< 19 August	21 August >

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

The result was redirect to List of LGBT characters in animation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay characters in animation[edit]

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

This article is really kind of a sad reminder of what Wikipedia was like around 2003. I mean, setting aside the notion that this is anywhere near a comprehensive - or even useful - list, does it really help just to enumerate all the gay animation characters we can think of? Why is it "in animation"? What common ground does South Park share with Neon Genesis Evangelion where they need to be put together in their own separate category? If this were more in the format of an "in popular culture" article, with something accompanying the names that told us about who they were or what they said or anything about them whatsoever I'd understand, but as it stands it's just a completely useless smattering of names ZigSaw 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to List of LGBT characters in animation, from which this list was split yet most of the names on this list still appear there. The more general article is of slightly higher quality albeit also unsourced, and is not so long that it needs to be split. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of LGBT characters in animation and merge there the lacking characters, as per Metropolitan90. Cavarrone (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:LISTN and the inclusion of Saddam Hussein indicates that it's too surreal. Warden (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected & Re-merged. I Split it too soon, I guess. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that this has already been redirected back to the original title, this debate can probably be closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States wireless communications service providers[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is sort of spamish. Also, it is pretty far removed from what is expected in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT, nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. It's a little confusing the way you wrote your rationale, I had to go into the page history to see that you were the nom. - Sudo Ghost 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which of the seven forbidden types of directory is this list an example of? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the "spirit" of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the "spirit of what WP is. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Sort of spamish" is easily solved through editing, that's not a reason for deletion. This article is "pretty far removed from what is expected in an encyclopaedia", per what? WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply here; this is not a product directory, changelog, or sales catalog. There is sometimes a fine line between what someone considers a "list" and a "directory", but this article does not cross that line anymore than other lists would. - Sudo Ghost 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:LISTPURP, a useful article for navigating Wikipedia. See also: Wiki is not paper. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an essential topic. Savidan 03:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NFF j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without You I'm Nothing (2013 film)[edit]

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

A disputed PROD. The title says it all; (2013 film). There are a couple of un-reliable sources provided but nothing that would allow this article to meet the new films policy, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. No bar to recreation if/when this film is released. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not appear to be a future film that has attracted so much notice that it is notable now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until and unless it is covered in reliable sources, it should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Gottfried[edit]

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

Individual "who briefly attained international celebrity as 'Wall Street's Sweater Girl' for two weeks in September 1968" according to the article). Trivialist (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, based on the sources within the article. Notability isn't temporary (WP:NTEMP), so if she was an "international celebrity" in 1968, that's good enough for our purposes. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got international coverage for a couple of weeks in 1968 when she caused a near riot each day and reportedly caused a slowdown in NYSE trading, more coverage the following spring. Retrospective coverage in a book in the 1980's. Referred to numerous times in following decades in reference to 1960's fads. Seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is not temporary. The article appears well-sourced and the subject appears to pass GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. The article itself admits that notability was "briefly" attained.--Juristicweb (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary, and in any case, the dates of the sources suggest that she has received coverage in reliable sources long after her 15 minutes of fame were up. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salty snow. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagles F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Twice speedily deleted (A7), not notable, no refs, no significant GHits, was undergoing AfD when last deleted under A7. GregJackP Boomer! 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable club, and also appears to be somewhat of a hoax as well.. as the club's website states that the season just began a few days ago. Theo polisme _:) 02:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4 or A7 and salt – no evidence of notability. – Kosm1 fent 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Twice deleted by CSD#A7 in July 2012. I'll have a word with the creator. Giant Snowman 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT: I love the part where it says they were founded in 2012 yet they won a cup in 2011. Hmmmm? But seriously the article has been deleted twice in the last month and should now have be via request from an administrator to create an article with such name. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 & G4 and salt title. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I googled this and found absolutely nothing about it. Therefore, it's either non-notabable or a hoax. The only player that has a linked page is "Ameen", which is actually linked to "Amen", which has to do with Islamic prayers. I'd also like to have it creation-protected (salted), if the closing admin could do that as well. Electric Catfish 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Wade[edit]

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

Notability of subject is not established in any of the sources Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, article created and edited almost exclusively by single purpuse accounts and suspected sockpuppets, with more than a suspicion that it is just a result of paid editing. All my searched about Wade just turned false positives and a couple of trivial mentions. The sources in the article are all unreliable, primary sources (including a couple of articles written by the same subject) and/or trivial mentions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is of course terrible. I suspect that one among various things its creator(s) didn't understand was WP-style disambiguation. "Michael Wade" is our man's name as used here, but a different Michael Wade has an article. "Michael J Wade" is his name as used here, but a different Michael J. Wade has an article. Thus, I think, the article's current title. I don't know if this article can be salvaged, but suppose that if it can be then this will be via material about "Michael (J(.)) Wade", not "Michael John Wade". -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL produces a large number of GNews hits, most of which seem to be about the subject with a very large proportion from reliable sources, ranging over at least the past twenty years. To be honest, many of these are likely to be trivial mentions, but I suspect that between them, they could verify much of the article - more work, I admit, than I am prepared to do, but perhaps someone else may? PWilkinson (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument or evidence presented for notability under WP:GNG/WP:BK j⚛e decker ^talk 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost_on_a_Red_Minibus_to_Taipo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lost on a Red Minibus to Taipo

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

Damnit the page triage tool has failed to add my reason twice.. majority of the sources aren't reliable and a mere mention in one media outlet doesn't necessarily mean notability. Perhaps a Chinese speaker can determine otherwise. SarahStierch (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Failing that, needs extensive cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search in Chinese (yay Google Translate) and only found two sources that weren't blogs of various sorts. [1] [2] The problem is that the book is only briefly mentioned and there doesn't seem to be any other coverage that would be both in-depth and reliable. The blog/story does seem to be slightly more notable than similar online stories, but still fails notability guidelines overall.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Producers Guild of America Digital V.I.P.[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Only sources seem to be recycled press release form the guild, leaving the article without independent refs. PROD removed by IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do see a source from Deadline.com, a WP:RS. TBran dl ey 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a recycled press-release. Compare [3] and [4]. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. TBran dl ey 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:GNG, and the above. TBran dl ey 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this award has any claim of notability, sources are press releases. Probably a WP:TOOSOON case. Secret ^account 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Crusaders[edit]

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

Non-notable comic. No independent refs. I've found two things that come close to in-depth coverage: [5] is a user-contributed review (and thus not reliable) and [6] which appears to be a review of the technology platform used to deliver the content (which is not mentioned in the article), I'm also reasonable confident that most of the illustrations in the review aren't of this comic. So I'm seeing nothing in the way of in-depth coverage by independent third party sources, as required by the WP:GNG. PROD removed by WP:SPA creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For one thing, I'm pretty sure that reviews on Comic Book Resources are not user-contributed. Doug Zawisza is a regular writer for CBR (indeed, he's got a bio page there where he even describes his work there as a "journalistic gig"). But if you don't like CBR for some reason, New Crusaders has gotten attention from just about every major comics review site out there, as Google happily shows. Also, the distribution format is important (as many of the reviews note), so if that's not in our article, that's an editorial shortcoming on our part and not the fault of sources like the Comics Alliance article you linked or this one at Comic Attack. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding is that CBR (the site, naturally, not the forums) is generally considered reliable. If that is indeed the case, here are a few additional articles [7][8][9]. More coverage exists at Newsarama [10][11], MTV [12], and the New York Times [13]. There appears to be enough material on this series to satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow - it seems to satisfy the GNG. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per provided sources. A deeper WP:BEFORE could have avoided this discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to have good secondary source coverage of topic. — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon_Steiner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brandon Steiner

