourselves, and it is well-sourced. As Mr. Norton points out, that creates a presumption of notability. The nominees have the burden of proof for deletion. In the meanwhile, the article is being improved. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of notability requires significant coverage, not merely the attestation of instances in which the word was used. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Infanticide. A single source ("On the Media" March 26, 2010) discussing the phrase as rhetoric does not seem to satisfy GNG ("Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic") and NAD ("Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms) are duplicate articles that should be merged") in terms of making this particular wording notable. The other sources do not really discuss the phrase as a phrase but use it in arguing that charges of infanticide are sensational. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing isn't great, but it looks like there is enough discussion of the term itself to justify an article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Binksternet. I'm not without sympathy for treating it as disambiguation, but who would look for baby killer as a keyword rather than abortionist / soldier / zeppelin / patent medicine? —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? People would look it up to see the history of the usage of the term, just like any other English phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2011

Except that Wikipedia doesn't do "the history and usage of [terms]" unless the term is substantially notable as a term (e.g. Truthiness), and even then such articles are likely to be nominated for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (3rd nomination)). Cnilep (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just looked at the article again, after recent improvements, and there is still not a story to be told. The article has no comprehensible arc. It starts out with abortion, but there was infanticide before that, the killing of newborns. There are other usages, too... Right now it does not list the very early use of the term against Herod, against suspected violent men, and by angry doctors and parents when talking about various childhood diseases. Here are some earlier mentions of the pair of words used together, each earlier than anything yet found in the article under discussion:
- 1847 – "...the pathology and etiology of this 'insatiable baby-killer.' " (about tetanus)
- 1869 – "The morning rose clear and beautiful after a refreshing rain of the previous night, and off we go, "six precious souls," including the reformed baby-killer..." (about a member of the Crow tribe leading a party of naturalists)
- 1869 – "...no less a person than Mike Howe, the baby-killer of Van Diemen's Land" (about a bandit in Tasmania)
- 1846 – "I immediately recognized the disease as being no other than that insatiable baby-killer, trismus." (about the disease: Trismus)
- 1887 – "Shoot if you dare, you cowardly baby-killer!" From "That Yankee Missionary", a short story by Bret Harte)
- 1879 – "Herod, the great baby-killer" (Oh, yeah, Herod)
- 1867 – "The irate baby killer, scorned to answer, but left incontinently." (About an old-fashioned obstetrician who had been botching a natural delivery, and was suggesting a perforator to kill the baby to save the mother. Homeopathy saved the day for both mother and newborn.)
- 1867 – "...Richard III—the "baby killer"—gave the Dukedom..."(about Richard III of England)
- 1856 – "'Go ahead, old baby-killer!', said Dave" (from a book by Alfred W. Arrington. The sentence is to accuse a man of killing a child immediately after it was born to his wife, because it had a different father.)
- 1867 – "Josephus says that Herod, the baby killer, was afflicted with a singular disease..." (More Herod, described by Josephus)
- 1834 – "She was the baby killer, the dreaded child seizer of Sumerian and Babylonian religion." (about the demon Lamme, also called Lamashtu)
- 1834 – "...a sad-faced British captain named Henry Hamilton began to pass out the kindling, free, to every prospective cabin burner and ravisher and baby killer." (about pre-Revolutionary rebellion in America)

Do any of these early sources trace the arc of a story? No, they do not. There are just various places and times and usages which do not relate at all to one another. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, add them. Make it more cohesive and more of a narrative, I lack the skill. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...doesn't work that way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make a narrative up out of nothing? Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As shown above, the phrase doesn't have a notable, distinctive characteristic that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. It is simply too widely used, in too many unrelated situations, just like most other simple terms. We don't have articles on common terms like "card carrying member of"; "a deal breaker"; "Rabble rouser"; etc., even though we can find thousands of sourced examples of their use through history. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, scholarly reference works exist such as Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable for the origins and usage of phrases, and of course we have the On The Media broadcast that shows a history of the usage of this phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, we don't have articles about most of the entries in Brewer. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the OTM broadcast you mention most certainly does not give us a history of the usage of the phrase. It gives us only a few examples of public usage of the phrase, mostly inaccurate usage as an inflammatory term of disparagement against military, political and ideological opponents. It may raise eyebrows when uttered by public individuals or in public settings, as would calling someone a "wife beater" or saying "fuck you" -- but we don't give such common invectives a Wikipedia article. At best, it would get a disambig page, but as Binksternet began to demonstrate, that page would likely become very lengthy, unfocused and basically useless. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a list or delete The topic "Baby killer" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the six definitions given at Wiktionary blurred together. The definition given here for the term is not sourced. Propose to change the article to be a list of sourced cases where people have used the phrase, that seems to be what is notable. That removes the POV problems as well as the lack of a definition. Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wouldn't it be better as a disambiguation page? 65.95.15.144 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two ideas are related. How would the dab page be better? Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dab page would only point to concepts that exist as articles or as sections of articles on Wikipedia. A list has no such restriction. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the dab solves both notability and POV problems, but I'm not seeing how that would work. One of the notable examples is at Randy Neugebauer, but I don't see that the article discusses either "baby killer (house bill)" or "baby killer (politician)". Likewise, I don't know that the Zeppelin page disambiguates "baby killer (postcard caption)" or "baby killer (Zeppelin)". Unscintillating (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason that we do not have "imperialist lackeys" or "nazi pigs". However well documented [38], [39], these (pejorative, which make them an open invitation to WP:BATTLEGROUND) phrases are used in too widely different contexts for it being possible to write a coherent encyclopedic article. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do to policies listed above. Usage does not equal topic and instances of use vary far too greatly. Pudge MclameO (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karina evleri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Karina evleri

