< 14 October 16 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing this article as per a discussion about this particular closure, and comments regarding how it was possibly inappropriate. I have reviewed this AfD, and find the AfD was closed correctly as a keep. The arguments I have seen below seem to revolve around the actual definition of "Wife selling" and what is included in that and not, and also geographic locations where this occurred, and sexism + WP:NPOV in this article. I won't pretend like I understand it all 100% absolutely, but it seems to me that even if a group did it or not ('not' being individuals practicing all over the place), it still has occurred from what looks like to me in several places none the less, and doesn't challenge it's notability. Whether the sources are all correct or not, I think is beyond the scope of possible discussion here and short of us getting an expert, is the best we can do. The possible sources to back up and support certain parts of the text I think is still up for discussion and should continue, but as said below we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not just delete it. I also see some points below that shockingly have some editors losing civility and I don't endorse that with this discussion, and should be averted. But the general consensus on this article, and the arguments reaching for and against, turn to be a keep. Also remember, NPOV and Notability can be fixed, and are not primary reasons to delete or turn an article to a dab. As for the original research and the synthesis of sources, again this is something that can be discussed and fixed. I am not blowing them over, they are important in themselves, but at the moment I would have to go to a library and pull out a book and look at it to tell whether this is happening, and administrators are not here to 'moderate' content per what they think a book says, the editors should be able to do this themselves. If needed this can go to Dispute resolution or another relevant noticeboard and get community comment, not just one administrator. Also as should be clearly obvious this is not an endorsement of the current article, but as an editable article that can be improved, as any other Wikipedia article should be viewed. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wife selling

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wife selling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an article and never could be. It is simply a collection of original research, synthesis and perhaps asides in some feminist books. The fact that various legal systems have treated women as property is not relevant, unless there are scholarly historical sources discussing the practice of "wife selling". There is to my (somewhat educated) knowledge, no record of this in antiquity. The whole "Schmidt" quotes about the Judeo-Christian tradition treating woman as property is true, but irrelevant. Sexism is not "wife selling". The whole things seems to be original research either of the creator or of one German scholar.

