The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some hours early, but it is snowing. Courcelles 00:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Benda[edit]

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

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

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Unreferenced since 2006. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge keep to article about Jablonec nad Nisou - if a source for his biographical data can be found. Ten minutes of google and google scholar searching does not produce any sources tat do not seem to be wikipedia mirrors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about WP:UNDUE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? As far as I know Undue only adresses relative weight within articles not notability. It seems rasonable that the author of the first history of Jablonec is due some measure of weight in the article about that city.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment' -- The article is not in fact totally unreferenced: there is the book that he wrote. However, I am doubtful whether a local historian who wrote a book about his home town really qualifies as notable. Nevertheless, I think a merge to the article on the town would be better than a plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the book after the afd nom.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has enough coverage in dozens of books which make him appear notable. If he wasn't notable he wouldn't have been covered by multiple reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator should carefully read our guidelines before nominating. For example, instead of tagging it with CSD or AFD templates, he could tag an ((unreferenced)) template on the top. AFD is not the right venue.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article had been tagged as unreferenced since 2006; so that is not a valid criticism. I changed that tag to refimprove yesterday after the link to the GBooks copy of his book was given. LadyofShalott 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, at the time of the nomination this was deletion worthy, not speedy deletion worthy, given that he is the verified author of a book as Lady says in the history summary of the page. The difference though is that when assessing whether or not an article is fit "for the bin" one must look in google books and be very confident that the person is not worthy of an article on wikipedia. So Orange Pumpkin is right that the editor should have picked up on the sources available and have either asked the original creator to expand it or to expand it themselves instead of bringing it here. The flaws here are both in the article writer originally for not demonstrating he is actually notable and adding more content and in the nominator for not picking up on the masses of hits in google books and understanding that articles can be quickly expanded which in the end make wikipedia more valuable as a resource. But I believe the google book scenario was different in 2006 and at the time of creation would not have found what we can on him today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An example is an example.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article is completely backed up with plenty of sources, hence Adolf Benda is notable enough. Jaguar (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Michael Bednarek and others, adding: his book is a reference in other publications, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per others. The article is well supported and written. He is certainly notable for wikipedia. RoyalMate1 04:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - since nomination, the article has been greatly expanded with multiple sources. Notability has clearly been established. LadyofShalott 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is clearly a substantial article on a significant person, of whom I had never heard. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep properly referenced and notable, whatever it was at the time of nomination. 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Shame, looks like an interesting program :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vistapack[edit]

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

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

I found no notability. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No reliable source refs (refs provided are forum post and download site), no indication of notability; created by an SPA as possible promotional article. Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: found nothing useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 21 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the Celebrity[edit]

Drop the Celebrity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable TV series. Cloudbound (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found no coverage, only "coming soon" type stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately a real program, but it sounds like a miserably failed pilot in the "let us at ITV ever speak of airing this again" variety of reaction. The world is not better for having information about this terribly sourced show at least. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 February 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Note that a "keep" close does not rule out a merge but that discussion will have to take place on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Valley (All My Children)[edit]