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

Non-notable building development. Prodded as non-notable, as not promotional enough for speedy - prod removed. The buildings are an interesting shape, but so are most new developments I see in my travels. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to stay. TML (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the gross leasable area of the shopping center? That is helpful in gauging notability. Do references in the local language exist? Edison (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all in Turkish that I've found. The first in English (from Page 8 of a Gsearch) is http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9QTFLWD5g4wC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=%22Karina+evleri%22&source=bl&ots=SsvxzVsjf4&sig=EC-J37QV2ukcUHrKx4TYeWrq814&hl=en&ei=UEZlTdzdK4Sy8gOKuum9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjhG#v=onepage&q=%22Karina%20evleri%22&f=false (I'm sure they don't need all that twiddle in the URL...). Peridon (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 February 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) 00:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS and WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one has found evidence it satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Cornuel[edit]

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

Likely autobiography by Vazydm (talk · contribs). Unsourced biography of a living person. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 February 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) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apallingly badly translated bio of guy who is said to have illustrated c. 50 books for kids. It's not enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 2 March 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) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Dreher[edit]

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

Very likely autobiography by Tintenfisch (talk · contribs), who also created the German version of this article. Notability is doubtful. bender235 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 February 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) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep My nonexistent German (i.e. Gtranslate) says that [40] this is a real review of his work in Der Spiegel, giving him some claim to WP:CREATIVE. The article needs massive cleanup, and a single review is a weak claim to notability indeed; I suspect there may be more hiding in the Gnews results. Ray^Talk 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There appears to be some minimal coverage of Dreher in media. It's a very borderline case, but I think this one falls on the side of being notable. —SW— ^yak 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's won one prize (notable enough for us to have an article on), documented in Der Spiegel, there are at least 2 articles there entirely about a TV series he made, and he gets mentioned in several books and on scads of blogs. Some of the coverage is for hanging out with or making vids about famous musicians, but some of it is rating his work as important documentation of popular music movements. I've added the best to the article (translating one quotation), recast the lede (he really doesn't seem to write much except scripts), and tidied it up. I also note that his TV work has often been commissioned by the networks or channel in question, even more than indicated in the listing, and that is also a sign of notability. --Yngvadottir (talk) 20:22, 2 March 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} 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Clement[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. He did just some minnor works and is married to a famous writter. Damiens.rf 00:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. —SW— ^gab 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, too. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:23, 3 March 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. -- Lear's Fool 02:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tide (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this back to AFD... Article was nominated in October 2010, but failed to gain consensus for deletion. Speculative album that was supposedly to be released in February 2011... Didn't happen. Falls foul of WP:BALL and WP:HAMMER Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is primary, unreliable (Facebook, YouTube) or tangential. And for some reason, it had the Good Article template and categories for the band instead of the album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given this is an article created on October 20, 2010, for an album that did not yet exist and little, or no, independently sourced information was available *combined with* the fact it is now March 2011 and the album still does not exist and still has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this is a bit of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but more importantly, it is not a notable subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that the album has been released, per WP:CRYSTAL. —SW— ^spout 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pardon me for piling on. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 chamber (ABC)[edit]

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

Subject is not notable, and is possible copyright violation. Almost entire article is a copy of the list at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. Ravpapa (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 9 separate list articles have been created based on the ABC rankings. All are currently up for deletion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to combine them all into a single AfD. Does anyone know how to do that?

Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually in these exercises, the station doesn't offer a suggested list to vote on. Listeners are asked to send in their favourite x number of compositions (usually 3) and then the station creates a ranked list out of the responses. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was an eight cd box set of the results released which were reviewed in The Courier-Mail (20 April 2006 by Patricia Kelly), Knox Leader (23 May 2006 by Scott Abrahams) Sunday Herald Sun (7 May 2006 by Bob Crimeen), The Bulletin (19 April 2006 by Anthony Clarke). There was also concerts for the poll which was previewed in Kroslava, Katarina (26 March 2006), "Opera hit list", Sun Herald. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website.

Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. I find the reasoning for the deletion of this page even stranger than the reasons proffered for the deletion of the individual countdown pages. This page acts as a miniature summary of just the top entries in each countdown. As a tertiary source, summarising information is what WP does best. What possible copyright violation could be involved? GFHandel. 20:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the covereage I have provided on the AFDs of some of the individual polls and their related cds and concerts. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 Mozart (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website.

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 piano (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was coverage of the poll itself in Westwood, Matthew (14 February 2005), "Romantics rule piano favourites", The Australian. There was a cd of the top 10 released which was reviewed in MX (Australia) (19 January 2006 by Ross McGravie) and an eight cd box set of the results released which was reviewed in The Courier-Mail (2 April 2005 by Patricia Kelly),The Bulletin (29 March 2005 by Anthony Clarke) Mosman & Lower North Shore Daily (17 March 2005), Sunday Age (17 March 2005 by Barney Zwartz). There was also concerts for the poll which was reviewed in Hanusiak, Xenia (15 February 2005), "review", Herald-Sun. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 Symphony (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a eight cd box set of the results released which recieved reviews in The Courier-Mail (10 October 2009 by Patricia Kelly) and Daily Telegraph (short version of previous). There has also been coverage of the series of polls in general (such as in Kelly, Eamonn (25 October 2008), "Spin Doctor", The Australian and Juddery, Mark (25 June 2009), "Spin Doctor", The Australian) so if there is not enough for an individual article on this one poll then a merge or redirect should happen to an overall article such as Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 concerto (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a eight cd box set of the results released which was reviewed in The Courier-Mail (22 November 2007 by Patricia Kelly). There was also concerts for the poll which were reviewed in McAlister, Anna (5 November 2007), "CLASSIC 100 CONCERTO", Herald-Sun and O'Connell, Clive (3 November 2007), "In Emperor's new clothes", The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 original (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons:
1. There is precedent for these lists: Triple J Hottest 100. If the Classic 100 lists go, then so must the 23 Triple J countdown lists. Note that the Triple J lists were previously nominated for deletion, however the result was to keep them. That is an important precedent for these lists.
2. These lists are essentially no different to the multitude of television episode lists that exist on WP (often for obscure shows). All of the television lists have information (e.g. episode titles) that are also provided by other sources around the Internet (including the networks airing the shows). If these lists go (for copyright reasons), then I'm afraid you'd better start to look at deleting all the lists of television shows that detail the titles (which is no different to displaying the titles of musical works). For example, the following page: http://www.fox.com/house/recaps/season-7/episode-1.htm lists the title of every episode of the House television series. That page is on the official Fox Broadcasting website and is (of course) copyright information (can you see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page?). When will you be asking for the list of titles to be removed from WP's web page that details the titles of every episode of House?
3. The lists represent a significant body of work (added to, and maintained by lots of editors). The number of lists will obviously grow over the years as the ABC continues to promote more countdowns (there's been eight so far, and it's only getting more popular). WP (the encyclopaedia for everyone) should be there to record the details of the events for posterity.
4. The lists are entirely non-controversial and do no harm. If you don't think they are "notable", just don't go to them. There are plenty of readers and editors who do believe they are notable enough to create and expand them.
5. The lists are well constructed and demonstrate features (e.g. sorting and intelligent linking) indicating why WP should be used for more of this type of purpose. The information in the lists contains no opinion at all, and is well referenced. We should be considering some of these lists for being Featured Lists on WP (not for deletion).