Please disregard the first nomination which seems to have been a joke. Scott Mac 00:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was for a different article, now renamed wife selling (English custom), which attracted some controversy after being the April 1 TFA, not this article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well can we redirect this article to wife selling (English custom) until such times as someone writes a competent general article (if that ever happens).--Scott Mac 00:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid we can't as someone wrote wife selling (Chinese custom) to make a point. The only two options are to revert this article to the disambiguation page it was or to write a proper general article on the subject, which this clearly is not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK< either works for me. Shall we close this and revert for now?--Scott Mac 01:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that would cause all sorts of problems as well. For some reason this has become a bit of a battleground. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding coat-racking: I wasn't disputing that the information was not in the sources, it was after all quoted, just the relevance. Does Schmidt say the Romans practised wife selling? Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I supplied the Roman content (on the husband's power over his wife and his right to repudiate her without her having a corresponding right against him) as history relevant to wife selling. I had no intention of extending what Schmidt said on point to something he did not say within his attribution and did not; rather, I supplied it as background. It was not important enough to retain in the article, but, as it did not deneutralize the article, it was not coatracking. Since it was deleted before the nomination and, to my knowledge, has not been proposed by anyone for re-adding, its relevance to this AfD is unknown. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an example of the problems with the article since its inception. The way the information was presented gave the impression that the Romans practised wife selling rather than conveyed as background detail. Another example is the final sentence of the criticism section. How does Schmidt relate "sexist theology" to wife selling? Does he suggest that wife selling was inevitable under sexist theologies? Nev1 (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was never a celebration of Schmidt; Schmidt is a source. The more relevant question is what is known about the subject of wife selling. Schmidt contributed to that knowledge with a citable source, and I don't apologize for providing it, but also don't object to its past deletion. If only a rephrasing would have provided better clarity, as your comment hints, that is a better and more frequent solution than article deletion. An example consisting of content deleted before nomination is not relevant, since probably most articles have had worse content that was later deleted, such as vandalized articles, and we don't delete articles because they had been vandalized and then reverted to good content.
  • The Criticism section clarifies (as of when you posted) that wife selling is sexist because of the property relationship. Inevitability is not necessary. An average person doesn't inevitably get cancer from smoking tobacco but its relationship is important nonetheless. Normative sexism is relevant to wife selling (absent husband selling, of which, for the English custom, source author Thompson found no more than 5 cases compared to some 400 wife selling cases). Arguably, the last sentence could be moved up within the section.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked what the relevance of "sexist theology" was and you have failed to address the issue. As well as avoiding the matter, you seem to have misunderstood my point. I was not stating that inevitability was or had to be involved, I was asking for Schmidt's explanation of the link between sexist theology and wife selling and proffered an (unrealistic) example. Serious concerns about the construction of the article remain. Nev1 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subjection of wives to sale by husbands was, according to Schmidt as given in the article, "a consequence of her being a man's property", based on a religious Commandment and accompanied by religious believers' "produc[ed] ... 'sexist theology'", and inferiority and inequality are "'negative'". Since that is about the subjecting of wives to sale by husbands, that describes wife selling, at least in Hebrew/Christian communities. If wife selling is criticizable as sexist, that criticism may be given, and Schmidt made a citable connection. Nev1, if you were proferring that example in your post as an "unrealistic" example, your intent was reasonably misunderstood, and hopefully you'll choose better examples in the future. Any other concerns with the article can be addressed, as they have been when identified. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wives were never "property" (res) in ancient Rome; in the Archaic period, a wife as well as a man's SONS and daughters were subject to the male head of household's absolute legal power (paterfamilias). But this is not the same as being "property" as slaves were, and wives were not "sold" (unless you count these shenanigans or nexum, debt bondage). Theoretically, the paterfamilias could sell his children into slavery, and presumably his wife, but this was, um, frowned upon among respectable families. In the period we most often think of when we hear "ancient Rome" (2nd century BC–2nd century AD), women had clearly delineated legal rights, could own property and conduct business, retained their own property when they divorced, and were considered part of their original birth family, never subject to their husband's absolute authority. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An exchange is no less a sale because payment is by debt relief. It is studied differently in history because debt characteristically differs from cash, but a wife sale is not limited to cash sales.
  • The Holy Roman Empire, of roughly a millennium-plus later, may be more relevant.
  • A conflict among sources justifies citing all significant views in the article. If one good source says wife sales occurred in a community and another says they did not, both can be reported. If an editor trusts some sources more than others, that the latter meet Wikipedia's standards means both sets of sources can and should still be cited, with the key differences in views stated. Please provide the citations for the positions.
  • Frowns among the respected are not the same as sales not occurring. The respected in many cultures were often people with more financial security and thus less likelihood of selling wives if that option was known. The English custom was practiced among the working class and not generally the aristocracy, who had other choices.
  • Marcia's case seems too uncertain for use. If nexum was for self or son only, then it probably doesn't belong in the article, although related.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Papal critique was limited to the English custom (I don't have that information), then it probably should be moved to the English custom article. If his critique was of anyone else's practice with or without the English, then it should stay. If you have a source that changes the essence of his critique, then we should post it, probably alongside the present citation, for balance in understanding the Papal position.
  • The Tacitus information may belong in the article. If that can be provided in a form suitable for posting, please do; it can go alongside existing content.
  • We're not trying to say that an author said the practice was sexist when the word wasn't used by that author. Categorizing does not depend on attribution to a person as asserting category membership. If what sources describe fits the definition of a word, then the word may be used (without quotation marks) for that description.
  • Other points were addressed above.
  • Nick Levinson (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my points at all, and I'm disappointed that you think so. (The thing about Marcia was a jest; clearly she was in on the scam.) In one article I worked on, I've had to revert the deletion of the word "misogynistic" three times. The phrase was "misogynistic slang" to describe a particular Latin word for "prostitute." Now, Latin has dozens of words for "prostitute"; some are meant to be degrading and contemptuous, some are neutral, and some are playful or even affectionate. The modern scholarship I cited (which was on law and linguistics, and not from the perspective of feminist theory) explicitly labeled this word "misogynistic"; an ancient Roman would've understood that he chose this word for "prostitute" instead of one of the others available to him because it expressed contempt. When some WP editors see the word "misogyny", however, they automatically censor it. Androcentric scholarship needs to be balanced by feminist criticism. And yet when you abuse scholarship in order to make a political point, you only bolster the misogyny-deniers, and make it harder for those of us who do women's history from a neutral point of view with the goal of understanding and representing women's lives in the past. Apart from the English and Chinese material, the article on "wife selling" simply lacks sufficient scholarship. It relies far too much on Schmidt. I can only find one source that mentions Gregory's letter to Archbishop Lanfranc on "wife selling" (which for all I know is where Schmidt gets this crazy notion that the ancient Germans sold their wives to the Romans),[1] but yes, it's in reference to England. Wikipedia does not publish the assertion of a single scholar that cannot be confirmed by either primary evidence or other scholarship; that's most certainly fringe at its finest. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The words misogyny and sexism are indeed inflammatory in Wikipedia, but they're the words we have for categorizing. In other contexts, we can use a phrase or a paragraph and that might be either more or less inflammatory, but that option does not apply to categorizing. The denials are in error and effectively create a demand for research and clarity to show what already fits the definitions of the two terms, and even that might not be enough; the wife selling (English custom) article already had content sufficient for either category and yet a few editors are against both categories.
I didn't abuse scholarship. I used what was available and within standards and did so accurately. Publishers may each have different standards; Wikipedia has one set. A physics journal may not accept many citations to medical journals and both of them may reject press citations, but those journals serve different purposes. Wikipedia draws on a wider range of sources. I used Schmidt because his work was available; I'm happy to use more when available. For frequently-published points, citing more sources is feasible, but if only one source is available then we can still cite that one.
For where Schmidt got his information about the Germans, I don't know if you used n. 4 in this article revision (preceding your post). Since he cites something with a title that appears to be in German, I assume the cited work is itself in German; if so, I'm not qualified to read it, but we can accept his judgment of the cited work, that being a norm of Wikipedia on secondary sources and the analyses and evaluations they contain.
Whether the Papal letter was on the English custom was not my question; whether it was only on the English custom was. The "only" mattered for deciding which article should reference it. For example, if the letter was about the practice anywhere even with special attention to that in England, then it was not only on England and therefore should be referenced in the global article.
WP:FRINGE applies to that which is contrary to the mainstream. In this case, silence is the mainstream, not necessarily because of a plot but more likely because studies tend to focus on current phenomena and those in history that are relevant to the present day. That a subject is studied by only one source does not make its content fringe.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (Minor corrections: 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
OK, name one society other than England and China in which "wife selling" was a documentable practice among an identifiable social group, and describe both (A) what the modern scholarship says and (B) what kind of primary evidence they're using. That is what I'm not seeing in the current article. This is no diss of Kaldari, whom I admire and respect. Pace Nick above, for "wife selling" to exist as a practice other than debt bondage or indentured servitude, it has to be shown that there was a particular and regular practice of a husband selling his wife that can be distinguished from poor, desperate or depraved people selling themselves or members of their family in general into forms of servitude (within which I would include sexual servitude or prostitution). Nobody seems able to point to these societies, other than Schmidt's vague assertions (which are demonstrably false unnuanced in the case of Roman law, and contrary to the ancient testimonia in the case of the Germans). Again, it is indeed "fringe" if only one scholar says it. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To cite a secondary source does not require us to cite the primary sourcing upon which it relies; indeed, a statement in a secondary source can be secondary even though not easily traceable to a primary source. It is, for Wikipedia, under WP:PSTS, secondary because it is at least one step removed from primary sourcing, meaning it can rely on primary sources or on the author's analysis and evaluations of primary sourcing. In practice, as a courtesy, I often cite the sourcing on which a source relies, but that could be said to be redundant, since a Wikipedia reader presumably can retrieve the main referent without knowing the further referents quite yet.
Wife selling is the 'selling of wives' even without desperation, prostitution, or being done by "depraved people"; indeed, the last would either be redundant because anyone doing it is depraved by definition of depravity or irrelevant to the definition of wife selling if not (although interesting as a subarea of study). That it was done to relieve debt does not alter that the wife was sold in those instances for payment, even though no cash changed hands at that moment, just as if a wife were sold on credit (payment in the past and payment in the future are both payments in an economist's view). The means and timing of payment, economic conditions, and moral comparisons are interesting for motivational and other studies, but are not of the definitional essence of wife selling.
Significant minority views are reportable in Wikipedia, albeit without undue weight . Thus, a source saying the Germans did not sell wives is reportable, as is Schmidt's saying they did.
The Roman discussion seems off-point, since if the German case is true the Romans bought wives and the article content deleted before the AfD nomination and not proposed for re-adding is irrelevant to this discussion (as explained in response to user Nev1). However, the Women in Ancient Rome article is, at first glance,interesting; perhaps, if the Roman context is somehow relevant, someone can extract sourcing from that article for use in this one, since WP articles themselves are not permitted as sources for WP articles.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC) (Minor correction: 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(Sighs, and weighs the relative merits of intellectual integrity and appearing to side with bloviating bullies) I'm finding ample RS to support Wife selling (Chinese custom). Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Or did you just need to get that off your chest? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start a talk page for this AfD, so I can post some lengthy notes without detracting from the poll on this page. These are notes I've made the last several hours as I attempted to verify the existence of this topic and/or the existence of wife selling outside England (or English colonies) and China. I hope that those who vote "keep" will share the scholarship that has convinced them of the topic's verifiability. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... I have now been inspired by this discussion to add a series of related articles, by country, or culture, where the practise has been perpetuated: Afghanistan, Mexico, India, Vietnam, Zambia, etc.. We could pick and pull at semantics, like the differences or similarities between bride price, dowry, bride selling, bride buying, arranged marriage, child brides, royal brides, and so on. There are already a few articles on Wikipedia for some of those related topics. Since there's a historical, cultural and geographic validity to the articles being discussed in original request for deletion, then why delete them? I think they should stay. And yes, I'm completely serious about writing up the new articles....OttawaAC (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people use the word "semantics" in the sense that you've done, implying that it's just nit-picking. But in truth semantics is about meaning, not at all trivial. Surely you would agree that one of the primary characteristics of a practice called wife selling is that it involves a wife being sold? Not a bride or an arranged marriage, but the sale of a wife. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Aside: I added a blurb with sources for stuff on some cultures with bride-selling practises over on the Talk tab.) Semantics: It matters and it doesn't, such are the paradoxes of life. Whether we are discussing "bride selling" implying a virgin woman or child sold to a husband, or "wife selling" implying an already deflowered woman being sold to a husband; whether we use the terms "dowry", "bride price", "child bride", "arranged marriage", "concubine" and so on, it all boils down to cultural practises that allow for women/girls to be sold like chattel to the highest bidder. They are simple variations within the wider category of merchandising a uterus that someone else (parents, human traffickers, disgruntled husbands) want to unload for a profit. In my opinion. So if there's documentation that the practise exists (or existed), I don't see a problem with keeping a standalone article that examines it in a national context. If someone thinks these are "garbage" articles because they don't have enough sources, then why not purge all stub articles? OttawaAC (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wife-selling in Iraq is mentioned in the paragraph on "pleasure marriages" in the Women in Iraq article. Linking directly to the USA Today article...[2]. Virginity not essential, apparently. OttawaAC (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the concept of wife selling, certainly as it applied in England. It wasn't about selling chattels but about a practical form of divorce. Hence all of the public ritual that surrounded it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See overleaf ... Discussion tab, I added links to solid historians' sources for wife-selling in France, United States (1) colonial era and (2) Slavic immigrants in 19C, Japan/Hawaii, Australia colonial era, and there must be more. There's a handful of standalone articles right there, and some citations that I can pop into the main article that's been red-flagged for deletion here. This looks like a hasty railroading of a significant aspect of women's history off from Wikipedia and down into the memory hole. Not much was done to seach the Web and confirm that the historical evidence was non-existent. So what is the justification for deleting this article now? Back to the semantics for a second... is "divorce" being conflated with selling chattel? Depends upon whether you're the one on the auction block, whichever word you would choose to describe the situation. OttawaAC (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't, you just think you did. Take the case of Slavs in the USA, for instance. What evidence have you found for a Slavic custom of wife selling? The answer is of course is none. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lies and calumny. You saw my cited source on the Discussion page (Rowland Berthoff, "Republic of the Dispossessed", published 1997), page 106, footnote 81, he lists 13 separate newspaper articles mentioning examples in the United States among Slav immigrants from the 1840s to the late 1800s. I don't think that makes the practice exceedingly rate among that social group. It appears to me to be an obvious reflection of the fact that chattel marriage and polygamy were widespread in pre-Christian Europe among the Slavs as well as Teutons and Celts (I won't do the heavy lifting for you by citing direct sources for that info, as it can be found easily enough with a Web search, with plenty of historical writing on the subject). Why else would the Slav immigrants practice the custom in America? Did they learn it from the English? Just another custom from pagan days, like Morris dancing and the Easter bunny. If there are historians' works that give evidence that's good enough for me and apparently Wikipedia, since there's a policy here against original research, so I don't feel the need to go beyond reliable historians' published work...OttawaAC (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said what I have to say about this, but I agree with Malleus. I can't believe you would take a single mention of anti-immigrant rhetoric that accused Slavs of selling their wives in odd cases (not even as a regular practice) as proof that Slavs engaged in wife selling. The logic here seems to be that murder is a Swedish custom, because Swedes commit murders. But murder is committed among nearly all peoples; that a few individuals commit it doesn't make it an identifiable practice of a particular ethnic group or nation. Compare the hefty amount of scholarship used to compile Wife selling (English custom) to these kinds of scattered, questionable mentions that are often driven by ethnic prejudice. If a practice is verifiable and notable, it will be verifiable in more than one source; if not, it's probably a fringe position or scholarly error (these are made, and I suspect Schmidt of making them). I'm also not keen on the sloppy thinking here. Content on men selling their daughters as brides goes in bride-buying or other articles; a man's daughter is not his wife. Content on societies with a documentable practice of a man selling his wife because of the particular (quasi-)legal status of "wife" goes here. If a man might sell his wife or daughter (or son, or himself) to pay off or secure a loan, then that is not "wife selling", because it is not specific to "wifeness"; it goes in another article that deals more broadly with human trafficking or trafficking women or debt bondage. Lots of synth, coatracking, and POV-pushing going on here. Nobody's saying that there aren't men who sell their wives, but this is about defining "wife selling" as a topic distinct from bride-buying (which already exists, so this would be a content fork susceptible to a merge) or other trafficking in women. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying to discuss this on two separate pages (wasn't my idea though). On the Discussion page you mention only 10 cases of wife-selling documented in England between 1690-1750. Over a similar timespan of a few decades, there were 13 documented cases among U.S. Slav immigrants(named in contemporary newspapers, including ones published by the immigrant communities themselves). Yet 10 cases in a larger population constitutes an "English custom" (your description), whereas 13 cases in a smaller, recent immigrant population is some kind of ethnic trashing? No, not logical. You seem to be framing Berthoff's narrative as the anti-Slav diatribe, my reading of that passage of his book is that he says there was "notoriety" attached by the American-born people to an actual verifiable practice among the immigrants; and by "odd" he's saying it was perceived as "strange". I don;t know what order of frequency is being demanded here to prove that a practice is a custom... 1/300 wives being sold? 1/50,000? Whatever the prejudices of the era, it was too repetitive to be coincidental, and I think burying the evidence is a kind of politically correct whitewashing of the historical facts. I don't think it can be denied that there's good reason to look into the possibility that the Slav "custom" was brought from Europe. Just like the English brought it to Australia and colonial America. Or is that ethnic bashing against the English in the colonies to mention that? I'd love to open up another can of worms and see if the selling of concubines as chattel counts as wife-selling (or are lesser, secondary wives not able to be counted as wife-selling?)... in Siam, the main wife could inherit the concubines and their kids and sell them after the husband died...OttawaAC (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be interesting to brainstorm on such things, but concubinage already has its own article (which could use some development). My goal was to keep the focus here on criteria for deletion, and to use the talk page for wrestling with specific content arguments. "English custom" isn't "my" description; it's what Wife selling (English custom) is called. "Odd" in the sentence under consideration does not mean "strange, bizarre," but rather "unusual, happening infrequently," as in "The school escaped most of the contagious diseases going around, except for the odd case of measles"; this usage is perhaps more British than American. The issue here isn't the number of occurrences, but the amount of RS. All Berthoff says is that a few Slavs are reported to have sold their wives in late 19th-century America, which hardly supports the highly original conclusion that a Slavic custom of wife-selling dates back to pagan antiquity. (Berthoff himself isn't immigrant-bashing! He's recording what people said and did in the past. Not so long ago—some of us were actually alive then—there used to be an academic discipline called "history.") However, a sufficient accumulation of verifiable incidents that can be distinguished from bride-buying etc. might convince me to keep the article. But only if claims are confined to what the sources actually say; no leaping to original conclusions neither stated nor implied by the sources. I usually think the dangers of synth are exaggerated, but some proponents of this article seem eager to indulge in vast synthesis ("wife or daughter, dowry or debt bondage, it's all bad stuff that happens to women") with the stated goal of getting a socio-political message across. If I support the politicizing of an article because I agree with the message, how can I oppose the politicizing of an article when I find the message repugnant? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the only editor of the article, but my general practice is to use Google, Wikipedia, and library catalogues and my knowledge of many sources I've read over the years, not in that order of priority, to identify some sources for Wikipedia and then eventually to get the sources themselves rather than rely on Google or Amazon page displays, because originals are often more reliable, being full; in some cases, generally for serials, I use full-text databases. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC) (Clarified by adding "general": 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
There may be merit in a comprehensive summary article, but it has been demonstrated that this is not it. Nev1 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace communication