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

I don't think Brandon Steiner is notable enough to warrant his own article, however, his company, Steiner Sports does. I figure this article can be deleted and a Steiner Sports article can be created? SarahStierch (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move/rewrite to/as Steiner Sports. Although I agree with the nominator that Steiner is not notable and Steiner Sports is, I don't see anything in the current article that requires actual deletion. Unless something I missed violates WP:BLP, we might as well just give it a complete rewrite to be about the company, while preserving the history. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see why he isn't notable enough...he has a nationally televised show, he is the guy who bought Yankee Stadium, and he's a huge public figure in the NY/tri-state area. I was thinking of doing an additional article on Steiner Sports as well, but it seems unnecessary to take down Brandon Steiner page to do that Golombjesse (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/mnerge - certainly there is notable stuff here, I would have said for both subjects, but a shared article would be fine. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep In my view he deserves his own article.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any memorabilia buff knows what Steiner Sports is, and they deserve its own article. The issue is that the sources specifically state either Steiner Sports, or his involvement with the company. Rename to Steiner Sports, as most of the information about him is about his company and Keep Secret ^account 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Brandon Steiner is mentioned in over 600 news articles (see, e.g., name in title, name in title, detailed bio info, detailed bio info). Over 600 news articles is plenty of source material from which to write a biography article on the topic per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage / Europa Nostra Awards[edit]

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

There is a lack of independent, substantial coverage about this prize. There are some general descriptions of it, but these are mainly on the EU website, so not independent. There are also some routine news reports that mention various entities having won the prize, but coverage in those cases is not substantial. There do not appear to be sources about this subject that are independent and in-depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nature of the award is discussed in multiple books and articles (some of them I have included in the article) and the award is regularly covered in multiple-language reliable and independent sources (eg see here). Enough fo me for a claim of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major international award. --AJHingston (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sourcing is an issue, but the award by an EU body is probably notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with reliable secondary coverage, such as BBC. Electric Catfish 01:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But move to 'Parents Centres New Zealand' (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Centres New Zealand Inc[edit]

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

Only ref is a self-published source, no reliable sources to show notability. PROD removed by IP, as was CSD tag for being promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 00:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Seems to be promotional. Mattlore (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant national (New Zealand wide) parenting organisation, set up in 1952 as an alternative to Plunket, and is well represented throughout New Zealand. The article needs a work over, but should not be deleted. NealeFamily (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant organisation in NZ. Needs references, but a quick search found relevant articles on the Stuff news web site and in the New Zealand Herald. Beastiepaws (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 17:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sufficient notability. It is a charity so I don't think we have to worry too much about being promotional. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page will need moving to Parents Centres New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Parents Centres New Zealand. There's plenty of reliable source material for the article. The article doesn't need to be deleted, it only needs to have someone put the reliable source information into the article.

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

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

The result was procedurally closed because I had already speedily deleted the article before this AFD was started, so there is nothing to discuss -- Y not? 17:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land Of The Free[edit]

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

Appears to be an intended article for a musician named Martin Zobel, but an article by that title already exists for a scientist. This article has content copied from the Martin Zobel article, but no indication that they are the same person. A search for sources to support notability for the musician came up empty. I am unable to find citations to support the claim that the artist album charted. Hoping others may come up with something in a language other than English. Lacking that, I cannot establish notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiko Wu[edit]

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

I just don't see how this person is sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Take away the publicity stunt, this a largely unsourced BLP. Wu lacks substantial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG and lacks awards to pass WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Gene93k. Jun Kayama 21:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC Sport. Redirect and Merge. I've redirected for now and left the page history intact so any interested parties can perform the merger. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Gossip Column[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a football-related column on the BBC website. Searched and can't find anything that satisfies WP:GNG (-site:bbc.co.uk on Google to exclude the BBC site itself). Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB either. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the BBC website, it there is one. The information in this article could be stated in one sentence. Borock (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BBC Sport. The BBC websites as a whole are notable because of their scale and reach which has led to criticism that commercial competitors cannot attempt to match them. But there is no need for a separate article on each aspect. --AJHingston (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to BBC Sport; article as it stands is not notable, created by an SPA and as noted could be restated in a single sentence elsewhere.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fusebox (programming)[edit]

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

This article has not any reliable source to indicating its notability. –ebraminio^talk 07:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fusebox is arguably the most notable of all CF frameworks - the article needs to be fixed, not deleted.
I notice ebraminio is putting AFDs on several PHP framework articles, and agree that the PHP port of Fusebox is probably not notable enough for its own article, but it is exactly that - a port of the CFML Fusebox framework - and, as I've said above, that original version is definitely notable.
Peter Boughton (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am not just putting PHP frameworks on AfD. I am checking this list for non-notable articles and I supposed that this article is not notable enough. –ebraminio^talk 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is an unimportant web app framework for an obsolete coding language. That said, for the language concerned, ColdFusion, this was (and probably still is) the premier framework. It was important within the ColdFusion world, appeared early in the history of such things and has a long, stable and documented history since. ColdFusion is far from being a language I would recommend to anyone, but within WP's definitions of notability, notability of such things are not transitory and so the article should be kept.
It would be nice to see it expanded with some sources before all the old CF hackers are dead and buried though. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ColdFusion is not an obsolete language, version 10 was released in May of this year. Andy is apparently confused. --SubSeven (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all the sources I could find on topic are not independent (at best they are ColdFusion-centered, which is a very narrow scope, leaving the Notability guideline's connotation of deferring the decision of notability to independent reliable sources unmet). The claim of historic (and probably current) significance of this title would save the article, but only if it is itself made in reliable source independent of topic, not by Wikipedia editors or sources that focus on ColfFusion and thus have substantial bias towards mention of related topics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "at best they are ColdFusion-centered"
  What utter nonsense! It's a framework for ColdFusion, with a later port to PHP. What else would you expect them to be centred on? That's like deleting jUnit "because it goes on about Java too much".Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would expect general computing sources with no bias towards ColdFusion and its subtopics (eg. ZDNet, DeveloperWorks, etc.). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a misapplication of the independence clause of WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be entire books devoted specifically to this (such as ISBN 9780735712690 and ISBN 9780972078634, to pick but two) and more books that are about larger subjects but that devote entire chapters to this (chapter 4, 70 pages, in ISBN 9780782140293) or lengthy discussions within chapters (pages 62 to 67 of ISBN 9780735713048). Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seem to be adequate independent sources, per our notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germans who resisted Nazism[edit]

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

Better served as a category. Alexandria (chew out) 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A category would have only the names, without background information on individual people. There are such lists in other languages, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually kind of because "I like it." There is a problem with the concept since probably some people had no problem with National Socialism itself, but were against the Holocaust and/or invading other countries. However I think we can overlook that since they all do deserve to be honored and the list will help people find their articles to learn more. I don't see any negatives to keeping the list. It's no problem to have both a list and a category. Borock (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't give preference to categories over lists, see WP:NOTDUP for the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a ridiculously uncompletable and thus unencyclopedic list. Look at this logically: would we allow a page called List of Germans who supported Nazism? Of course not — "support" is subjective and there are inherent problems with sourcing. The same exact thing for the converse: what connotes "resistance"? Armed struggle? Covert sabotage? Emigration and sending a letter to the editor of the Times of London? And where are the sources for that? Carrite (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the leading comrades of the KPD, SPD, etc. can be alternatively listed in "prominent members" lists on those relevant pages. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent problems with sourcing? Not so. I found sources for the articles I wrote, though proficiency in German may be requisite. Marrante (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this list after finding the original on the German Wikipedia, where most of the links are blue. I was astonished at the many names, having never heard of most of them. This list is not non-encyclopedic; rather it is a guide for those wishing to create articles on the subject. Most of the articles I created were pick-ups from the German WP and most of the sources picked up or found were likewise in German. I would never have written most of the articles I wrote had it not been for this list. Granted, there are a great many red links, but that should be no reason to delete this list. A quick perusal of the German version of the list will show that nearly all are available for translation. A category would not provide this guide for future articles. Marrante (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN, especially WP:AOAL --Boson (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Lugnuts and Boson, I don't see how the Categories & Lists guideline page mentioned in the above links speaks to the questions of inherent incompletability and subjective and undefinable inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing the nominator's "better served as a category". Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, and lists have advantages, as listed at WP:AOAL, e.g. "Can include items that are not linked . . . or items for which there are [as] yet no articles." I did not think the inherent incompletability of a list was grounds for its deletion and, in any case, it was not mentioned in the nomination, so I did not address that point. There may be grounds for specifying the criteria for inclusion more explicitly, but I don't see any insurmountable problems. Editorial judgment is, of course, required. That might provide potential for disruptive editing, but I don't think that is a reason for deletion. --Boson (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: An implied criterion for inclusion is that the people listed were notable for their resistance to Nazism; there have to be sources (mostly German, I imagine) stating that they resisted Nazism or describing actions that clearly indicate that. --Boson (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep, as the nominator fails to give a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP:

“

It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.