6. The ABC is a non-profit, non-commercial, government-run enterprise. That fits nicely with the philosophy of WP (which is one reason why ABC actively promotes the lists). It cannot be said that the lists are promoting any sort of commercial endeavour (which may be different to some of the other countdown lists mentioned as reason for deletion by Voceditenore). Note: I have no affiliation or association with the ABC.
7. The lists provide more summary information than is found anywhere else on the internet. For example, the Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) list allows the sorting by composer, genre, and date completed—which is a facility not found anywhere else on the Internet. In addition (on that list), the "Rank in the Original 100" and "Change in rank" are valuable tools WP provides to people interested in these lists. (This is not OR as it is observationally confirmable.) The extra information (on most of the lists) is in direct contradiction to one of the key reasons proffered for deletion: "Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website".
8. WP is acting in a journalist capacity in maintaining the lists. WP does up-to-the-minute journalistic work in a multitude of areas, so these lists shouldn't be an exception.
9. During the countdowns, thousands of readers are attracted to the lists. The links in the lists no doubt drive these thousands to other pages on WP (in the musical arena). We need more readers (some of whom will become editors), not less.
10. The lists support information in other areas of WP. For example, the Classic 100 Piano countdown page is linked in 4:33#Performances and recordings. It's true that a reference could be made to the ABC's page, but we should be aiming to keep readers on WP as much as possible (especially when some of the lists offer so much more than the ABC's web site—such as links to musical works and sorting).
11. A "notability" tag (previously placed on one of the lists) was removed four months ago (and not by me). That removal was not met with any resistance from respected and experienced editors who watch and maintain the page (and that includes whoever put the notability tag on the page).
12. The lists are actively promoted on Facebook (including by the ABC themselves), e.g. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Classic-100-Ten-Years-On/111930662199693 (note: none of the endorsement on FB was added by me). This drives people to WP, and we need all the readers and editors we can get.
13. I notice that five entires (from the 100) have been retained on each of the Classic 100 Countdown pages. Why five? Why not six? Or seven? Do I have to spell out the proof by induction principle here?
14. The ABC presenters themselves (on-air) directed people to the WP site, and thanked (on-air) the people involved in the WP lists for their hard work. We need more promotion for WP, not less. One comment by an ABC presenter (on-air) was that he was glad the WP lists were there so that everyone could look at the information forever. (How little he knew.)
15. There is no copyright problem. The fact that Ravpapa has said "possible copyright vio" means that there is nothing obviously violating any copyright laws. The fact that Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists. What's more, the ABC has been comfortable with these lists for 18 months now (which is plenty of time for them to have asked for the list to be removed had they wanted that). Of course the ABC doesn't want the information deleted, and in fact, the ABC themselves have directed their listeners to the WP site from their own web site (search for "Wiki: Classic 100 10 Years On"). That alone is a glowing endorsement for the let-out clause provided by Moonriddengirl herself: "if the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright".
16. Precisely what the (anonymous and unknown) advice of an "associate attorney" has to do with possible copyright infringement in Australia is anyone's guess. Sorry, but that "legalese" stuff is a red herring in this debate. If you can establish and successfully test a real legal case in this area, then that might be a different matter, but please don't try to squeeze these (uncontroversial) lists into some sort of legal bag so you can say "the bag's getting really full now, we better be careful". Has there ever been a successful case of any legal entity suing WP for representing information in lists? It's obvious to everyone that the legal entities love having the listed information on WP (accurate and referenced of course) as it drives people towards the content the entities promote.
17. From a personal point-of-view (which I realise will carry no weight here): I've created over 80 articles on WP, and am a regular content editor who has never had a block. I spend a lot of time finding material to reference articles (including visiting libraries), and regularly add significant amounts of content to articles. I know the rules, and often act as a calming influence during debates between other editors. I have an enormous amount of wiki-tasks lined up, and am gradually working through them. I'm not some newbie who is pushing some obscure personal cause with these lists. If these lists are deleted for some vague legalistic reason, then I intend to take a lengthy break from WP—a break which I'm certain will remind me why the real world has to be better than this. I doubt I would return.