[edit]
Workplace communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although I can not find the source, this article gives me the feeling that it is copied from somewhere else. Especially the end of the article gives me that impression. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 October 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. Tone 23:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick of Joseph

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Stick of Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not verifiable nor notable, This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them Communilees (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient coverage to describe the subject. JORGENEV 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Kylfingers (talk) 18:08, 20 October 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 as a blatant hoax. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bridgestock

[edit]
Nicholas Bridgestock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was Prodded with a rationale: This article is a hoax, Nicholas Bridgestock is fictitious. He is not mentioned in Parliamentary Socialism or A Short History of the Labour Party two of the books falsely listed as sources. Nor are there any references I can find to him elsewhere.

Prod was removed by IP with rationale: This article is not a hoax, the new world order are attempting to conceal evidence of this mans existence

Procedural nomination. GB fan 22:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I previously left a couple of comments on the talk pages of the article creator and - spot the connection! - the IP address mentioned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 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 WP:SNOW v/r - TP 12:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law of commodity value

[edit]
Law of commodity value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD (and other tags) removed by author. Looks like a vanity article promoting a non-notable neologism. None of the references look relevant to demonstrating the notability of the concept/neologism in this context. The alleged economist behind this doesn't even have an article or get any hits in Google Scholar (assuming the person of the same name with a patent on purifying waste gasses is not the same person). Almost all of the Google Books/Scholar hits for "Law of commodity value" refer to Karl Marx and none that I have found so far refer to this guy. DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparent neologism, already deleted [3], giving the appearance that author is shopping this under different titles. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author blanked the page, but only after attempting to insert his research elsewhere [4]. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add Commodity valuation, under the above deletion umbrella. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 October 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. Tone 23:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yume Nikki

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yume Nikki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is lacking. The game ranked #14 on a download list; a couple of people in the game world have mentioned it and there have been a couple of reviews, not in top sources. Such a requirement would be met by thousands of games. Essentially the coverage is not significant in the context of computer games. However, this could be established if better sources were found, or some award won. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be examined in light of the previous nominations, which I wasn't aware of when nominating. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Society of the People's Republic of China

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Society of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTESSAY;WP:OR;WP:SYN. Most of this can be merged to other articles; It looks like a nice soup of different information that we have on other articles synthesized into its own article. Curb Chain (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"chinese communist society" is not "Society of the People's Republic of China". The number of hits is also irrelevant.Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for blatant copyright violation. Comment. The lead is copied verbatim from this blurb from "Country studies" of the Library of Congress ("Society" section). The section on "Ethnic boundaries" comes from a section of that name from the same website.[5] And we have the same problem for "Han diversity and unity,"[6] "Traditional society and culture,"[7] "Social change,"[8]] and presumably all the other sections. I still think this topic deserves its own page, but Right now this wiki is an exact copy of the Library of Congress "Country study" on China. As such, it deserves speedy deletion. That apparently doesn't warrant deletion, because Library of Congress Country Studies are in the public domain, but the content is just not good enough to be kept as it is. If we move the content to Wikisource (as Curb Chain suggests), someone can rephrase some of this information into something more manageable and we can work from there. I'm not sure what can be done in this can of case... Madalibi (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can move it to Wikisource.Curb Chain (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good option, actually. That way we could keep the text somewhere where it can be easily consulted, but in a way that would not mislead our readers. The bibliography should be moved as well, since it presumably comes from the same source as the text. Still, I would prefer to move the content rather than delete the entire page. For one thing, this topic is still notable, and the current page has a salvageable bibliography that could help to rewrite this page. Madalibi (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just blanked a few more sections that were about China before the founing of the PRC in 1949, but the article is still more than 60,000-bytes long and still suffers from all the problems mentioned above. Incidentally, the whole text of the article was pasted in a single edit in November 2007[9] and hasn't changed significantly since. The page creator immediately tagged it as outdated (template: ((update))), but this tag was later removed. So the entire article is still a verbatim copy of a single outdated source. Very misleading indeed, and I'm wavering in my "Keep" vote... Madalibi (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese culture existed for thousands of years. The People's Republic of China on the other hand has existed probably less than 100 years. If you think that Chinese society has changed massively due to the communist takeover which is largely political, I think you are sorely wrong.Curb Chain (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of such a tiny event as a Cultural Revolution? And your comment proves that you have not read the article, as for example the section "Social change" deals with those changes. How can one consider such a very informative para, rather representative of the article, unencyclopedic, is beyond me. In case you'll complain that the article is poorly referenced: " Enormous changes took place in Chinese society after the Communist rise to power in 1949". And this is hardly a one-of-a-kind source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cultural Revolution was quickly undone years after
==Social change== does not have a single reference
"Enormous changes took place in Chinese society after the Communist rise to power in 1949." is only one sentence, in one book, at the beginning of a paragraph.Curb Chain (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think any quick search on Google Books will show that this topic is worthy of its own wiki (see this, for example). This topic is clearly notable, and there's a lot to say about it. But the problem is not notability, it's content. Right now, the entire page is a direct copy of a single outdated source. I have therefore changed my vote to "Delete" above. I was saying keep the bibliography, but it's also outdated, and the references are too incomplete to be very helpful. I do hope, however, that someone will recreate this page and write something better on this very important topic! Madalibi (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese society currently redirects to this page. I am skeptical that the subject matter of that search is not a rewording of "culture". Are the only articles on these "society" articles the 3 you mentioned?; I find it hard to believe that this is not a conflation of "society" and "culture".Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, which three articles do you mean? Madalibi (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, thanks. Yes, I did mention those three above. I didn't mean they were the main reason why we should have a page on PRC society. They're just examples of what can be done with the theme "Society of..." The main question we need to ask when we're trying to decide if a topic deserves its own page is: is this topic covered in a sufficient number of independent reliable sources? In this case, the answer is definitely yes. A large number of sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and historians have studied post-1949 Chinese society. I can think of issues like the One-child policy, Ethnic groups in China, Migrant workers, Demographics of the People's Republic of China, People's communes, Floating population, Urbanization in China, Work units, as well as a number of topics that don't have their own wiki: agrarian reforms, the division of society into "classes," marriage and gender issues, wealth inequality, the nouveau riche, etc. In other words, there are tons of material to write a page on "Society of the People's Republic of China" even if only a few decades have elapsed since 1949. But I agree with your assessment of the current page, and this is why I voted delete. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I find these instruments have affected the Chinese population, but I don't think it has affected the Chinese people as a society. These are political instruments, and the Chinese have a deep attachment to their culture that society or sociological aspects do not penetrate.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say urbanization, floating population, work units, registration into "ethnic nationalities," imbalances between boys and girls, and current forms of labor are all new characteristics of Chinese society regardless of how they started. This is not a referendum on whether the essence of Chinese society has changed since 1949. You may be right about society as a whole, but as long as reliable sources discuss modern Chinese society, then modern Chinese society deserves its own wiki. This is all I'm trying to say! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But China is a polity. When we refer to Chinese, we refer to the han chinese. Otherwise, I see no compartmentalization of society and culture. Ethnic minorities within in China's territory would not call themselves Chinese.Curb Chain (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Society of the People's Republic of China" should refer to all social phenomena in the PRC that have been discussed by reliable sources, not restrictively to Han Chinese. And I'm not sure I get your point about the conflation of society and culture. Forms of labor, "class struggle," the one-child policy, population migrations, etc. are forms of social organization and interaction. Sure, they're infused with cultural meaning, but everything everywhere is. In any case I think we're getting a little far from the AfD! I propose we move this to some talk page, perhaps mine? Madalibi (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering China is a one party system, I don't think these policies imposed on the people inhabiting the Chinese territory accept these changes to their "society" as chosen. This is a political imposition is all I'm saying. To take your example of class, this could be a custom not a sociological aspect. Take the Indian Caste system. This is cultural, not sociological. That's what I mean the conflation of society and culture.Curb Chain (talk) 09:38, 22 October 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 Shii (tock) 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Adult Presence