”

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets policies for lists. The list contains many notable individuals, which means the list is useful for navigation. With certain individuals, different sources may differ on whether they put up significant resistance, but you could say the same of almost any list grouping people by political beliefs, philosophy, artistic movement/genre, etc, and specific concerns about individuals can be handled without deleting the entire page, e.g. by explanatory text on the list. There are lots of books specifically about the German resistance against Nazism, which shows that a list of resisters is a coherent list topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy, educational, and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 11:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shannara. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellcrys[edit]

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

no assertion of notability Widefox (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shannara. There is no coverage of this fictional tree in any independent and secondary sources that I can find. Like the vast majority of fictional characters/creatures out there, it hasn't been discussed in-depth and separate from the series by any reliable sources, so a redirect to the main article for Shannara would be best. If there was a list of characters for the series I'd recommend redirecting it there, but we don't seem to have such a list. On a side note, I notice that we have quite a few Shannara characters with pages, so if some intrepid person wants to create such a list, that list would probably pass whatever notability exists for lists of that kind. But for this particular individual character? No, there's just no notability here that's separate from the series. This is probably better suited for a fan wiki than here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shannara - Concur with Tokyogirl79. This is fan wiki material. There is no notability outside of Shannara. There's this [14] for fans of the series. I hardly think that even the characters merit any Wikipedia pages, considering there are countless characters from major novels (i.e. Alexei Vronsky from Anna Karenina) without pages of their own. Jun Kayama 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to WP:verify notability, so it can never meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Procedural close due to the fact this is suggesting a merge. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Techxetra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable coverage about this college festival. The article has only primary sources to support its claims. Propose to merge with Tezpur University. — westeros91^{talk to me!} 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Secret of success (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - AFD is not the venue for proposing merges. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found one link.[15] Another reference is Assam Tribune, Tezpur varsity's annual event TechXetra begins on Oct 21 (October 18, 2011) is a detailed write up on Techxetra, but I couldn't find an online link. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation to New York City area airports[edit]

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

Article is a complete violation of Wikipedia's policy of not being a travel guide. If someone wants to know how to get to airports and their costs, they should use maps, brochures, travel websites, etc., not Wikipedia The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a "how to" or a "travel guide." Let others do that. Having said that the article is very well done, and useful to interested people. I wish I had checked it out before my last trip to NYC. Borock (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The transportation routes serving the airports can be mentioned in the individual airport articles. Dough 48 72 02:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I could, I'd say transwiki to our travel site, but we don't have one yet, so delete. Imzadi 1979 → 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as written, the concerns above are valid. But I think there is a topic here. Savidan 03:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There could be topics about how to get from any place to any place in the world, but that's not the purpose of WP by its own policies. Borock (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mordrake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward Mordrake

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

While this seems to be a popular legend since it is mentioned in several popular books and songs, the fact that it is just a legend is what is the problem here because no one knows if this Edward Mordrake actually existed. Searching his name on any search engine comes up with either Wikipedia mirrors or a bunch of personal blogs that say things like "reportedly," "supposedly," "rumored." This supposed picture of him cannot even be confirmed as really him. Furthermore, the contents of the article is copied almost word-for-word from this unreliable website. It even says that no reliable medical records of him exist, there are conflicting information about his supposed second face (it seems scientifically impossible for someone to have a fully developed second face with nothing else abnormal), and this legend passed down from generation to generation without reliable proof. Therefore, I do not find any evidence of WP:Verify here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no, delete, no, not sure, gaaah, why don't our policies cover two-faced Victorian sideshow attractions? I tried Google Books and came up with a few sources. Firstly, a book called 'Strange People' by Frank Edwards published in 1986. Google Books claims the book describes Mordrake as "scion of an aristocratic British family, who had a face on the back of his head. It had eyes, lips, nose and ears. It could see (that is, he could see through its eyes!). It could cry and laugh". Google Books also lists a book titled Ripley's Believe it or not: expect the unexpected! which says that Mordrake "was born a united twin, and had another face on the reverse of his — that of a beautiful girl whose eyes used to follow you around the room." Another Ripley's book, this one subtitled Extremely Weird repeats the same story. It's quite obviously legendary, and insisting on medical records and the like is probably going a bit too far. The question is whether or not such urban legend type material fits within the bounds of Wikipedia's mission. On that matter, I'm not at all sure: I have conflicted opinions. If we were to delete everything that was probably made up, we'd have to get rid of everything we have on aliens and other "paranormal" stuff, and probably cut a fairly large chunk out of our religion articles too. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The urban legend may not have left as big a footprint as say the Loch Ness Monster, at least not Yeti, but it's been noticed by the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences.[16]. Along with all the mentions Tom Morris has found, that should be plenty. Besides, we have all sorts of articles about two-faced politicians. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It seems to have been noticed by JHMAS as notably lacking sources. Just saying...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it has no good contemporary sources isn't reason for deletion, because Wikipedia can still cover mythological/folkloric topics as long as the legend has been discussed in detail. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I wasn't making an argument for deletion, just noting that it's ironic that the JHMAS couldn't find any sources either.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I get a 403 forbidden error from the supposed picture link of him up there. Maybe it's just me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be folklore, might be a real person, probably somewhere in between. The article actually does a decent job of clarifying this. Notability isn't in doubt, someone still being widely discussed after more than a century is notable enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Per Tom Morris. Also, I think that anything that Tom Waits wrote a song about is de facto notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps move to Edward Mordake - Wikipedia verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. That's it. All this twisting and turing about whether the topic is true is irrevant. The article has reliable sources, people reading and editing the article can check that information comes from the associated reliable source. Another reliable source for the article is Richmond Times Dispatch September 29, 2007. There's enough reliable source content for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source! I'm all ready to start an Edward Mordrake in popular culture article!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you search for his last name spelled as Mordake, there's more information:Orlando Sentinel January 29, 1999, Diario El Pais February 22, 2001, and Southern Review June 2001 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. True or false, it has its place in folklore and legends. Be guided by Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm and Aesop.--Zananiri (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Van Duzer Street[edit]

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

Article is about yet another short, meaningless residential street in Staten Island with the single source being dead and not proving any notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Avenue for my reasons for nominating this article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that this fairly pedestrian article doesn't mention the one interesting thing about this road that's the one fact written about it in several history books: that it used, along with Richmond Road and Amboy Road, to form part of the King's Highway, between the Watering Place (now Tompkinsville) through Cuckolds Town (now Richmond) to Tottenville. You can read all about that highway in this book, amongst others. Of course it's a simple exercise with the rename and edit tools to get to there from here, no deletion required (since, after all, the redirect left behind will point to an article that mentions the topic). It all depends from whether anyone feels like being a writer, today. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—not notable on its own. The King's Highway bit is interesting, but that should be a different article, and no redirect is needed from an unlikely search term. Imzadi 1979 → 06:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woffles Wu[edit]