GFHandel. 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite long; I'm only addressing the copyright issues.

First, I need to clarify that this is not "an" associate attorney; this is the Wikimedia Foundation's associate counsel, pending the emplacement of our permanent attorney later in the month. I cannot reproduce her e-mails without permission and she prefers to be low profile, but our correspondence has been facilitated by several members of WMF staff (who put me in touch with her) who I'm sure would verify them if needed. User:Philippe (WMF) was cc'ed on some of them, and I can certainly forward the others to him.

Wikipedia is based in the United States; what matters here is whether the content is public domain in the United States. It is U.S. laws with which we must comply. It has long been understood on Wikipedia that lists that are based on opinion are copyrightable under U.S. law; we handle this by truncating them in an attempt to comply with fair use. You can read many conversations about this in the archives of WT:CP and WT:C. For an example, see The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Titles themselves are not copyrightable; a list based on opinion, on the other hand, is.

The reason I truncated them to the top of 5 is because of what the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney said. I have asked her for further clarification on whether there is any rule of thumb percentage we may use, but I have not yet received a response.

All that said, I am confused as to where I "confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists". I wonder if you are misreading something I wrote. I have no idea if they are aware of these copies of the lists. You are almost certainly misreading this, I'm afraid, if you think it is created by ABC. Wikipedia's content is mirrored on Facebook. See [41], including the linked FAQ. If ABC is willing to license this material under CC-By-SA, which allows both commercial reproduction and modification, then all of our issues would be over; AFI was willing to do that with their lists (cf. AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes.) We do need that permission made official, however; it is not (and never has been) enough for them to permit it to be used on Wikipedia; they have to license it compatibly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the bold writing in point 15 ("the ABC themselves..."). The fact that the ABC has:

gone to the trouble of modifying their own site to link to the Classic 100 WP list,
endorsed the lists on-air,
endorsed the lists on Facebook,

are proof that they are comfortable with the list articles. There is no way that the ABC would bring a case against WP based on those actions alone, and I'm quite certain that such a case would fail based on their explicit endorsement.

The comparison to AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes is not a fair analogy. That page specifically details material from the movies involved (quotations from the scripts). The Classic 100 Countdown pages are summaries of events that transpired during the countdown (check the histories). In contrast to your analogy, it's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown. Perhaps if material had been reproduced from the Symphony (printed music or an audio grab) your analogy would be better, but that hasn't happened. I haven't even gone near "fair use" aspects (yet) as the material that you are considering as part of copyright is only the starting point for all the other information attached in the list—have a look at all the other columns at Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) that aren't available on the ABC's web site.

GFHandel. 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFI doesn't have license to grant permission for the language from the scripts; they don't own that copyright. They own the ranking of quotes as well as all the other AFI lists that they've permitted, such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs. All of these are governed by the copyright release they mailed the foundation.