[edit]
Friendly Adult Presence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little-known term and not notable. I found zero hits in Google News and Google Books for this term. Article has been totally unreferenced since creation and I suspect it can't be referenced by any reliable sources. Night Ranger (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 October 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 WP:IAR keep. I am going to WP:IAR close this as keep to avoid drama and name throwing. Appears to be a WP:SNOW keep but with significant rationale towards deleting. The article is worth reevaluating in a few to six months to determine if notability of the list (not the movement) exists. v/r - TP 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of "Occupy" protest locations

[edit]
List of "Occupy" protest locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam-magnet which is serving as a giant advertisement for a bunch of low-profile events. This has nothing to do with my extremely strong support for these protests; but our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them. Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them?" There is something really wrong with maintaining an arbitrary standard to the detriment of the underlying information, IMHO. That makes no sense, and to use a rule just to hinder something strikes me as unnecessarily bureaucratic and obstructive. I am not waging a personal attack, just stating a disagreement with the approach to policy. Isn't that somewhat like admitting that one can only vote for politicians one disagrees with??? Also, events do not seem to me to be low-profile, on the whole. There may be a few that are of low attendance, but any that remain in the list have adequate noteability and contribute to an appreciable and historically significant shift in political paradigms. Sngourd (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Sngourd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do some admins practice at being annoying? Are you trying to alienate editors? Do you care? You did not acknowledge Rachel's point: "It is not a spam-magnet. We are providing an updated list backed up by reliable sources". That point directly addressed one of your concerns. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the gratuitous personal attack: on examination, it appears to me that many, indeed most, of the links are to trivial coverage of non-events, which may not technically fall under the term "spam" but does fail our standards of notability, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. (On a more personal note, I will admit in passing that it's a welcome change to see the press giving exaggerated coverage to protests from anybody to the left of Glenn Beck, instead of pretending we don't exist when we do turn out.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While many of the events may indeed be "non events" this page is notable in that it covers the true extent of the movement. 20 years from now, when people are trying to recollect where similar events were held and what the end results were (for whatever reason - be it school papers or personal interest), this page will be quite useful. Is it now? Maybe not. Will it be then? Certainly. How much detail do we lack from historical events? Plenty. What if it had been recorded in encyclopedias by people as it occurred? We'd have a much better understanding of our past. There is no reason that Wikipedia shouldn't be that place. This event is notable. The spread of the event is notable. The specifics of where it spread will be useful in the future. Do I know every Wikipedia policy to link back to you? No, sorry, I fear I don't. I just hope that this is a fairly reasonable request. I support the Keep - light theworld (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each protest movement is not a non-event. Each is an event, and when the sum total of all these events that have received world-wide notice is taken into account, the dialogue has shifted appreciably. This meets standards of WP:NRVE in that there are several independent, verifiable sources cited, and standards of WP:NTEMP in that this change in dialogue is likely to be either permanent or, at the least of permanent note as would be stated in history texts. As per WP:LISTN, the list or set is in itself notable, as the items in the list contribute to the historical import of the event. As per WP:EFFECT, these events are highly likely to have lasting effect, as many media sources have indicated that the protests are probably not going away any time soon. An analogue can be reached through comparison to Tea Party protests, which although somewhat qualitatively different, are still having an impact on political thought a few years after the beginnings. As per WP:GEOSCOPE, there are well-sourced (or sourceable) links included here spanning many different locations on the Earth. As per WP:INDEPTH, almost all the example news sources for this Wikipedia guideline has carried news about these protests. Sngourd (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My remark on the "suite of articles" was meant to indicate that this list is one of those and, if pared down to what is really notable, could easily be included in the main article. So there's no need for a stand-alone list. --Crusio (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification, I understand your reasoning now. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTS and WP:Notability. List topics have to be notable. Same as article topics. Every item in a list, just like every fact in an article, does not have to notable. From WP:Notability: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you two times already, I'll ask a third time: There is MacDonald's but no "List of cities having a MacDonald's", there is Church_(building) but no "List of cities having a Church", (or I sure hope there is not...) Why not? - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed you to WP:LISTS. I point you to it again. See my most recent comment too, just above. Are you seriously asking if "List of cities having a McDonald's" is a notable topic? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off course I am asking seriously. - Nabla (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you seriously think it is a notable topic for a list, feel free to start the article. I am sure someone will take it to AfD, and we can all decide together if it is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references to McDonald's and churches are not analogous to the "Occupy" protests. There may be many different denominations of churches, and many churches of each type in a city. Each church or McDonald's the result of a spontaneous expression of dissent or protest. Usually there is only one "Occupy" protest movement for an area, though there may be exceptions. McDonald's is created to sell a product. Churches are to serve similar religious beliefs, not reach a goal in the geopolitical sphere. This is an inapplicable analogy, although it may be a tempting rhetorical tool. Sngourd (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have an opinion? I think it is completely not notable. I would likely vote on that AfD just as in this one. What would you do? What is your opinion? - Nabla (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the "List of cities having a McDonald's" would ever get created due to its obvious lack of notability. Maybe you shouldn't try to compare list articles that have obvious differences in notability. What do you think? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments for keeping this list are completely void. You have been pointing that the event is notable thus the list is notable. But, as you quite well explained, having a notable article subject XXX is not enough to turn a "List of cities having XXX" a notable article. You did made one point: a list *may* stand even if not all, nor most, list members are notable. Sure. Yet, the lack of a clear reason to delete does not equal a clear reason to keep. What are the reasons to keep? The guideline points 3 broad kinds of reason (and I agree with it): Development is *not* a reason to keep as the list points to city articles, all of them existent, all of them blue links - nothing to develop here; Navigation is *not* a reason to keep as it lists loosely connected subjects as there are immensely more about the cities than having a protest in a give day, this is peanuts in each cities history (my edit turned it into a navigation tool, but you reverted, so it is not your intention for it); being a Information source is indeed a possible reason to keep, but I see no information *of encyclopaedic value* (A list of countries, as was the initial version might have some - this one is incomplete (it misses what? 800 cities to be complete?) and too large to be useful if ever gets complete. Note to closing admin (or not) In the spirit of freedom of speech the protesters claim, do not speedy/snow close whatever the voting. Let the opponents speak up. - Nabla (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nabla. The list topic itself is notable. That topic is List of "Occupy" protest locations. You removed around 230 cities out of 250 cities (with around 250 references at the time). You only kept the cities that had separate pages for their protest; Occupy Chicago, Occupy Boston, etc.. See also, Portal:Contents/Lists, for many lists. Just as there are many long articles with hundreds of references, there are many long encyclopedic lists with hundreds of references. An item in a list is a fact just like the facts in articles. And facts require references. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the list notable? You do not present a single reason. Also, if you have to reference each item on the list, it looks like you do not have a reference for the list. If there are no sources about the list, what indication do you have that the list is notable (note, the protests are notable, the issue is, why is a list of locations notable?). Note that an article with a average of 1 reference for each 3 words (!!! I've been watching a few os those, I think this one is a clear record breaker) is a bad sign, you do not have a reference for the list, do you? (It is not strictly needed, I know, but I am pointing to lack of evidence of notability and substantial coverage of *the list*). Could you please give one reason to keep, or else assume you have none and change your vote to delete? Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is indicated by the 24/7 news coverage of the events by news media worldwide for weeks now. The number of events, the variety of events, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasons to keep "Occupy" protests, not this list. You really should consider voting delete... (joking) I'll stop wasting our time, thank you for your patience. - Nabla (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the impracticality of the merge. We commonly take lists into separate articles because they would become unwieldy with the root article. With close to a thousand locations being reported, that won't exactly fit an article. Trackinfo (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. The VAST majority of comments on this article are to Keep and arguments are filled with well-argued cites to Wikipedia policy. Do not understand why this is still an issue. Sngourd (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this AfD is grounded in an editing dispute. The dispute is over whether the topic is notable, so AfD is an appropriate forum. However, I think a snow closure by an uninvolved administrator would be warranted. I think the consensus is clear, and I don't see how it could change. Lagrange613 00:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with call for snow closure, and reasons. I drop objections based on editing dispute. Sngourd (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What will increase the usefulness of this entry is an account of the number of participants at each event. The article has alrady begun to be transformed in this direction. A reference should be added from each location to one or more report of the event which indicates the number of people participating. The title might then change to "List of Occupy Protest locations and attendance figures" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfreedom1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it is neither notable not informative." The scale, geographical spread, timeline of cities starting up, and number of events is notable and informative.
  • "do you get any more info about the events that this list claims to be about?" Following the references provides much more info. As more and more info is added to the list itself there will be less need to go to the references. Info such as attendance, starting date, event locations in the city, organizers, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References are a necessary part of all articles, not a directory. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than repeat myself, see my first reply to you. Also, secondary sources are not a directory. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the village square or some other place for everyone to have their say just for the heck of it. It is an encyclopedia. AfD is not for giving everyone a soapbox or making everyone feel good. It is for determining consensus on the question of whether an article belongs in the encyclopedia. As I said above, I believe consensus has been established. Some "keep" !votes are based on arguments to avoid, but more are based on arguments toward the list's notability. I see nothing to be gained in keeping this open so a handful of editors can keep repeating themselves at each other. Lagrange613 17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You believe notability has been established. Fine. But there are multiple editors arguing for "delete", so as yet there is no obvious consensus. What's the hurry with closing this? Why not allow normal democratic discussion? --Crusio (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't about everybody agreeing. The snow/speedy keep !votes outnumber the delete !votes and the nom by more than two to one. Then there's all the vanilla keep !votes. The consensus here is clear, and I don't think further discussion has been or will be productive. Lagrange613 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what "consensus means, but I also know that it is inappropriate to close an AfD as "snow" if there are bona fide "delete" !votes. Again: what's the hurry? If you're so confident that the closing admin will ignore policy and decide for a "keep" close, all you have to do is wait a couple of days. --Crusio (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, legitimate concerns are being raised on both sides, and it is best to take our time in considering the arguments. We won't finish WP today, and most importantly, we're not voting here, so the ratio of !votes is less important than the quality of the reasoning informed by policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the fans drop the speedy keep stuff please? The nomination was not disruptive, the editor is not banned, the proper procedure was followed--y'all knock it off already and find a real sentence to stick your intensifiers in. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's nice. Next, go accuse the nominator of bad faith and disruption. And please write Wikipedia:Speedy keep (disambiguation), to indicate that you can distinguish between policy and rhetoric--which, incidentally, lies at the heart of some of these disputes. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pot calling the kettle black here. I expressed my opinion, which is what this discussion is about. My opinion is backed by the trend. This is quite obviously a lopsided debate, with a very small but vehement opposition. If it weren't I'd be much more vocal. Trackinfo (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Crusio, there has never been a snowier discussion in the history of Afd. The "movement too big to fail" has already been supported by global statesmen like Obama and India's PM , its set to lead to historic results like a global financial transaction tax which civil society has been attempting for decades, and this list article is invaluable for a full understanding of the phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G10) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-timeterik