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

The way the article is written, its more about the case/investigation rather than the subject. The subject does not seem notable beyond the case, and I feel the case itself does not seem notable and more like NEWS Zhanzhao (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to keep, see below) per WP:BLP1E, not to mention serious BLP issues; the case dominates the article including many negative unproven allegations against the man. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that they are not allegations now. They are facts. Woo was officially charged and was proven guilty and fined. This is not a case of one event. It is written like it is. That can be fixed. The lead section can be expanded. Controversy can be shortened. The man is clearly and highly notable. This is due to the fact that he is one of the only plastic surgeons in Singapore. He has also appeared in numerous tv shows. He is probably the most famous and prominent plastic surgeon in Singapore. He was famous long lo ng long ago. Long before this incident. So. I believe in a strong keep. And ps. This is not NEWS. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woo was officially charged and was proven guilty and fined. That could be said in a sentence or two. But most of that section consists of hints and allegations and things that are NOT proven. Tell you what: I'll go delete everything from that section that is unproven or mere allegations, on the grounds that it violates BLP policy, and then let's see if what we have left amounts to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there. I have trimmed the "controversy" section to reflect only what is on the record. That resolves the BLP issue in my opinion. However, evidence that he was famous for anything else is still lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edit. But still. If you were a singaporean you would know how notable he is. What else is he famous for, apart from this years fiasco? A lot. He's a minor tv celebrity. He's an accomplished alumnus of the national university of Singapore. Here. I found this. If you insist on refs to further show his notabiliTy. I wonder if it would help. Thanks. [ http://movies.nytimes.com/person/490814/Woffles-Wu] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that shows that he co-produced a movie. I'll add it to the article. But we are going to need more than that to show his notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. That's not my "insistence", it's Wikipedia's. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong choice of words this time. ;P... Anyways. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here. Another few things I found. They mention a little bout the man. Can they be considered as an RS? [17] [18] And imdb. For external links. Not rs. [19] You can have the honour of adding those in, Melanie, and helping to save the page from deletion. I dont mind. LOL Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can say you rescued this page. But come on. Notability, if i am right, is based on the existence of sources, not the presence of them. Is what i gave you, though, reliable and enough? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. And this. Is that good enough? [ http://www.asiaone.com/print/Health/News/Story/A1Story20091221-187277.html]Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so far. The two annual reports don't distinguish him from hundreds of other doctors, the IMDB link just duplicates the NYT link already in the article, and the AsiaOne story simply quotes him among others. But I appreciate your efforts. Let me take a look at Google News Archive and see if I can find anything more helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search results: the vast majority of the coverage about him is about his legal case, which was clearly an enormous deal in Singapore. But I now think this is the opposite of WP:BLP1E; instead of the person being notable because of this one case, the truth is that the (rather trivial and routine) criminal case was notable only because the person is so prominent. I did manage to find some Reliable Source items that were about him rather than the case, and I added them to the article. The new sources tend to suggest that he is notable, as Bonkers says. I am changing my opinion to Keep based on the new sources, better balance, and elimination of BLP violations in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Actually subject was already notable. Just lacking sources. But i cant blame you for not knowing his popularity in Singapore at first since you are californian to begin with. But still. Glad such issues ar resolved. Haha. And thank you for making such rather vast improvements to the article in which I created. Your effort in finding such reliable sources is noted. ;} Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the current sourcing indicates that he ~~was~~ is notable in Singapore as a plastic surgeon and the intense coverage about the court case is due to the interest of anything celebrity related. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urm. Just something minor. Could you change the "was notable" to "is notable"? (He's still notable. He's still alive. LOL.) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Examples of significant coverage in reliable sources include, but are not limited to: [20] (subscription required), [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this relisted? There were three "keep" !votes and no deletes except for the nominator's. Just wondering. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly slanted towards a keep. Very clear cut. Shall ask the one who relisted it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's their call as administrator. The discussion will get closed eventually, and relisting can't hurt. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was relisted because at that time only two users (including the creator) had commented and I felt that an opportunity should be extended for more editors to participate. As Melanie says, relisting can't hurt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources weren't' found to rise to WP:GNG, nor was evidence presented of notability under WP:AUTHOR j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sahu[edit]

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

Non-notable poet/author, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There are a very few sources which mention subject's name but no significant coverage in any. — Bill william compton^Talk 11:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Srong keep: sorry, you are compeletely wrong, subject well estabilhes the WP:notability.I think you did not properly search the sources. Please it is better you reverse your proposed deletion request. Here are WP:reliable sources as,

1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7.

There are lot of more, later I am going to improve and wikify the article.Justice007 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, notability must be asserted. None of the above mentioned sources establish the notability of subject; ignou.ac.in is a faculty profile, having a Google Books entry is not a proof of notability, and reliability of merinews.com is itself questionable. You have given only one reliable and independent link which is of The Times of India but please check before making a claim, Nandini Sahu in this article is some poor, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya alumni, other backward class, Kanpur resident who got a good rank in Indian Institute of Technology Joint Entrance Examination in 2012 not about this 39 years old poet. Please read Wikipedia guideline to identify reliable sources. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, all the single para sources are from book publishers and fairs. Merinews is not a reliable source, the ToI article mentions a different person by the same name, and online links to books are obviously not sufficient. In the absence of passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG this ought to be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 06:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Books (3 of the sources) cannot and does not have an editorial board due to its inherent nature. The source from the Times of India is inconsistent with the information from this article (from a different area and studies the sciences) and most likely about a different person, "Nandini, a native of a village in Akbarpur in Kanpur Dehat has also been a student of Navodaya Vidyalaya in Faizabad ... She gives credit of her success to teachers of Navodaya Vidyalaya who taught her the basics of science to crack JEE."^[1] The reliability of merinews.com is questionable as previously mentioned (I was able to find multiple grammatical errors throughout the site). Another source is directly from the University she works at. The Syndic Journal is written, compiled, and maintained by only one person. The only source I could find on the article which comes close to establishing notability is All About Book Publishing (which is still pushing it considering the amount of weasel words). As such, in my judgement it does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG -Bgmur (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator

You need to be fair, google books reviews and in the books foreword written by academics are reliable source, do not impose wrong interpretations of the policies. Subject is obviously notable and passes all policies. Policy does not state spicific numbers/members of the editrorial board. Anyhow, even these sources establish the notability of the subject, this and that, and here, though there are more. I consider editors accessment poor and ~~non-sense~~ weak opinion. Please do not preach me the policies.Justice007 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article to be kept you need to find reliable sources, not absurd statements calling other editors views as nonsense, especially when the best source you point to is a user submissions aggregator.—SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are an administator, would you please clarify in the exact concept of "reliable sources". As the policies that I know and understand, for establishing notability, there is needed at least one reliable source, is that not visible in the sources?. You are rejecting editorial board, google books, academics reviews, what is then other reliable source??.Justice007 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we realy understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy?. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Justice007, STOP RETALIATION and ATTACKING my contributions for agreeing with deletion of Nandini Sahu's article. Your action amounts to HARASEMENT. Immediately after I posted my agreement (above) with deletion of Nandini Sahu's article you went after an article (Seyamak R. Payek)‎ I had authored and contibuted to and attacked it with frivilous lack of notability. You should be banned from Wikipedia.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spiffs comments above. --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Blaze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Oft-deleted internet meme, with two previous AfD discussions resulting in deletion. It's a slight improvement over previous incarnations, but I still don't think notability is adequately demonstrated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt. Notability is asserted based on one song off a demo tape from twenty years ago? No, I don't think so. Already twice deleted. Salt it this third time. Qworty (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Alexander Daniel Memorial Award[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with general notability guidelines. In an effort to find sources to either support notability or determine original research, could not find any sources outside of press releases. Overall, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 10:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 individual pages by day; no consensus on the main timeline, default to keep. There is no unique content from the individual pages by day that are not on the main timeline already. Der yck C. 14:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission[edit]

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

WP:NOT a gallery of pictures, and WP:NOT a diary. Create a timeline when the main article gets too long to include all the important, notable events, but don't turn this into the (picture) diary of Curiosity on Mars. Also nominated are all subpages by day:

MSL Curiosity mission Sol 0
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 1
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 2
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 3
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 4
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 5
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 6
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 7
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 8
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 9
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 10
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 11
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 12
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 13
MSL Curiosity mission Sol 14