Opinion-based lists are copyrightable. Countdowns are opinion-based, unless they are purely formulaic (as in greatest # of sales). It's not a copyright problem to mention that "Symphony No. 9 (Choral)" was number 1 in the countdown, but it is a copyright problem to list out all 100 or even the majority of them. If they know about the articles Wikipedia (still not seeing where, as you say, "Moonriddengirl has confirmed that the ABC themselves know about the lists indicates that they are comfortable with the existence of the lists.") then they may be willing to grant permission. (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But they have to grant us permission unless our attorney tells us that we can use lists that are based on public surveys, where a preselected grouping of items is offered for ranking. As I mentioned, I've already asked her about this. But she's already told us that we are only safe using lists that are purely formulaic and that, where they are not, we must limit the number we offer to conform to fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, that opinion-based lists are copyrightable. But they are copyrightable in the sense that another entertainment medium can’t take the material and use it as if it is its own. We can write about the ABC show, just as we can write about other copyrighted works such as Mission: Impossible (film) (along with the movie poster, which is also copyrighted). You wrote in the preamble of this nom that it was a *possible* copyright violation. I suggest you get your facts concretely established before *working* this angle. Your logic is extremely dubious to me; it’s even right in the article title that we are speaking of an ABC show and discussing it as an encyclopedic treatment. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. User:Ravpapa wrote that. I didn't nominate this article for deletion, and I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept. I do, however, have a strong interest in copyright on Wikipedia; I've been working it heavily for almost three years now. We can write about copyrighted lists, but we cannot reproduce them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I caught my error and was coming back to correct it when I see you responded. Very well. The article is about a show that was a top-100 and the article mentions five of them. The ol’ reasonable man-test suggests we could write what the last five were too and still be well clear of filching anywhere near a significant portion of the work. Can we shelve the bit about copyright violations as an issue under consideration then? It doesn’t seem to be germane with the article written as it currently is. Right? Greg L (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles mention five now; they used to list all 100. :) I'm the one who abbreviated them. The reason it is under discussion still, presumably, is that GFHandel still has some concerns with that action. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw that the whole list was there. GFHandel is highly knowledgable about music and we ought not be driving away valuable editors possessing such expertise. And that can happen when they don’t understand copyright law, go over a line, and the remedy by those exhibiting authority seems overly draconian. I find a 5% limit to be erring on the side of caution—perhaps too far. The proper course here is to cut as much slack as you are comfortable with insofar as to what portion of the list can be mentioned in order to convey the nature of ABC's list. I should think that the last sixteenth and the first sixteenth (the top six and the last six) is perfectly adequate to A) convey the nature of the list, while B) leaving 7/8ths of the list off so as there is no copyright violation. Would you agree? Greg L (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick the number randomly. According to our interim attorney, listing the top 5 out of 100 may be pushing it; those are specifically figures she used prior to my ever becoming aware of this article (see Wikipedia talk:NFC#Attorney feedback). I've asked her if she can give us more concrete guidance, but it usually takes about a week to get a response and that was ~~yesterday (or~~ the day before~~; I lose track)~~ checked.. One of the problems here, and this may be confusing to those who don't follow US copyright law, is that the usage here is not remotely transformative (a problem she also noted); there is no critical commentary about the list, it is simply an article that reproduces it. Our best bet of making a good claim for fair use is to discuss the list in critical context; otherwise, we are merely competing with a financial entity. Now, they may be perfectly fine with our reproducing the list; AFI was fine with our reproducing the lists. But we can't presume that. And unless that is confirmed, we have to try to work within the guidelines offered us by legal counsel. She actually suggested that using the lower numbers is safer for us, but I'm not at all sure that most editors would be comfortable selecting, say, the bottom 10. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. What I see is that as now-trimmed, copyright violation given the current length is no longer a real concern here? Greg L (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion, yes. :) And if our interim attorney provides feedback that would make more of this okay, I'll certainly pass that along as soon as it comes in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. I had a boss years ago, who had an expression (“This is gonna be a real butt-itch”) to describe problems that were uncomfortable to deal with in public. I see there are other lists, such as Triple J Hottest 100. There are probably dozens—perhaps scores of these. I’m at a loss to discern the litmus test for what passes and what doesn’t. Good luck; it appears you are in for a trial-by-fire. :-P Greg L (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple J Hottest 100, 2009. Issues to do with why copyright is not a problem were covered there. As one editor commented: "so we should delete all election results in Wikipedia as well?" (my example: 2008_US_Presidential_Election#State_results). At some point everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the "legal" difference between A) harmless lists that summarise events (lists that attribute the source both in reference and title), and B) copyright violations where material has been reproduced that financially disadvantages the owner (e.g. text from a book or newspaper, audio and video grabs, etc.). It is unfair to coalesce summary lists like these (and they are all over WP) with copyright issues involving the dark end of the spectrum. Has a legal case ever been brought against WP for reproducing (attributed) material in a summary list? If so, was it successful? What damages do you feel the ABC would be able to claim in practice (and we both know that such a case would never approach court since the ABC have kindly directed their web page visitors to one of the lists—an explicit endorsement)? We must also not start fantasizing that this will all eventually end up in a wood-panelled court room with Perry Mason at the helm resulting in the responsible parties at WP being hauled off to Sing Sing in chains for a thirty-to-life stretch. At worst, all that would happen would be a simple desist notice, at which point the lists could be removed in (oh, say) 60 seconds. GFHandel. 