[edit]
T-timeterik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for a musician or general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:55, 15 October 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. Consensus is that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, on the basis that while a lot of coverage quotes the subject, very little is actually about him. Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aviv

[edit]
Don Aviv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable biographical article. I do not believe that this person meets the general notability guidelines, nor the academic notability guidelines (as an adjunct professor). Bob Re-born (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 15 October 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 Four square. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (constabulary) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingey

[edit]
Kingey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS) Rwalker (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to four square. Basically just an English variation, from what I can undestand. IgnorantArmies 01:32, 16 October 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. Tone 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Motors

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Collier Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been nearly six years since the last nomination, and while the article seems to have improved somewhat, it is still not anywhere near notable enough to keep around. Plus, the article appears to be orphaned anyways, which was NOT the case the last time the article was nominated. And from personal experience, there is precedence to successfully deleting an article the second time around. Delete, then redirect to American Motors Jgera5 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 15 October 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. Tone 23:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNU VCDImager

[edit]
GNU VCDImager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage for this software suite. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 August 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:08, 2 September 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As far as I can tell, the numbers are split about 7-6 in favour of delete. That's not normally going to lead to a consensus to delete unless there are unusual circumstances, such as one side having significantly stronger arguments than the other, so much as that can be ascertained objectively. In this case, the final three unchallenged delete !votes—DGG, ItsZippy and Metropolitan90—demonstrate such strength.

DGG and Metropolitan90 highlight a number of fundamental misconceptions behind a number of the keep !votes, such as the inaccuracy of the assertions that the subject's work was covered significantly in The Google story and that The Google story is a Pulitzer prize-winning book. DGG also demonstrates with clear evidence that the subject's own book is not as prominent as asserted, without any evidence, by some on the keep side. ItsZippy is the only editor in the debate, on either side, to comprehensively discuss the sources on offer as opposed to making generalised assertions about the sufficiency of the sourcing.

That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Stricchiola

[edit]
Jessie Stricchiola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:promotion direct link to where people can buy a book she authors. WP:N. She's quoted in multiple articles, but not much coverage about her per se. I don't feel that this person is noteworthy enough to have a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the above statement that the article must be primarily or specifically about the person, is not correct. The article can be about anything at all, so long as it provides substantial coverage of the person. Mere mentions are of course not substantial coverage, but the dividing line is unclear & a often a matter of judgment. Similarly,. being frequently quoted by multiple media sources as an authority on a subject does establish notability , but we are normally rather skeptical about applying this in borderline cases. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thanks for your comment. I will research this further. I'd appreciate if you could link me to relevant WP pages addressing your view for my reference. As far as media "sources", how do you see non main stream sole proprietor operated media outlets with no editorial intervention or heavily biased editors? Some authors have multiple affiliated .com websites and I think its fairly clear that these don't count as multiple sources. The dividing line between "reliable, media source" vs "some commercial website" can be cloudy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
verification So, post the specific references here so we can evaluate the depth of coverage, reliability of sources and that she is not notable mainly because of one event as a one time coverage as a witness in a court case. We should also see if she passes the Pokemon test which means to demonstrate she's keep worthy than each Pokemon. At one point, each pokemon characters had a stand alone article, but most of them have been merged into a "pokemon characters" page. The argument should support why Stricchiola should get a stand-alone page rather than a section in a page about SEO/SEM contractors or webmasters. As another administrator have pointed out to you on your poorly supported argument, instead of a arbitrary reference and a search query, you must list them explicitly so that other participants can evaluate them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can at least resist the temptation to only write biographies about powerful white men. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gender is not relevant. Being "female-friendly" does not mean giving more lenient inclusion requirements for subjects of biography who happens to be female. Jehochman, that comment you added was disruptive and does not add anything to the discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is entirely relevant, and that word disruptive probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Those who prefer to cite dusty books and paper newspapers instead of more modern sources when writing about technology are consequentially importing the biases of those sources into Wikipedia. Those biases generally run in favor of the Western, white, heterosexual, powerful males (aka Patriarchy). Jehochman Talk 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument elsewhere was the accusation that my nominations are based on "dislike for SEO producers" and here you built your personal accusation claim to sexism, perhaps because you're unable to locate reliable sources for subjects of your interest. Your participating as on one of those SEO producers is consequentially importing biases of crummy self published pages, authors citing eachothers page and such. I never stated "dusty books" are preferable. It's a matter of contents check through editorial control. On a blog page that your SEO friend is running or on your own page, you can claim yourself as a highly experience(in your opinion), intelligent, prominent, world famous, (and other positive pufferies) search engine optimization professional. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 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, Alpha Quadrant talk 03:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you account for the numerous citations and widespread coverage in the literature? http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jessie+Stricchiola%22 What evidence do you have to support your opinion? Did you look for sources, or did you just shoot from the hip? Jehochman Talk 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a counting exercise; please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly WP:CREATIVE. What I see in the Google Book search you cited is a bunch of SEO people quoting each other. I do not see how this makes any of them notable. What I do not see is: Any biography, any well-known and significant award or honor, any widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record, more than a few citings (not quotes) by peers or successors, any significant new concept, theory or technique. Yes, I looked for sources but found mostly self-promoting fluff. HairyWombat 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look for astrophysics references, you will find a bunch of astrophysicists quoting each other, which is perfectly normal for any esoteric topic. What you are lacking is the subject area knowledge to distinguish which parties and which sources are reliable and notable. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I look for astrophysics references, what I will find is a bunch of astrophysicists citing each others research papers that have been published in mainstream refereed journals. And the vast majority of these astrophysics will still not be notable. The part that user Jehochman seems to be missing is that to be notable, a person must have achieved something notable. This is why the guidelines speak of awards, honours, and contributions to the enduring historical record. HairyWombat 03:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HW, "awards, honour, and contributions to the historical record' do prove notability , but they only apply to the very most notable--the great majority of notable individuals achieve much less than that. What you're asking for is better called "famous', and that's the standard appropriate only to an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 9 October 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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Eriksen