Fram (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete on pages 0-14. Even a 2-year mission would mean 700+ separate pages. Pages very similar to this were already deleted via AfD [26], and those were even grouped by week. Weak delete on the article itself (as it exists currently), but I am open to reasoned compromises. OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think there could be a way to do the main article successfully at some point. There have been versions of the Curiosity rover article which have incorporated the mission daily summaries into a table. Perhaps they could be summarized by week, rather than by day? After two months, they could be summarized by month? Etc. Evolve the presentation with the mission timeline, rather than creating an endless repository mirroring other repositories? OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the daily mission articles, no opinion on the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission article. An article for every day of the mission obviously isn't going to work, but a general timeline article of the mission will be useful at some point - I'll defer to others as to whether or not that time is now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - all of them. However, expect their re-creation by user:Havebased123 (a team effort will be required to contain this rouge user.) The MSL mission does needs a timeline of "key" developments, once there is something to write about, but I will be willing to help build one with a self-sustainable format. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too many articles on small events and know that the whole mission will last over 2 years! That's over 700 days, so it's better to not even start making all those articles. However, a single article mentioning all the major events from all the days is a good idea, sort of like a detailed timeline. Giggett (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons can host day to day pictures of the mission, so transwiki the daily pages there if it's not already on there in some form. Keep the overall timeline, as there already are enough events worth noting and it's senseless to delete it now only to recreate it later. postdlf (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC) (edited 14:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete the pages on individual Sols and Keep/Improve the timeline article. The images and videos should go or just be linked to in the timeline text, more like the existing mini timeline in the main article. The Curiosity article is already getting quite lengthy (almost 80KB as of right now) and the timeline looks like a good candidate for splitting into a separate article given that it's quite likely to be the most-growing section. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with fixes timeline. Merge subpages. Save the refs! Fotaun (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've saved the code of the page, just in case we need to incorporate items into any future articles. OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission, which should be renamed Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission to improve grammar and remove the redundant use of alternative names. While day-to-day activities do not warrant their own articles, an overall timeline would be a good way to present the notable activities and discoveries. That said, the article needs a complete rewrite as it currently looks more like a portal than an article. --W. D. Graham 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to put in perspective the reason this timeline made it to AfD: simply "fixing" the article is not an option, as user Havebased123 is displaying acute WP:ownership issues and reverts any edit not done by him. Without discussion. Re-doing the article --when there are relevant events to report-- is the best course of action. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete content because of content disputes or editor conduct issues. Take it through proper channels, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, on occasion, we do, when WP:TNT is necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be necessary. Although the filed SPI for the creation editor was closed without much discussion, the creation editor has a history of attempting to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines by blanking their talk page, avoiding communication, and editing under multiple IPs when confronted [27]. The topic is also under discussion on the ANI board, here. This has caused serious disruption to a series of articles, including the Mars Science Laboratory article and the Curiosity rover article, in addition to at least six editors having to spend significant amounts of time attempting to reign in a non-communicative rogue user. This has direct bearing on the page in question, as there is no indication this behavior will not continue.OliverTwisted^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how pulling out the WMDs for this article is going to help in cutting down the user's disruption, as it looks to me like they'd just resume their trouble-making when we start paving, unless we want to just forget about splitting the timeline off from the main article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ths daily pages - they are clearly unnecessary. One Timeline page to list notable events is sufficient. Peacock (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to User space, not encyclopedic to have daily reports, additionally much of this information/content is available elsewhere. - Aeonx (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I know that as of now, it is just a messy collection of bits just laid out in chronological order but it think that it is more a question of finding the right typographical arrangement. For example: A new column added after the date is all that is need to indicate the Sol. The reader is quite capable of scrolling down and finding it by either of the two date references. Therefore, a vertical content box needn't list them. A horizontal contents template may be better for listing the Dates & Sol's anyway, rather than put them all in the standard vertical Contents menu. See: Template:List TOC/sandbox. When the list gets too long - split it up into quarter years (the daily news will reduce to a slow drip after a few weeks anyhow and many Sols may go by with nothing new to add). Most images would be better off on related articles (Curiosity and MSL) as they are only a link away. The article just needs some some style rules to be worked out to make it more encyclopedic IMHO.--Aspro (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following on from what W. D. Graham and others have said. It would be easier to start a new article properly named as Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and properly laid out. The time-line only needs to be a simple wiki-table list for the 'minutia' (without images) that doesn't belong in the two other articles. Then delete this one. --Aspro (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think including the (contextually relevant) images in a table like is used for the "missions" bit in the Sol 11 section would be better for understanding, so we'd have |image (if there's a relevant one)|date|event|notes|. Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Timeline page. Merge daily articles. Stated deletion rationale is incorrect. 1) The images are not merely a "gallery without text", but synchronized with descriptions of what the rover was doing and when it was doing it. A gallery as defined in policy is not just "a lot of pictures". 2) While there are elements superficially similar to a diary here, the MSL probe simply is not a person. Its daily exploratory activities are not happenstance non-notable events in the life of a celebrity, but a carefully designed plan of research activities, none of which has ever been done before. Had the money used to build this probe been spent on individual research projects, there can be little doubt that hundreds of individually notable results would have been obtained; we should not shoehorn them together under the notion that a thing is a thing, no matter how big or small. That said, while several of the daily articles might nominally be notable, it is unlikely that the Sol 453 article will be, so it's not a good organization. Merge them together into a single page, and when that page gets too big to edit comfortably, break it down along more conceptual boundaries (alluvial fan, water-deposited strata, wind-deposited strata, etc.) The idea that multiple pages are necessary is good, the idea that they should be sol by sol or that it will be possible to display them all in full detail on one single page when the mission is finished is not. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Timeline, Delete Daily Articles. I do not think having a lot of pictures is grounds for deletion, and the timeline is too big to be merged back into the MSL page. I agree to delete the individual Sol pages, or at least merge them; they are redundant and useless. Kelvinsong (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep timeline, Delete daily pages. I see no reason to have a ton of separate daily articles on the subject. One consolidated timeline page where some restraint on what is included is far better. We don't need to have every single image and activity of Curiosity documented. Silver seren^C 21:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission (which should be renamed to Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission), as per Graham above. But not to keep it as it is now. Reh man 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual sols. The Timeline should probably be trimmed down so there is no real need to merge any content from the individual sol articles. Keeping the timeline as its own article, on the other hand, is probably reasonable, though with some judicious application of NOTNEWS and avoiding of recentism it might be mergeable with the main MSL article. But that's more a question of what is the best presentation than an issue for AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete timeline and sol articles. Information of that detail should go somewhere like Wikia, not in an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close per consensus; page has been substantially overwritten and moved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysis (disambiguation)[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Chrysis"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Procedural note: This nomination was originally about this version, then at Chrysis. The page was rewritten and moved during this nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of WP:notability. Character in a book that does not have an article. noq (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confused and extremely poorly written. There might be an issue about considering whether the novel itself should have an article, but no indication of notability is provided here, and even if we decided that an article about the novel would be legitimate, this page is so poorly written it couldn't serve even as a starting point of a rewrite/merge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes a character is better known than the book title. One indication of possible notability is the author's name (which I've bluelinked). I know that all the Wikipedias are different, but it's considered worthy at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_%28Lou%C3%BFs%29 and even at http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_%28Petrus_Lou%C3%BFs%29. Basically, this character IS the book, so either a rename to Aphrodite (Pierre Louÿs) leaving this as a redirect, or more simply creating a redirect from that title to this would be in order. Being badly written is no real reason for deletion - easily sorted. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems there is an article on the book - Aphrodite: mœurs antiques under its name in French. I would think the best course of action would be to make Chrysis a redirect to that. I am not seeing much on google about this usage of Chrysis. noq (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind a redirect, except that it's hardly the "primary topic" of the name – there are lots of other "Chrysis" that are at least as notable – this [28][29] historical personality; the heroine of this far more notable literary work, or even this lovely genus of cuckoo wasps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stub. I don't know if the topic is sufficiently notable, but unless someone is prepared to read the book and verify that User:Jamesluxley's summary of it is accurate, I don't think we should keep it - he is the author of all sorts of lunatic nonsense, and I don't think we can treat a word he says as reliable. For examples of his other works, see Oikema (historical version), and his personal web site here (he linked it himself, so I'm not outing anything) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After change to disambiguation page:

Retract deletion vote, regarding the new disambiguation page, which seems reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep this and keep the stub at chrysis. But you know me. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'll challenge you into mortal wiki-combat over the question of whether this charming and colourful little lady or that ill-fated ashen old lady should have the honour of being the primary topic. Let the edit-wars begin! Well, let me write that other stub first... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me as well. noq (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shall we close this? The pages have changed so much now that it seems to make little sense to keep this nomination open. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As the article is fundamentally different now to what was originally posted, I would agree - time for a close keep. noq (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is (was) a not very cleverly disguised attack page and "hoax" or "vandalism" are valid rationales. "Meaningless drivel", if it isn't covered elsewhere, easily falls under WP:IAR. It has been pointed out by participants in this discussion that even if it weren't what it was, it's useless, here or elsewhere. So, as a final closing rationale I'd like to cite WP:SNOW. Basic argument and content are preserved externally; there is no reason to keep this AfD running.. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oikema[edit]