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not only consider the risk to ourselves, but to the people that we encourage to reuse our content downstream, including print publications who cannot remove the list in 60 seconds. But all of this is moot. The WMF retains the services of attorneys to help address these questions. The attorney currently working with the WMF has said that with lists we are really are only safe where they are completely formulaic. As I have explained, I had already written her just to make sure with lists of this nature, where larger groups of people are polled; her answer will determine how this material is handled. This is up to our attorney. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have (more than) decimated the eight ABC Classic 100 countdown lists to prevent/reduce the possibility that some downstream entity reproduces the data, falls foul of copyright violation, and causes legal repercussion for WP. We all know that (in this case) that's a practical impossibility, however if that's your stance, there's nothing I can do. Why are you permitting the possibility of an identical problem to remain in the 23 Triple J Hottest 100 lists? In many ways, the information in those lists presents far more of a copyright risk for WP. Shouldn't it be one rule for all at WP? GFHandel. 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you about the purpose of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As to the other lists, I have not yet looked at them. I do not generally take action while awaiting attorney response; in this case, it was to prevent the deletion of the articles as a copyright problem by eliminating the copyright problem. So far as I know, they are not up for deletion. What I did here was reduce the lists as has long been custom on Wikipedia when copyright concerns are raised about lists; that other material may not have been handled appropriately doesn't really have bearing--we don't have a central overview of new content (ala WP:OTHERSTUFF). You seem to be convinced that the souce would approve of the use of the list; have you written them to ask for permission yet? If they license the content, the issue of copyright goes away no matter what our attorney may say about the underlying issue (although, of course, notability concerns may persist.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not yet looked at them..."—well now's your chance. You've opened all of our eyes to the dreadful danger that these lists represent, and none of us should rest easily while all that copyright information is blatantly displayed. I will start the process of asking the ABC—is there a template for the release of the copyright information, and where should the ABC send it? GFHandel. 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template; it's at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and the e-mail address is listed there. It includes all the information necessary; please ask them to specify that they are releasing all of their lists or to indicate which ones. Generally, there may be up to a week in processing, but if you notify me that they've sent in permission, I'll be happy to try to facilitate that. As to the other articles, I will undoubtedly be looking at them if our attorney says we can't use them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I will start the process. Why not reduce each of the 23 Triple-J lists to five entries to eliminate/reduce the possibility of problems which might arise from downstream copyright-related issues (now that you are aware of their existence)? GFHandel. 01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems we must; I have now heard back from our attorney. She affirms that copyright concerns exist in survey lists of this type and confirms that with survey articles "any use of them should be guided by fair use principles". (More detail at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. The OTRS template was not logged at each page; I'm remedying that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the ABC detailing the issue and asked them to complete the template releasing the information for use on WP. Would it be possible to delay the delete proceedings until a response is heard (at least for a reasonable amount of time)? GFHandel. 06:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be closing this one since I don't like to mix my copyright work with other admin proceedings, generally, but it really shouldn't matter to the AfD in general. By reducing the lists, I have removed the copyright urgency, so really this AfD should work on notability alone. If the ABC grants permission, the full lists can be restored anytime. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: You wrote above: "Oh, we don't have to after all; we have permission for those. …" What are "those" for which we have permission? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's referring to the Triple J Hottest 100 lists. OTRS permission was received for these but only logged onto one of the lists, Talk:Triple J Hottest 100, 1989, instead of all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; sorry for the confusing pronoun. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Per the above thread, copyright concerns are no longer an issue here. So…)The community is trying to build the project here. An article on music will be of little interest to someone interested in cartoons or guns. We have articles on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and have articles on individual Rocky & Bullwinkle episodes, such as Metal-Munching Mice. This idea of *notabilty* is a giant gray area. Like a Supreme Court justice once said about defining pornograhy: “I know it when I see it.” The article in question, “Classic 100 original (ABC)” is of just as much interest to those readers as “Metal-Munching Mice” is to its readership. Wikipedia, now at 6,818,211 articles, is an electronic encyclopedia; it isn’t a print version that has to fit into two meters of shelf space. There is ample electronic white space for niche articles on music just as there is on individual episodes of The Simpsons or Rocky & Bullwinkle. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This could not possibly be considered notable. There could be almost any number of articles about polls like this, whuch would have been barely interesting to (the small number of) listeners at the time. At least there can only be one article on fictitious television characters (who are of much greater interest to our readers, especially our female readers, who we are accused of alienating).--Grahame (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does there need to be an audit of such lists throughout WP, then? Tony (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created nine of these deletion requests, one for each of the Classic 100 articles, believing that this was an open and shut case. What a fool I was! There are now nine deletion discussions, all of which are covering exactly the same arguments. Can some smart administrator merge these into one deletion discussion? Thanks --Ravpapa (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Greg L notes that this article is no less notable than The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. As one who have absolutely no interest in the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, who has never seen it, and who has no desire to see it, I have to agree with him. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two articles. The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show is a collection of information from a variety of sources; it is an article about the show. This article, on the other hand, is not about the Classic 100 Original list; it is the Classic 100 original list. It is simply a beautified copy of the work that ABC has done, with no added value whatsoever.