[edit]
Roy Eriksen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF. No substantial research according to GScholar. Not a member of any prestigious society. The Journal "Early Modern Culture Online" which the subject is a general editor is not very reputable (not many popular papers according to GScholar). — Fιnεmαnn (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines does the subject meet and by virtue of which references? Bongomatic 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are discussing cites in Google Scholar, let's say what they are. They are 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1. We are well aware that cites in the humanities are lower than in the sciences but, even allowing for the difference (which editors are now recognising) these cites seem low for a writer, in the English language, on the fairly popular topic of early modern culture. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
To give a perhaps rather extreme example, another historian of early modern culture, A L Rowse has a GS h index of 19, in contrast to the 4 of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Neither is A L Rowse. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rowse certainly is prolific. I note that the article on the British historian has citations to English-language sources. But in understanding the guideline cautions inre the vageries of an English-language G S search, specially for a non-English-language non-scientific academic, I will await input from Norwegian-reading Wikipedians, able to find and offer non-English sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rowse was certainly prolific but, more to the point where notability is concerned, widely cited. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Why do you think that the subject's work is not primarily in the English language? His primary subject is English literature, the journal he edits is in English, he's taught at schools in Britain—it would be expected that the vast majority of his output would be in English. What does Scopus turn up?
No evidence has been pointed to here that suggests his work has been "influential". I'm not saying that his work isn't influential, just that there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that it is. Bongomatic 07:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article. While his having visiting fellowships at Cambridge, England and Villa I Tatti, Florence, Italy, and his being general editor of the interdiciplinary journal Early Modern Culture Online and general editor of the bookseries Early Modern and Modern Studies, are indicative that he reads and writes English and likely Italian, his professorial duties are and have been primarily in Norway. Quite nice that he studies English literature and teaches it to Norwegians (no systemic bias in his teachings), but who wants to bet his classes at University of Oslo (1977-1986'), University of Tromsø (1986-2003), University of Bergen (1997-1999), and University of Agder (2003-present) are taught to Norweigians in the Norweigian language, and not English? Is there an expectation an academic in Norway is not covered in Norweigan sources?? And more, his receiving the 2007 Agder Academy of Sciences and Letters's 'Award for Outstanding Research' [17] seems like something that an average Joe citizen does not get. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The language in which he teaches isn't relevant to the number of hits his work would have in English language-centric databases (although as an aside irrelevant to this discussion, I'd guess that English literature classes at the university and post-graduate levels in Norway are taught largely in English). Moreover, the award from Agder is certainly not something that an average Joe would get--primarily because the average Joe doesn't do research at all. Notability requires that an academic award be "highly prestigious at a national or international level", which is a different standard from whether an average Joe gets it.
Again I'm not saying that he's not notable, just that nobody has given any reason to suspect he is. Nobody has said that the Agder award is sufficient to meet WP:PROF, or that any of the books or articles he's written (either singly or in aggregate) has made a significant impact on his discipline, or any other.
Frankly, the subject's resume looks much like any academic who's been practicing for a long time—articles written, surveys edited, sabbaticals taken, the odd award won. That's not what WP:PROF is about. Prove me wrong! Bongomatic 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more than odd if his translations (of English writing) were in English or had English reviews. Cloveapple (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Added another review of : The Building in the text. Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton, 2001.
So now we have three independent periodical reviews of a significant work of his cited in the article:
* Burroughs, C.(2002). Review of Eriksen, R. T.The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton. Renaissance Quarterly, December 55, 4, 1431-1433.
* Brooks, D. A. (2004). The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton (review). South Central Review, March 21, 1, 139-142.
* Cibelli, Deborah H. (2002) Roy Eriksen: The Building in the Text: Alberti to Shakespeare and Milton (2001). Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring: 287-88.
Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Not nearly enough. For scholars, we are looking for many hundreds of citations to their works. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
that's total nonsense, especially as applied to the humanities. Even in most of the sciences, that's way beyond our standard, and amounts in most fields to fame, which is much more than notability. We've never looked for that, we've never decided a AfD based on that supposed criterion, A review means much more than a citation--its an independent evaluation of a specific work, considered important enough to evaluate. And, fwiw, all sources available to us for citations are anglocentric. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a review is worth more than a citation, but eight cites in GS and a handful of reviews is still not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 21 October 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 Sony camcorders. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony HVR-Z5

[edit]
Sony HVR-Z5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete not WP:NOTABLE LES 953 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 25 August 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. Already been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greeko

[edit]
Greeko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A U.S. singer who has "popularity in the Balkans". No reliable sources in the article and none to be found. Unable to find anything about his music label. Unable to find anything about his new album release except for his myspace page which says it hasn't been released. When doing a Google search, put quotations around "Greeko" or you get Greek instead. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 15 October 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Hart, Sherborne

[edit]
White Hart, Sherborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article describes 3 different topics, the first and the last one hardly are notable enough, maybe a disambiguation is needed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 15 October 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 closed because of a speedy delete. Peridon (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Risky Business Band

[edit]
Risky Business Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no references and all references available online are not reliable. The line "They are a local band for now" also puts a question mark on notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke non notable band and members. Was about to speedy for A7. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable band. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 15 October 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 Disney Resort Line. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo DisneySea Station

[edit]
Tokyo DisneySea Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable station. Rcsprinter (chat) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:26, 15 October 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 Disney Resort Line. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resort Gateway Station

[edit]
Resort Gateway Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable station. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 13:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:29, 15 October 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 Disney Resort Line. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Disneyland Station

[edit]
Tokyo Disneyland Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable station. Rcsprinter (warn) 13:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:27, 15 October 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 Disney Resort Line. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Station

[edit]
Bayside Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable station. Rcsprinter (natter) 13:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:32, 15 October 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. Happy for creator to contact me if he/she wants a copy of the content. —SMALLJIM  23:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Library (TV series)

[edit]
The Library (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no need to have this article now, the production has not yet started, and even the title is a working one, so its tough to get enough sources for it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily Userfy Perhaps this article should be moved into its creators userspace until the show has successfully aired its first few episodes. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 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 redirect to Ram Gopal Varma#As producer. Strong consensus and the author has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W/O V.Varaprasad

[edit]
W/O V.Varaprasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE criteria: except the information about director and producer, there is no relevant information, such as full length reviews (by two or more nationally known critics)/deemed notability by a broad survey of film critics, academics.../commercial re-release, screened at notable film festival etc., that would show article's notability. Alex discussion ★ 11:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I don't feel doubt about it, but you need to add information that will more likely explain why the article is notable, unless you do that, I afraid the article will be deleted. Tip: if the film gained any awards, was screened at glorious festivals, then insert that information! Alex discussion ★ 11:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is already established. (In that It is the list if filmography in Ram Gopal Varma Template. This article needs additional citations for verification. Notability is different from Sources. Please check this with experiences users, if ur an amateur. I am in the process of citing published sources (Vensatry234 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Please come down. As you are the one who is relatively new on the Wikipedia, you need to be patient. First, you cannot remove AfD tags from pages proposed for deletion, until article's discussion is closed. If you believe the article should not be deleted, you can write on article's deletion discussion, listed on the tag. Regards, Alex discussion ★ 11:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read a book written by a police officer saying that is the worst thing to say to try calm someone down ;-) Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 15:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check ur talk page, I am done with this, dont waste my time, see below: (Vensatry234 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I am experienced user than u, u will be blocked for edit warring, if u vandalise the article. The articles's notability is established. Thank you (Vensatry234 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I have discussed the issue with u, so u close discussion, it is ur job to close, as u posted the amateurish notability template (Vensatry234 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Any editor may nominate an article for deletion. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can also denominate vandalism. (Vensatry234 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 15:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hanlon

[edit]
Joseph Hanlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion Seems to fail WP:PROF. Could find nothing form Ghits and article to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 October 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, Rcsprinter (chat) 10:43, 15 October 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. Tone 23:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumensus Project

[edit]
Ecumensus Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability BOVINEBOY2008 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 9 October 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, Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 10:40, 15 October 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 WP:Userfy to User:Filmreporter1/sandbox/Thoppul Kodi. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoppul Kodi

[edit]
Thoppul Kodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to indicate why this film should be considered notable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 October 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, Rcsprinter (converse) 10:37, 15 October 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 Hindustan Republican Association. Tone 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of H.R.A.

[edit]
Constitution of H.R.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: the valuable parts can be merged into Hindustan Republican Association but this article doesn't establish the notability of the topic of the constitution of the association separately from the notability of the association. Once you remove the (potential copyvio?) constitution from the article, you are left with a stub of a topic that can be more than adequately covered in the parent article. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Tom, I completely agrees with you on the Proposed Deletion of HRA Constitution Article. What we can do is to merge the valuable parts of this piece of effort into HRA Article by itself. Wikipedia is not a repository for the Historical Documents in full but the reliable context which can be valued as an encyclopedic reference material. It could be deleted as soon as some person could read the article in full and then merge necessary sections into the Parent Article on HRA Page. I second the motion for deletion of this article.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider Wikisource, honestly. They do a lot of large, verbatim original documents - though I don't know if this meets their policies. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:49, 19 October 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, Rcsprinter (converse) 10:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:05, 15 October 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. Refs are needed, marked as such. If nothing is found, repeat the nomiantion. Tone 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sawai Singh Dhamora

[edit]
Sawai Singh Dhamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:PAGENAME))|View AfD]])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is in question for this article. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 15 October 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. No prejudice against recreation if a decently, reliably sourced article could be written. The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMF Bitmap

[edit]
BMF Bitmap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In short, this article looks like a collection of random rambling because:

  1. It has no source except two external links that are themselves very confused! (Wow!)
  2. It is filled with original research and guesses.
  3. It does not know what it is talking about; the lead introduces multiple independent variations of the subject and the body speaks about one without telling us exactly which.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
news: none - it is a proprietary file format that no one can use except the original inventor / licensees (Corel and IMSI apparently)
books: none - it would only be documented in the User Manual of the related program(s) (if even that)
scholar: none - it is a proprietary format; if published, Corel / IMSI could and would sue the publisher
free images: none - by definition, Corel and IMSI images would be copyrighted and protected by their respective creators
Does this mean the format does not exist? No. Taking the original arguments point by point:
1. The external links referred to are both examples of file extension documentation sites. As is typical with such sites, they include any and all references to the file extension under discussion (BMF). They both find the same information. They are both supported by online ads and thus are loaded down with ads; a fact of life that doesn't even bear discussing any further. There is no "original" source because the major user, Corel, deigns to even admit the format exists now they are not using it in a current product. IMSI at least includes "BMF" in their knowledgebase but no longer supports the format as of version 16 of their floor plan software (2011).
2. The reason for the so-called "original research" and "guessing" is that it is the only information still available. Corel only admits the format exists under duress and will not release the format (probably for legal reasons of some sort). IMSI had a slightly different flavor which they supported until 2011 as noted in (1). At least IMSI mentioned it in their knowledgebase (as noted before).
3. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Paragraph one lists what the format is and who the major users are. Paragraph two describes the format owner's current plans for the format. I highly doubt that Corel is going to make any quotable formal announcement in the New York Times that they've screwed hundreds and thousands of paying customers by refusing to support a format they used specifically for the purpose of proprietizing literally millions of graphic images. Paragraph three lists the one known non-Corel program that purports to support the format and the author's experience with same.
These are the facts that are known; that haven't been lost as of yet. Perhaps someone is not happy with the light in which Corel is cast? Does that mean it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? I hardly think so. In fact, one would think that this is the ideal place for such an article before the knowledge / information / the 411 / whatever the kids are calling it these days disappears forever. Mainly, there is/was a file format of this kind with the extension of BMF and it was used by thus and so. Could the article be improved? Certainly. In fact, one could differentiate this article into multiple articles because Corel and IMSI incorporate slight changes to the actual byte arrangement in the BMF files they create. Is that something we should pursue? To what purpose?
Frankly, IMHO this article should remain as-is [or at the very most "touched" slightly based on the latest information presented in this article]. There is sufficient information there to satisfy any reasonable curiosity -- vis-á-vis the BMF format -- so why don't we leave this sleeping dog snoring and move on to things that actually matter.
And that is my somewhat verbose 2 cents / 0.0145677034 Euros on the subject. JimScott (talk) 04:12, 17 October 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 first article and redirect/merge the second into it. —SMALLJIM  14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for the Study of Medievalism