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

Completely confused OR essay about a Greek word; completely wrong in large parts, confusing real-world info with fictional elements in others. If pared down to what little in this page is actually correct, we'd be left with a mere dictionary definition whose only place could be at wiktionary. But there's really nothing in this page as it stands now that is even worth being used as a starting point for further development. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the stubbing back now; the original horrible version can be seen here: [30]. But, as I said, even this version is a candidate for transwiki to wiktionary at best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem exactly? I am explaining what the word means and covers. How can people know what a "new" word is if they don't get it explained though use so I need to explain it by pointing to literature, art etc. And actually the word does man something in greek. You wrote it was an old anvient word. It is used today also. So that was wrong indeed. Please give me a few hints here and I shall gladly fix it unless it is going to be delete anyway whatever happens. Lets see if I/we can fix this and please let us know what more information you need entered. It is like explainign what a "chair" is for the first time so please help more than you delete. Delete is easy, right. CU all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesluxley (talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it starts with the obviously false claim that "οἰκήματι" isn't a single word in Greek (it is, as anyone with a shattering of Greek knows). It goes downhill from there. It ends with the equally bizarre inclusion of a paragraph about a modern brothel in Salzburg, which has nothing at all to do with the topic of the article. The main problem though is that you couldn't make up your mind about what the topic of the article is actually supposed to be: is it about all things that were called "oikēma"? (i.e. including all sorts of different buildings, prison cells, stables etc.?) Or is it specifically about the "brothel" sense? If the former, what do the places in Salzburg or "building Z" at Kerameikos have to do with it? If the latter, what does Acts 12:7 have to do with it? And why are these different stories all mixed into one, e.g. within the "theology" section? What about that bizarre claim that the reference to the prison cell in Acts 12:7 was actually meant to refer to a brothel? Is that your own speculation? This is unsalvageable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. I couldn't figure out at first what the author of this page was driving at, but now he's linked to his homepage [31] which makes it all clear. It's all so very simple, really. According to the bible, St. Peter once was in prison. The word used for "prison cell" in ancient Greek happens to be the same that was also used for cells of brothels. Therefore, St. Peter really wasn't in a prison but in a brothel. Therefore, (gasp!) the Vatican is a brothel! Yes, the Catholic Church is really all about sex and money! Wikipedia must prove the truth! – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am glad you finally understood the context. It does take a little time to read and understand. For some it is a process taking days or even weeks. Oikema is used in architecture to describe a brothel. So far so good? Oikema is used in the Bible only once in Acts 12:7 as Oikemati οἰκήματι which is a nonsense word but in fact two words namely Greek: οἰκήμα τι meaning what house. Do you follow this so far? The new added content someone added is totally nonsense also. You link to Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon showing the word οἰκ-ήμα which does absolutely not exists except in that website. οἰκ-ήμα translates to Greek: "Rev-ima" and has no meaning whatsoever. I search high and low and it is only to be found at that university site. Must be made up because it simply does not exist. I shall leave the current entry for a while and then enter the real meaning of the word and what is actually is related to Acts 12:7. I am aware of the attempt to delete and spoil and obstruct this entry for Oikema. I can also gasp but for other reasons namely the fact that your new entry is utterly nonsense and this can be proven. I am waiting for a prompt reply and shall reedit the nonsense someone entered to get the facts back. There are many lies and someone just made more by entering a link as proof for the word οἰκήμα being οἰκ-ήμα which is a madeup word which absolutely does not exist. You also deleted (naturally) everything related to Oikema being used in architecture describing a brothel. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesluxley (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrespective of the version. The stub is a foreign-language dictionary definition, and belongs ... well, somewhere else. Probably at Wiktionary, but not here, and doubly so. The longer version is a novel synthesis entirely unsupported by reliable sources, and to the extent that it surmises that the Liberation of Saint Peter actually involved Peter's trip to a brothel, also fails WP:FRINGE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't belong either here or at Wiktionary. It's sheer drivel, apart from the part that gives a dictionary definition, but doesn't spell the word in the correct alphabet as Wiktionary demands. For the sake of anyone reading this who doesn't know their New Testament Greek, here's the fault in the foundation of this entire tottering edifice of tripe:
"οίκημα" is an ordinary (NT) Greek word, that the English Wiktionary is missing, like many of the words on wikt:Appendix:Greek word lists/3. (The Greek Wiktionary has "wikt:el:οίκημα#Ελληνικά (el)" from Modern Greek.) It is a neuter noun in the third declension, and as you can see from wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension that means that its dative is "οἰκήματι". The dative follows the preposition "ἐν", and that is what one finds in Acts 12:7 where both "οἰκήματι" and indeed the definite article "τῷ" preceding it (per simple agreement) are both dative. This should have been a clue.
This whole load of old baloney is made up by one person, based upon a lack of that one piece of information and any clue whatsoever about Greek, put on a WWW site, and then put into Wikipedia by that same person in violation of our no original research policy. Not only is it a novel hypothesis that doesn't exist anywhere outwith its creator; but it is also a novel hypothesis that is verifiably wrong per the sources cited. See where Lidell & Scott's dictionary says "οἴκ-ημα, ατος, τό" at the top? That's how that particular lexicon — and indeed a lot of Greek lexica ("λεξικά": second declension, neuter nominative plural) — indicates the declension that applies, by giving the nominative singular ("οἴκημα"), the suffix for the genitive singular ("-ατος") because the full stem of a third declension noun ("οἴκηματ-" in this case) isn't present in the nominative singular, and the form of the nominative singular definite article for the noun ("τό") to indicate the gender.
We can redirect to Claude Nicolas Ledoux when someone decides to actually mention the building that he designed by this name in that article. But this pile of witless waffle we can do entirely without. Wiktionary doesn't need this, could do better than this from a standing start, and probably will. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original version was pure nonsensical OR. And though I don't know any Greek, I'm happy to go with Uncle G's assessment that there's nothing salvageable here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete, no transwiki. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan, and has started its own entry on this word at wikt:οἴκημα. Angr (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. I like "witless waffle" easily as good as the Fourth Doctors "bafflegap" MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tottering edifice of tripe" is good too, though "tottering tower of tripe" would have been better. Angr (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie van der Putten[edit]

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

Notability Mehmit (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 20. Snotbot t • c » 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a quick look for news, Google, etc I see a number of sources that look good, and ongoing (although not in great quantity) news coverage between 2008-2012. (This does not appear in Google News, btw) Not in-depth, but ongoing (not all in English though). While I don't really know much about models, Debbie van der Putten has notability in the disabled world as one of the very few disabled models (other than Aimee Mullins to receive ongoing coverage and publicity, although obviously not as much as say, Kate, Naomi or Gisele. Unusually, the Google results are not utterly swamped with non-RS as they so often are for other models,which makes it easier to spot some other RS such as 1, 2. She does seem notable to me on the basis that she is often interviewed for disability websites and magazines and has also received some coverage in independent news sources. If notability is the only reason for the nom, then this can be resolved by properly referencing and tidying up the article. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per what appears to be an apparent lack of source searching prior to nomination, as suggested at WP:BEFORE, section D. The first page of the Google News link above provides several reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this person, who clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Some articles include: [32], [33], [34], [35]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 07:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and snowball close - The subject clearly meets notability. The fact that the article is badly written and referenced is not a valid reason to delete, it can easily be fixed. Roger (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_DNS_record_types#TLSA. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLSA record[edit]