I suggest that, if the community deems this list of value to the encyclopedia, it go out and find some information about it. Perhaps there are news articles which discuss its value, or that analyze the way the list is generated? Otherwise, there is absolutely no logic in simply copying the content of another organization's website to the Wikipedia and calling it an article. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a really good point -- TV series episode lists are just extensions of the main articles. These lists are just kind of...flaoting lists with no real context, especially as, as someone said, they are just one random radio station's version of something that happens with MANY stations. If the lists aren't covered in multiple places as being somehow different (i.e. more notable) than any other, there's no real point to these articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...with no added value whatsoever"—"the Classic 100 original" list is the oldest and simplest of the lot (and it is a pity this discussion is being held on its talk page). Have a look at the state of the most recent of the countdowns (before it was brutalised in copyright paranoia): the Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) countdown. Value was most definitely being added. The articles are all under constant change and of course, there is no deadline at WP. GFHandel. 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GFHandel has a point. The value that the Wikipedia article adds to the list is (1) the ability to sort the list by various criteria, and (2) links to other Wikipedia articles on the specific works cited. There is no informational value added, but I suppose that technological bells and whistles count for something.

My initial impression, when I encountered these articles, was that they were created by someone from ABC, and their sole purpose was to encourage readers to click on the link to the ABC website. I now realize that this impression was wrong. GFHandel, at least, one of the main architects of these articles, does not appear to be in the employ of ABC, and is a serious editor. I understand from his comments on this page, and, obliquely, from his comments on my talk page that he believes sincerely and even passionately that these articles add value to the encyclopedia.

I am by temperament an inclusionist when it comes to deciding what should be in the encyclopedia. Therefore, though I still believe these articles are mere listspam, I am changing my vote from Delete to Uncommitted. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep—I don't have time right now to run through the full arguments about copyright, etc, but it does seem to be an unfortunate consequence of WP's policies and guidelines if this can't be kept, especially when the broadcaster appears to be right on board with the existence of the WP article, via their website and live-radio comments. Ravpapa, please note, the noun is "the ABC", not "ABC", which is used as the noun-title for the US company. Tony (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia is also an almanac. These lists are a typical part of those; there's added value here, as GFHandel points out, through links and sortability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Uncommitted to Keep: Having set off this storm, I realize now it is a tempest in a teapot. Because these articles are so marginal that they hardly seem worth the debate. It is a rare day that any of these Classic 100 articles generate more than three or four hits, less than articles on such extremely marginal figures as Johann Gottlieb Graun or Walter Willson Cobbett. This is perfectly understandable: why would anyone look in the Wikipedia for information on the ABC surveys, rather than at the ABC website itself? In a Google search for "Classic 100 Piano", the Wikipedia article does not even show up on the first three pages.

Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me. But, nonetheless, I say, leave them be - they only take up disk space, no more harm than that. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reintroducing me to a genuinely rare event on WP: an editor who is willing to adapt their thinking and actions based on investigation. Regarding "Why anyone would invest time working on an article that no one will read is a mystery to me"—the corridors of human knowledge have many dark and remote corners. It's nice that WP can have something to offer those who want to find those places. Once again, thank you. GFHandel. 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ravpapa's vote change rationale strikes me as a bit idiosyncratic, as it seems no solid justification has been advanced based on WP policies, but a variant of WP:NOHARM, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Note that this is not America's Got Talent, and the number of hits generated by any article is completely irrelevant to whether an article deserves to be kept or deleted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question for GFHandel: How does this list differ from Zagat's list of the 50 best restaurants in New York? Should that list also have an article in the Wikipedia? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when it does have an article on WP, and we can have this discussion. If you did want a pre-emptive point of difference, how about: unlike a list of restaurants, the Classic 100 have no commercial interests? GFHandel. 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was coverage of the poll itself in Stephens, Tony; Wyld, Ben (21 November 2001), "Play It Again, Wolfgang, Australia's Favourite Decomposer", Sydney Morning Herald, "Mozart Bach to the future", Gold Coast Bulletin, 22 November 2001 and Bray, David (8 February 2002), "ABC Classic FM this week released the...", Courier-Mail along with smaller pieces "ABC Mozart gets his wind up", Herald-Sun, 23 November 2001 and "Mozart tops", MX (Australia), 21 November 2001. There was an eight cd box set of the results released which was reviewed in The Australian (2 March 2002 by Deborah Jones). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 opera (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was an eight cd box set of the results released which were reviewed in The Courier-Mail (20 April 2006 by Patricia Kelly), Knox Leader (23 May 2006 by Scott Abrahams) Sunday Herald Sun (7 May 2006 by Bob Crimeen), The Bulletin (19 April 2006 by Anthony Clarke). There was also concerts for the poll which was previewed in Kroslava, Katarina (26 March 2006), "Opera hit list", Sun Herald. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC)[edit]

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

Not notable, and possible copyright vio. Almost entire article is a copy of the list on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 2 March 2011

Comment on copyright question: I have no opinion on the overall appropriateness of the list, but copyright concerns seem valid if the ABC offered a list of candidates from which the ranking was selected. Coincidentally, I have a question in to our associate counsel at this very moment concerning such survey lists in conjunction with User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. (If the list were the opinion of employees of ABC there would be no question of copyright; the question here involves when an organization offers a finite group of candidates which are then ranked by survey.) I've truncated the list to the top 5, even though per attorney feedback there may be issues with fair use in that, since the top 5 of the list is the most commercially valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about these lists. Many classical stations have exercises of this kind, e.g. Classic FM (UK) which has been running five years longer than the ABC one and has attracted independent coverage in the UK. The only coverage I've found for the ABC lists is by the station itself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons detailed at the Classic 100 Original delete discussion page. GFHandel. 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 original (ABC). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 5 March 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.