[edit]
International Society for the Study of Medievalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studies in Medievalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic organisation written up by its president with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Completely pass WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Alder

[edit]
Mike Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the notability guideline. No sources that are independent of the subject are provided, and a cursory search does not yield any. The article may also consist of self-promotion of the author and their ideas. The inclusion of the "Newton's flaming laser sword" section of this article under "Razor_(philosophy)" is also potentially a form of self-promotion, and dilutes the information on the subject of philosophy represented there. Otzi1 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems extremely strange to me that the first thing a new editor (Otzi1 (talk · contribs)) would do on Wikipedia is nominate an article for deletion... WP:SOCK at work? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Davewild (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Ramírez

[edit]
Santiago Ramírez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

5 day stint in Major leagues. Hasn't been seen in baseball since 2007. No Sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you serious? Alex (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, played in the major leagues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the Major Leagues. Passes WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It's snowing in here. Played in MLB as well as NPB and the Mexican League, all of which grant a presumption of notability. Nominator is also wrong on his most recent professional season, as he played at least through 2009. I hope this was a joke. -Dewelar (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh I don't remember there being closure on that Mexican League discussion, but MLB and NPB definitely grant automatic notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read that Mexican League discussion after the fact, but I hope it hasn't become accepted wisdom that the Mexican League grants a presumption of notability. LMB doesn't even belong in the same sentence with NPB, let alone MLB. — NY-13021 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because this user needs to be instructed that ONE game in MLB satisfies WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize there were different notability guidelines for baseball players. Very well, Withdrawn. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake Financial Services

[edit]
Westlake Financial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questionable. I can find some coverage of a non-trivial court case, but that's all. Hobit (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 15 October 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 Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario-kun (Pikkapika Comics)

[edit]
Super Mario-kun (Pikkapika Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources needed to show notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, I did a PROD on Sep-22, which was contested by Dream Focus, which I will notify of this AfD to make sure he has his say. Salvidrim (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, when did I even come close to implying that the Super Mario franchise, or any particular part of it besides this series, was not notable? Just because something has "Super Mario" in it's title does not make it inherit all of the series' notability. You've been around here way to long to be casting these !votes like these. Use some logical thinking next time. Cheers! --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread what I wrote. Do you think Nintendo would allow a manga to continue for their most popular franchise, for years, if it wasn't selling quite well? They do keep tight control over their properties. Places that review manga, surely mentioned this somewhere. Dream Focus 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact that Nintendo "approved" of it does not make it notable. Think about the incredible amount of items (from backpacks to slippers to pens, etc.) that Nintendo sells or have approve the sale of -- yes they make money, perhaps they have good sales, but it does not ensure notability. Also, you raise the same reason to oppose this AfD as the reason you raised to oppose the PROD, which is there must be sources, please search. As explained above and on the article's talk page, all of my attempts at reasearch returned nothing but a lack of coverage... if you are so confident there are sources, perhaps you might have better luck than me finding them? If presented with reliable third-party coverage assessing notability, I'll be happy to edit it in the article and withdraw my vote here. Salvidrim (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DreamFocus, have you found any independent, reliable and significant source? I'd be happy to do the work and incorporate it into the article if there's anything to be found. :) Salvidrim (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was indeed an idea, but the author's page itself doesn't really look that good from any sensible point of view. But it does link here, so even if this is deleted no info is lost (as there is really no info to speak of, outside of the Shogagukan page, which will simply be used as a ref on the author's page. Salvidrim (talk) 22:58, 16 October 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. Tone 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was redirected to domestic violence which is a rather silly redirect. Article is empty. There could be an article here but at present there's not. Mystylplx (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can put all instances of violence when the victim happened to be a man or men together.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same way you can put all instances of violence when the victim happens to be a woman together. See Violence against women. There are LOTS of examples of institutionalized violence specifically directed against males, including gendercides and pretty much every war that's ever been fought. But that's not the point here. I'm not planning on writing such an article any time soon. I just think that leaving this article here with a redirect to Domestic violence is silly. Most sources say that domestic violence is one of the few types of violence that is more often directed at women. Redirecting violence against men to domestic violence is senseless. Plus, as I stated, the majority in the first AfD were for deletion. Not sure how it ended up redirected in such a silly way. Mystylplx (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to stay and simply be redirected then it should be redirected to something more appropriate, like War. Mystylplx (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 15 October 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. Tone 23:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Aziz Rafiq

[edit]
Ahmad Aziz Rafiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:BLP1E. only known for being a prisoner in Iraq which relates to his refugee claim. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 October 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) 00:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable topic. Ray-Rays 01:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

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 04:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 15 October 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. W. King

[edit]
J. W. King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Porn performer who does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 October 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) 00:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King is one of the most well-known porn actors of the 1970s among gay men. Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhighspeed (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.W. King starred in Gold_Rush_Boys_(1983_film), which is listed under Notable Movies on Gay_pornography page. Also Best of Colt 1 and 2. These both qualify as having "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." His movies were in the early 1980s, before the AVN Awards covered gay movies, so that's not a fair criterion for his wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.94.173 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 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 04:19, 15 October 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. Tone 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Ability

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Permanent Ability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this promotional band article. the awards are not major. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. was kept at last afd due to two sources but one was a minor local limelight piece and the other was a piece where the band just talks about themselves on a site with no sign of being a reliable source [25]. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Chenzw  Talk  05:45, 1 October 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) 00:03, 8 October 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 04:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast communication network

[edit]
Broadcast communication network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without references since September 2006 Drift chambers (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points. Not much harm in keeping it or the others co-nominated, Switched communication network and Fully connected network. It is not a matter of incorrect information or spam but just incompleteness (what stubs are intended for after all). My question is if the subtle but important distinctions that you refer to might be better discussed in a unified Network topology article for example? Another question is if a user searching for this concept would include the word "communication" in their search, or more likely look for, say broadcast computer network or for that matter broadcast network which describes the more historic concept that is less relevant to today's readers who may have heard stories of these networks from their grandparents (it also is blatantly USA-centric). W Nowicki (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are not topologies. A broadcast network could exist in a bus or star topology, for example. A switched network could be fully connected, but a fully-connected network does not have to be a switch network. Perhaps they could be merged under network taxonomy, though I see that that term is used very broadly? Nikola (talk) 06:37, 11 October 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 04:03, 15 October 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. A basic computer networking concept, also the nominator has not given a reason that why a source is required, also merging can be discussed later. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully connected network

[edit]
Fully connected network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

without references September 2006 Drift chambers (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 October 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 04:03, 15 October 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. Tone 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switched communication network

[edit]
Switched communication network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

without references since September 2006 Drift chambers (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 October 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 04:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (G7) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America's Third Party

[edit]
America's Third Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this American political party meets WP:Notability guidelines. Doing a web search, most references are self-published (the party's web site, Facebook/video sites, etc.) or in non-notable blogs. Doing a gnews search results in a hit on the party's web site but nothing else. I'm open to keeping the article if the party actually has something to indicate notability, but otherwise this seems like a clear delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please just delete the article. I'm just a volunteer for the party and am just trying to get more notability of the party through a Wikipedia article. I quite frankly can careless if it stays up or gets deleted. At least I tried. --Malleyco (talk) 04:07, 15 October 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.