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

Article about a DNS record type defined by an IETF draft RFC (i.e. an RFC that has not been adopted yet). Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. BenTels (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused: I am not sure it passes GNG, and as currently written could be deleted for lack of context. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a new DNS resource record. It would be nice if the submitter had populated the page with more text, but it is a new addition to DNS that is worth properly documenting. I would not suggest we delete it unless there is no interest to expand on the article entry. Perhaps the RFC authors might want to provide input? Paulej (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not a new DNS record yet. That is why I nominated the article for deletion. While I agree with you that a DNS record described by a standard is notable, the standard behind this record has not been adopted yet. And might therefore still fail. Hence WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (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} 03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect as both WP:TOOSOON and not WP:NOTABLE. The content is basically duplicated in List of DNS record types. It is probable that the RFC will become accepted as standard internet protocol/policy, but even then I'm not sure this requires a separate article; a subsection under Transport Layer Security would be more appropriate. For now a redirect to List of DNS record types should be sufficient.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the List of DNS record types does include this entry, several record types that have their own pages. Given the nature of TLSA, I can certainly appreciate this one having its own page. Items that need to be covered include use of TLSA with DNSSEC. A discussion on the background of certificates and why DNSSEC + TLSA might help mitigate issues from issuance of bogus certificates. The format of the record and perhaps details on how to properly generate the records would be useful. At a high level, it would be useful to explain how an entity (browser or other) might query a TLSA record for a given server and verify that the domain owner has, indeed, authorized the digital certificate found at said server. TLSA records make it possible to significantly change the way people use digital certificates. I would love to see an outline created and sections fleshed out. Paulej (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2012 (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} 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DNS record types as WP:CRYSTAL. Since this isn't an accepted record yet, there's zero reason for it to have its own pagespace. If User:Paulej wants this userfied for improvement, I have no objection. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Collins[edit]

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

Founding and editing a redlinked journal don't constitute any apparent notability. No sources, and I'm not seeing any out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK in any discernible way. Qworty (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinton F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football club. Not played in FA Cup or FA Vase, or at level 10, which has been set because that is the level at which clubs currently become eligible for the FA Cup. Fails WP:GNG too. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The status that Hinton has played at in the past needs to be properly clarified. I believe that they played at the equivalent of Level 10 in Division 1 of the West Midlands (Regional) League in 1988-89 & 1989-90 before the Midland Football Alliance was established in 1994. This article should be saved if we accept the "equivalent status to a current league" logic as we have in a number of other cases. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I believe the "level 10 equivalent going back through time" argument is flawed. What we currently mean by "played at level 10" isn't to do with it being a nice round number. It's the level at which a team is eligible to compete in the FA Cup. That hasn't been level 10 throughout history. Otherwise we can look back through time and find any number of leagues that may have been de facto level 10. What was level 10 in 1924? etc. The question we really need to ask is, has the club played at a level where it could enter the FA Cup? I think the fact that it has never entered either the FA Cup or FA Vase is quite telling in that regard. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get my head around when we should use the "equivalent status to a current league" criterion and when we should ignore it. At the moment we seem to accept clubs that are currently playing at level 10 that have not played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. Why should Hinton be excluded when they have played in more recent times (the last 25 years) at the same level as say clubs in the Kent Invicta League. In some countries entry to the national cup is extremely limited and the issue of looking at "equivalent status to a current league" can become extremely pertinent in saving an interesting article. In my view it is not a criterion we should completely ignore. League Octopus (League Octopus 13:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, that's why we should treat it on a GNG basis. – Kosm1 fent 04:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and no evidence of any sporting notability. Giant Snowman 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 04:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Don't delete. There's no interest in deletion apart from the nominator here. Discussions about merging or redirecting can take place on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killygordon railway station[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No sources found via Google Web, Google Books or the Google News archive. Apparently this is one of a set of articles based on the same list of Irish railway stations. If this one gets deleted, I'll probably mass-nominate all similar articles. Huon (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per long standing convention, all rail stations are notable, even if they're not longer operating. It's difficult to see vowing to "mass nominate" as good faith effort as it is seldom so and never when it is opposed to consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC) --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware that yet another topic claimed "inherent notability" independent of sources and the GNG. Anyway, this is meant as a test balloon on a class of very similar articles based on the same "source". If this is deleted, consensus would probably support deletion of the other similar articles, too - if it's kept, I won't bother with nominating any of the others, individually or collectively. See also WP:AGF. Huon (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a railway enthusiast, but I think one of the wonders of wikipedia, is that the railway enthusiasts have given us information on almost every railway station in the world. I think that is splendid and useful. The information is not being challenged, and I am sure that various local history sources could confirm it. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that the article needs expansion is not a reason to delete. Convention is that stations are capable of meeting GNG and thus articles are justified. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations are considered to be notable, as they have proven to generally have enough coverage to pass GNG in the past. The sources aren't always convenient or online, but they should be there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just about every rail station has gotten mentioned in the press over many years. You'll also be likely to find coverage in book-length local histories if they exist. Since this one still exists (as a building; I understand that it closed), have you checked to see if it has historic site status? 2001:18E8:2:1020:39DA:295B:5548:EA5E (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Killygordon#Transport as there doesn't seem to be much to say about this building. Warden (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you there wasn't much to say about this building? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I determined this myself by reviewing the sources out there which seem to contain little detailed information. Warden (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect There's a bunch of almost identical articles about these stations which carry almost no unique information: compare Cavan Halt railway station. All this info could be presented in a table on Finn Valley Railway: instead of a bunch of articles which say "Station A serves town B was opened at time D and lies between E and F" you just have a list of stations in order, with location and opening date. If a station is really notable by Wikipedia standards (and a self-published book by a local historian doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards) then the article could be re-created. WP:RAILOUTCOMES says stations are "normally" notable, but not invariably so. If people believe this station is notable, they should provide references, as is standard policy in other Wikipedia deletion discussions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GLPeas[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2012 (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) 01:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage on reliable sources about the company. There are a few blog reviews of their games, but they don't meet notability either — Frankie (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources, no notability. Huon (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borean languages[edit]

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

Fringe subject with no real coverage in mainstream linguistics. Eurasiatic (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sure it's a crackpot theory, but it's a notable crackpot theory, as shown by the multiple reliable sources in the article. Angr (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the sources in the article that discuss the theory in some depth originate with one or the other of the two persons who originated the theory. No evidence that any linguist beyond the inventors (who apparently don't agree with each other) ever bothered with the theory. Huon (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In response to Huon, let it be noted that, while the theory is confined to a few linguists, these are notable linguists; Starostin in particular is one of the leading lights of the "Moscow School". --TimNelson (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a cursory Google scholar search reveals that the topic is notable. --Lambiam 10:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is indeed notable and invites more coverage not less.--Zananiri (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bonga (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massemba[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2007. I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources or evidence that it had charted, so I don't believe this album meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Jenks24 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, this need redirection (to the artist article as long as no discography article for him exists), not deletion. Fram (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. There's no indication of notability, but keeping the redirect won't hurt. Huon (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points from Fram and Huon. I'd be fine with a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion participants who addressed the question felt that this was a case of WP:BLP1E. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakireddy Bali Reddy[edit]

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

I am nominating this BLP for deletion based on WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:BLP1E. The subject is clearly notable only for one event, which was a local and not national or international news story. Chimino (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seem to pass wp:gng--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearcut example of a WP:BLP1E, with the case having no lasting implications as far as the sources can tell. Secret ^account 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed nurali[edit]

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

Unable to verify information with sources listed, unable to find further sources to establish notability. May fail WP:MUSICBIO Zujua (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any reliable independent sources that give more than a passing mention. --Deskford (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cure Is Now[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Of the three sources, one is a blog, one only mentions the organisation in passing, and one doesn't mention the organization at all. PlasmaDragon (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources are given, I can't find any, and while the cause is noble that's not sufficient. Ubelowme _U ^Me 07:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johntae Lipscomb[edit]

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

I believe he fails WP:ENT, as there is insufficient evidence that his multiple roles are significant. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was unable to find (via various Google and Highbeam searches) any sourcing which reaches WP:GNG nor role that reaches WP:ENT, nor does the verifiable nomination for Best Supporting Young Actor from the Young Artist Awards reach WP:ANYBIO #1. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Masthead Studios. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GUNS and ROBOTS[edit]

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

This upcoming video game has some coverage, and if it were out now I'd think it probably was notable. However, there's WP:CRYSTAL to consider, which states that Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. I redirected this to Masthead Studios as the policy suggests, but was reverted. Thus I am here requesting a result of redirect, which I hope is an appropriate thing to do here. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (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) 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:CRYSTAL says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

This game release date is set for December,which is 3 months from now. Masthead Studios are not unknown studio.They already have one big mmo title behind. The game teaser has been released already and as far as I know, soon there will be game play videos. I think there are no evidence supporting your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haidme (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 August 2012

Redirect to Masthead Studios. As pointed out by User:Haidme above, Masthead is not unknown; they are known for using others' intellectual property without license. So any article predicting the outcome of a new product needs far better sources than this article has right now, per WP:CRYSTAL. Based on the experience of Earthrise, there is no certainty anything announced by Masthead will take place. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete folllowing relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia and Chandra Costello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A biography for two people (sisters?) in one article. No references Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for these twins (one of which has performed under several different names, which I searched under) shows that there's just no notability here per Wikipedia guidelines. There's plenty of mentions in fan sites as well as "junk" results and random image results, but nothing out there that would show that either twin would meet notability guidelines or that any of their roles would be notable enough to merit an article. I would recommend a redirect, but since they seem to be marginally well known for being Juggie Twins on The Man Show as well as on the WWE Diva Search, I'm not sure which would be best.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you want a target for redirection the more adequate appears to be WWE Diva Search, as The Man Show article does not even mention them.~~ Cavarrone (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The man show does link here, each as seperate entries.

Oh, you are right (again), there Chandra is credited as Shawnie Costello. Cavarrone (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete no notablity, already subject to an AFD where the result was delete. Nominating for speedy myself. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined, somewhat similar but not substantially so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. We don't even agree with IMDb on the actresses' first names. (While Chandra seems to have changed her first name, we simply seem to have gotten her sister's name wrong. There are no reliable sources for her either way, though.) Huon (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Command & Conquer mods[edit]

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

Just a list of mods with mostly only links to the mod pages themselves and in one instance to a youtube channel. The only mod that has any kind of coverage, Red Alert: A Path Beyond, could simply be merged to the appropriate page rather than having an independent article. Jtrainor (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2012 (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) 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I put this together based on a large number of unlikely to be notable pages. I would probably suggest a redirect to the series page, with a merge for RA APB per Jtrainor. --Izno (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, delete ASAP!!! It actually can be speedy deleted just for it being unreferenced and not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. 178.223.124.235 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of references are not what make articles suitable for deletion, but lack of notability, which I think it's safe to say is the case here. --Izno (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also am for deletion. Also, it seems that everybody agrees the article should be deleted. Lakisan97 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endian Firewall[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I can find is a stream of routine announcements, seemingly reprints of company's press releases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Endian is one of the most polished and well developed network management and security suite "distros" much like vyatta and ClearOS. I am strongly opposed to its deletion because of poor contribution now. I am willing to hound for community reviews and sources.

—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be you could also name the sources that could be used for improving it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only trivial mentions in Google Books. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Weber (casting director)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO,WP:ENT PantsB (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References include an IMDB list, a personal/promotional website bio and a one day lecture given to a small acting studio. Essentially no verifiable coverage I can find, Googling results in some advertisements/announcements for acting classes and a personal website. PantsB (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PantsB (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PantsB (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just in case its not implied by the abovePantsB (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to fix it and gave up. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast away per nom. No media coverage to be found. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valley coal mine[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No significant coverage in the one reference provided. Google not showing anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there is a museum there now, we may be sure that the topic is well documented. Here's a source with a pointer to more. The worst case is that we'd merge into some more general article such as South Staffordshire Coalfield. Warden (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not seeing anything to show the mine as being notable. The sources now in the article show it exists, the Express and Star article says a museum is using some of the old buildings - but the museum is not about the mine, it just happens to occupy the same space. noq (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep More information is needed but seems notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep -- South Staffordshire Coalfield is as yet a poor article, merely listing the coal seams. However, it would probably not be the right one for this to be redirected to, as that coalfiedl is regarded as ending at the Bentley faults. The right one would be called something like Cannock Chase Coalfield, but I do not think we have such an article. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to have an article on every coal mine in the UK. Nevertheless, until there is an appropriate place for the article to be merged, I think we need to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are we looking at the same article? A grand total of four Google hits for "valley coal mine" cannock chase -wikipedia, three for "valley coal mine" hednesford chase -wikipedia. Warden's link makes no reference to a "valley coal mine," only referring to a mine and museum in the same general area. No mention of a mine by that name in the external link on the article either. The article seems to suggest there was a mine named "Valley Coal Mine" somewhere, and I'm just not seeing any evidence of that at all. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was also confused at first that even the external link didn't mention this site, but as it turns out it is normally referred to as "Valley Pit" and "Valley Colliery". Those searches turned out to be much more fruitful, see "valley pit" cannock chase -wikipedia, "valley colliery" cannock chase -wikipedia, and from GBooks "valley pit" cannock chase and "valley colliery" cannock chase. Sample links [36] [37] [38] [39]. A merge to a Cannock Chase Coalfield article might be useful, but it seems clear that the site is of some historical significance by itself — Frankie (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electricbuda Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Ne external refs at all. Has been tagged as lacking notability since December 2011 with no improvement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this record label. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gongshow ^Talk 20:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Vlieger[edit]

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

There's nothing to show he's a notable kickboxer and the sources seem to be either routine sports coverage or from non-independent sources. Being ranked in the top 5 in his class in Belgium isn't notable when there are only 7 in the class and his most notable achievement was competing in a K-1 event that was a qualifying event for a qualifying event for the qualifying event for the K-1 finals. Jakejr (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable kickboxer. The K-1 event mentioned by Jakejr turned out to not even be as important as he said since the winner didn't advance to the next round of competition. The ranking show he's not even in the top half of his weight class in Belgium. A lack of significant independent coverage and a lack of notability indicates this article should be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a non-notable kickboxer without the coverage required for WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural racism[edit]

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

Violates WP:SYNTH.

Similarly Cultural racism in the United States (also nominated) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into racism where different types of racism is already covered. // Liftarn (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The racism article is already too long, and the topic and term certainly exist. There are thousands of links proving this (1, 2, 4, 4) and it is explicitly not a synth(5) FonsScientiae (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a fork. Racism may need sub-pages to reduce size, but this isn't it. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." (Wikipedia:Content forking). That is certainly not the case here, the Racism article has a much broader scope and doesn't talk explicitly about Cultural racism (which is a subtype of racism). FonsScientiae (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it an encyclopedic topic in its own right? Or an attempt to bend the concept of racism in a novel way? I'd argue the latter. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is an encyclopedic topic in it's own the article as it is now is a bit thin so it can be merged into the main article and branched off if it swells too much. As a concept it is not new even if the name is new. Actually much "old" racism is actually cultural racism. // Liftarn (talk)

Merge into racism - see Liftarn. The bibliography, which seems to hold most value, may be dumped into Bibliography of cultural racism. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a review of the literature available online shows the notion is not universally accepted. Such a minority view should be discussed in the body of the article on racism and written from scratch in collaboration with the editors of that article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or slight merge Most of the sources, for example Helms, is about racism itself or as the book title says – black and white racial relations and cultural racism is only mentioned briefly. It doesn't seem like it can construct an article on its own, but it may be mentioned in the racism article. --Pudeo ' 21:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you find offensive about the topic, but please provide a Wikipedia policy per which the article has reason to be deleted. As it has been discussed it is not WP:SYNTH and WP:FORK. Even if you haven't heard about the topic or find it strange, I can assure you that it has been around the academia for a long time, and as Liftarn mentioned it is actually one of the oldest forms of racism, which has relatively recent name. Merging may be justified, I just don't want the racism article to grow enormous. FonsScientiae (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how there could be non-cultural racism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contradicts itself. It starts by saying that "cultural racism" includes that idea that the cultures created by certain races (i.e. ones own) are better than those of other races. That sounds like a reasonable definition. However all the examples are about something else. Mainly racist stereotypes being transmitted by cultural elements, especially (in the article) movies and TV. As Kitfoxxe just said, how else is racism going to be transmitted except by culture? We are not born with it. Borock (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging with racism or deleting the article altogether seem okay, but the topic doesn't seem to completely lack notability. Cultural racism is an idea that makes quite a bit of sense to me– when state-sponsored racism, such as that in Nazi Germany, seeps into the populace itself so that it is widely embraced, cultural racism could be claimed to have occurred. Perhaps one could use distrust/racism directed at persons of Jewish faith or origin as an example of cultural racism, as throughout (relatively recent) history that discrimination has become accepted in some cases by many non-Jews. dci | TALK 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me too. But you would have to find sources that explain it this way. Borock (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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