Renominated for deletion

[edit]

The article has resurfaced, and has been flagged for deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated page and added sources

[edit]

This evening, I updated the America's Third Party page and added legitimate sources to show the history. Please take a look at these and do not delete the page. Coolnation (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've created a redirect from Marco Horácio, with no objection to swapping the two over if anyone thinks that's better.  —SMALLJIM  22:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Rouxinol Faduncho

[edit]
Rouxinol Faduncho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Ghits or article to support notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rouxinol Faduncho is a character portrayed by one of the most famous mainstream comedians of Portugal and is a satire on modern Portuguese culture mixed with older culture, of which fado is an important part. Wikipedia has an article about every single American football player in existence, I think it can afford to have one about Rouxinol.--Midasminus (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'One of the most famous mainstream comedians of Portugal' - yet he doesn't have his own article? What part of WP:NOTABILITY does this character meet? Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Portuguese WP, the Rouxinol Faduncho article is merged as a section within the actor's article.
- A redirect for "Rouxinol Faduncho" is created to point to the new section.
- The merged article is built up and references added that evidence notability.
- A translated copy of the merged article is created in English WP.
- Ideally, all of this is completed in the next few days, so that this AfD is rendered moot. :)
--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 9 October 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 03:49, 15 October 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. Tone 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Train (2011 film)

[edit]
Ghost Train (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Denied PROD. The film has not yet entered production, thus should not have a stand-alone article per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 02:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 15 October 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 User:Fastily). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 United States network television schedule

[edit]
2012–13 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A schedule for 1 year in the future is just considered irrelevant for right now. Until the networks fully announce their schedules in May, this should be a redlink. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power ring (DC Comics)‎

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Power ring (DC Comics)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. The fictional object as a stand-alone object does not meet the general notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As it is, any article about it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information since the ring does not have reception and significance in reliable secondary sources. The article itself references most of the content with primary sources, the majority of them from comic books, one from a tertiary source published by DC Comics, one about the inspiration behind its creation, one where it is barely mentioned with regards to the plot of the Green Lantern comics and the rest with interviews with comic book creators working at the moment of the interview in the comic books where the object appears, so the article does not show how this object is notable beyond the plot of Green Lantern media. Nothing within the article shows how the object is notable. A quick search engine test does not show objective evidence that power ring as a subject has reception or significance beyond the plot of series, since all that appears are tertiary sources, trivial mentions and unreliable sources, but nothing that provides reception or significance. In fact, there is no evidence that it exists as a topic in reliable sources outside of this article, which implies that the content of the article was created with original research by synthesis. With all this, I do not believe that the fictional object qualifies as a subject that deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. William Irwin; Jane Dryden; Mark D. White (3 May 2011). Green Lantern and Philosophy: No Evil Shall Escape This Book. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 252–. ISBN 978-0-470-57557-4. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — a book full of academic essays on the green lantern and philosophy, many of which discuss the ring at length. i have it pointed at one in particular, but looking at the table of contents will show that there are plenty of other instances; published by wiley, than which more reliable sources hardly get.
  2. Craig Shutt (July 2003). Baby boomer comics: the wild, wacky, wonderful comic books of the 1960s!. Krause Publications. pp. 128–. ISBN 978-0-87349-668-1. Retrieved 14 October 2011. —another one, not so deep as a well, but shall suffice. also not published by DC comics.
  3. Lois H. Gresh; Robert E. Weinberg (3 September 2002). The science of superheroes. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 98–. ISBN 978-0-471-02460-6. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — here's another one published by wiley, about the physics of superheroes, with extensive discussion of the ring.
  4. Chris Ryall; Scott Tipton (5 June 2009). Comic Books 101: The History, Methods and Madness. IMPACT. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-1-60061-187-2. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — this one might be a little bit fanboy, and it's probably a vanity press, but i'm putting it in anyway, since at least it's third party.
  5. Sean Wise (1 March 2009). How to Be a Business Superhero: Prepare for Everything, Train with the Best, Make Your Own Destiny at Work. Penguin. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-0-399-53456-0. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — published by penguin. a little self-helpy, but clearly a source for discussion of cultural place of ring.
  6. Arie Kaplan (October 2008). From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and comic books. Jewish Publication Society. pp. 90–. ISBN 978-0-8276-0843-6. Retrieved 14 October 2011. — "jewish signifiers" in the battle of the power rings. it doesn't get more third party than this, nu?

i could go on and on and on. the subject is notable. the article can be fixed by editing.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out a few things about these sources for those who wish to cite them in the discussion:
  1. None of the essays discuss the actual reception or significance of the power ring. They merely comment it as part of the plot premise. In fact, Beware my power, the essay cited in page 252, only mentions power ring in that page and all it does is comment that willpower is the limitation of the power ring, all related to the plot of the series and nothing related to reception or significance of the power ring concept. Same situation with the rest of essays where power ring is mentioned.
  2. Two trivial mentions that again only talk about the ring from a plot-perspective.
  3. As with the others, this one only comments about the ring from a plot-perspective.
  4. A trivial mention.
  5. A very short mention from a plot-perspective.
  6. A single mention with not mention of reception or significance.
Note that all mentions of the power ring are with regard to the basic plot of Green Lantern, nothing about the power ring as a subject itself, which is why I mentioned objective evidence. Also, note that none of these sources gives reception or significance for the power ring and, outside of the first source, the sources have only short trivial mentions. In my opinion, they show that power ring as a subject is completely dependent of the Green Lantern concept and cannot work as a stand-alone topic since it can only be discussed as a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:46, 15 October 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. Tone 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creed V

[edit]
Creed V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NALBUM, "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" and WP:CRYSTAL. No information exists about this possible future release except a Facebook message that the band are writing it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:34, 15 October 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:TOOSOON? The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Avrămia

[edit]
Adrian Avrămia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 1 October 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) 00:00, 8 October 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) 00:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wole Oguntokun

[edit]
Wole Oguntokun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:CREATIVE Amsaim (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 8 October 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) 00:01, 15 October 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 avoided being squished. The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squish 'em

[edit]
Squish 'em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested the WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to delete this page. Squish'em is a well known videogame ported to many platforms (Atari, Commodore, Colecovision) and you can find many references to it on Game sites and videos on Youtube. If you remove this, you should remove any other videogame on Wikipedia. Friol (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squish 'em does not meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is not notable. To be considered notable, a game must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Other video games meet this criteria through things like news publications and reviews or other analysis. Squish 'em does not. See WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to say if this game "received significant coverage" in 1983, since I would hardly find 1983 newspapers or magazines. What I can say is that, considering its ports to many platforms (Commodore, Atari, Colecovision, etc.) and considering that in 1983 you could find this game in many different countries (even in Italy - remember that Internet was a dream, in 1983), this game should have easily sold thousand of copies back in the Eighties. This is a game published by an historical producer (Sirius Software, go read about it if you haven't) and spread worldwide. If you consider also that remakes of it have been done in 2007 (see the Atari 2600 port), I can pretty confidently say that yes, this game was "notable", if people still remember it after 25 years. Friol (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I can find 1983 magazines after all.

Infoworld (19 nov 1984) cites "Squish'em" as "literary classic":

http://books.google.com/books?id=pS4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=squish+em+sirius&hl=it&ei=v1SRTqyxI9Ci-gai7YXzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=squish%20em%20sirius&f=false

Byte (1984) describes it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=A5E_AQAAIAAJ&q=squish+em+sirius&dq=squish+em+sirius&hl=it&ei=YVaRTrjqBcbqObuMmcsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

You can find other references in German books:

http://www.c64-wiki.de/index.php/Rombachs_C64-Spielef%C3%BChrer

Friol (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those appear to support notability and offer only trivial mentions of the game's existence. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you are starting to climb with nails on mirrors (but less skillfully than the game's main character) in your search for "notability". The game is cited as a "classic" in the first magazine; you can find more than 50.000 results on Google searching for "Squish em Sam". The game was spread worldwide; even a German *book* cites it. Sirius Software, the publisher, is cited in "Hackers" by S.Levy (I hope this book is "notable" enough). To me, this game is a classic of the 8-bit era, and deserves its encyclopedic place. Now I hope to hear opinions from other users of Wikipedia too. Friol (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% KEEP and improve by adding a screenshot, categories, and etcs. Odie5533 knows nothing about retrogames. Just nothing. --Hydao (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADHOM, from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument, Hydao. Knowledge on the game isn't necessary, it's knowlege on notability guidelines that matters. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we criticizing the article for the notability of this game or for my bad skills at writing English text? I supposed it was the former. Sorry guys, I'm not so good at writing Wikipedia articles. English isn't my mother tongue either, but, well, Wikipedia is good because YOU can improve the articles as well, so please do it if you can. About "poor sources": I know this game is the sequel of "Sewer Sam" and that it's called also "Squish em featuring Sam" from the cover's scan. How can I "cite" that? Friol (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully better sourced the article and added a screenshot from the Colecovision version. Friol (talk) 20:52, 13 October 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) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User "Someone another" vastly improved the article. Friol (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. The same thing goes with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sansara_Naga_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Family_Gerende. Articles like these should be improved, not deleted. --Hydao (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Someone another: Your argument leads to keeping all pre-PS2 era video games unless it can be shown that there are no reliable sources covering them. I think this is backwards of the way described in the WP:GNG and I certainly disagree with you on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that although most people probably don't have access to a stack of 25+ year old magazines, I do. I looked through the first dozen issues of one of the best magazines from the time, Commodore User, from June 1983 to September 1984, and did not find any reference of this game. This does not prove anything, however, because the burden of proof to support the claim that reliable sources exist or even are likely to exist falls on the side making such a claim. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a case of blanket keeping all older games, but using web-searches to determine the fate of these games' articles alone is basing the process on a tool which we know is largely inadequate for the job. Budget games for consoles, games released on a single system, seriously old video games which are obscure, bog-standard clones of popular titles and educational software are all less likely to be covered, so I would personally think twice before supporting retention if a google search provided nothing. Despite being something of a clone of Crazy Climber, and an old game, this one had already received non-trivial coverage on allgame, meaning all that is needed is a little more info for reception. It's a shame that there's no coverage in Commodore User, but thanks for looking. It's just a single magazine, however, and this particular game has been released in both Europe and the States on multiple systems. The source found by Dream Focus demonstrates what I'm trying to say - if a game is of the type that should have coverage then chances are it will have. Someoneanother 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good meaty source for reception, well done for finding it. Someoneanother 23:12, 16 October 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 Convert to a Disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walkthrough

[edit]
Walkthrough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced dicdef, full of OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 October 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) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case maybe a redirect to Software walkthrough would be the best idea.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A disambig may be better, as the word "walktrough" can mean a number of things. Being a gamer, I associate it with a Strategy guide, but programmers might associate it with Software walkthrough, and so on. Salvidrim (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Officially added disambig, as per my comments above. Salvidrim (talk) 02:10, 17 October 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.
More