Pine Valley (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced plot summary stuff, entirely in-universe, no out-of-universe notability. Last AFD was "no consensus" with only two WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes and IMO should've been relisted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - *sigh* I waited too long for this. Full of trivial source that won't help at all this topic's out-of-universe notability, yet I did not have the discussion reviewed because I nominate it out of those then-current circumstances: the show was going to be cancelled, and I used current state of the article as a reason for deletion. This time it is different: seriously, the fictional city should be generally about the city itself, not those trivia that I see right now. If deleted, then fixing the article won't make any difference. I don't see out-of-universe coverage about the fictional city of All My Children in search results in Google. I don't think the scholarly academics or periodical critics review this city either. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is not only a valued source of information but it provides facts on an entire town on a 41-year-old television program. The deletion of this article would cause the loss of well-worked on knowledge. The current abuse of soap opera articles by certain members proves their insistent attempts to delete as much as they can. What needs to happen is for the article to be kept or redirected at the very least. There is no difference between Pine Valley and Gotham City and this is yet another abuse of knowledge and inability for editors to seek out proper sources to back information. Rather than rush to delete the hard work of many, many editors, why doesn't the nominator and deletion voters simply run a source check on a search engine. It takes time, days, weeks, but at least it preserves information. If there were no sources in an article called "Dog," these editors will go to great lengths to have it deleted rather than search for sources to prove that dogs exist. Simply make sure this article is kept and search for sources. It is simple as that. Casanova88 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this argument become nothing more than a mere WP:EFFORT? You argue as if those editors worked hard and information would be found else that may warrant a keep, don't you? Your argument is well-written, and I found this: [1]. I hope this helps. --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) This could also help, but I added some more terms: [2]. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes George, also this is a big job, so perhaps an expert could also be consulted with? Your source works and could be added and used as a source. I feel that this is an article worth keeping and not being deleted, as I stated above, no point in re-stating. Casanova88 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I conquer would Casanova. Everything they've said, I agree with whole-heartedly. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, merge the first few paragraphs of the History section somewhere (e.g. the main TV article) if need be, the rest (i.e. 90 percent, including the two refs) are trivial in-universe or plot-related facts without any real-world relevance whatsoever. What would be needed are (1) where was all of this filmed and (2) how were the sets/buildings changed over the decades. That kind of information (WP:WAF) needs a couple of paragraphs at the most, not a full article ever. (Having worked with a lot of fiction related location info, I'd enjoy being disproven.) Also, let's please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a spinout article as defined in Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. Notability can be easily demonstrated as evidenced by a Google Books search on "Pine Valley" "All My Children". The article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Upon rereading the last two thirds of Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach, it should be clear that Pine Valley (All My Children) as a single fictional element (a town) is exactly what should not have been spun off into a separate article. On the other hand, renaming it into List of adresses in Pine Valley does not strike me as a particularly notable topic (and violates WP:NOT#DIR). The rest is just plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing what the guideline says about "singular topic" with your "single element" wording. Pine Valley is not a singular topic; it consists of various topics. Spin-out articles about towns, cities and worlds are done all the time, such as the Gotham City example shown above or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), and so on, so I don't see how you think the guideline doesn't support this. It very clearly says such topics "may lack demonstration of real-world coverage." And when it speaks of "singular topics," it mentions WP:Notability. Whether the topic of the fictional town Pine Valley is considered a singular topic or not, it is a notable topic, per the abundance of sources that discuss the town and its residents that can be found on Google Books. We are supposed to base a topic's notability on what sources cover it and how they cover it, not on the current state of its Wikipedia article. And for the record, pointing that similar stuff is on Wikipedia can be a valid argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it is in this case. Just because it is often misused doesn't mean that it is without merit. So my "vote" is also Keep. And while I know that IPs are generally not trusted in AfDs or in general on Wikipedia, I want to point out that I am not any of the above "Keep vote" editors and also that I have always edited Wikipedia as only an IP. 23.20.110.18 (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from. E.g. [3] is a great Google Books source that mentions Pine Valley a lot and could be used to develop the article to maybe even Good Article status. But a more appropriate article title would be Themes in All My Children then, not "Pine Valley" (I am working at the 30 kB A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Themes section at the moment, which as you see is not called "Westeros"). But the current "Pine Valley" article doesn't focus on the themes, it just focuses on dumping addresses and plot that don't need salvageing. A merger or deletion would enforce the necessary start from scratch better than keeping fancruft around. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 24 February 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Union in Wait[edit]

A Union in Wait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, I found no independent reliable sources discussing the film, only movie aggregate sites providing the filmmakers' description. Search of Google News only shows a few mentions in film festival previews. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 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 February 18. Snotbot  t • c »  21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep "A Union In Wait was the first documentary about same-sex marriage to air on national television in the United States." surely suggest notability. Clearly this user is just slapping an AfD nomination on every LGBT related article that fails under WP:GNG because of the users religious views. This is ridiculous! JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. You just agreed that it fails GNG. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not agree that it fails WP:GNG, anyways WP:NF "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" clearly the fact that it was the first documentary about same-sex marriage to air on national television in the US is an unique accomplishment. JayJay^{Talk to me} 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, inappropriate action by nominator. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JayJay and Cirt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give a policy based notability rationale for keeping the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, really needs sourcing to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will not vote because I am currently subject to an ANI complaint from the nominator, but I agreed with Sarek that the article needed improvement, so I added some sourcing, see [4]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article has been improved since nomination Pass a Method talk 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Meets WP:GNG. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep While certainly the article as first nominated could (and did) benefit from improvement, adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion of notable topics. After nomination forced cleanup, the article was further improved to serve the project. As the topic had available sources and has been improved through regular editing to more obviously show a meeting of WP:GNG and WP:NF, it's time to close per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources containing significant coverage for the film have been identified/incorporated into the article; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NF.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep; clear deliberate failure of WP:BEFORE as another WP:POINTy nomination by this editor. Article clearly meets all notability standards for films and this would have been obvous had 30 seconds been spent on Google. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:03, 21 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series notable for positive reception[edit]

List of television series notable for positive reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no indication of notability. A random collection of TV series. noq (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems to just be a collection of TV series that someone likes. Without reliable sources grouping certain series under a common banner, this is not notable and too vague. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an intrinsically notable topic; no clear criteria for inclusion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is full of pop culture stuff, this fits nicely. There is List of television series notable for negative reception which is of similar scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney the barney barney (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, no criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Awful inclusion criteria, we're WP:NOT Rotten Tomatoes for TV, and the negative reception article is full examples of truly bad TV, not just the original article writer using our article formats to post their own personal blog-like opinion. Article creator (currently blocked for edit warring elsewhere) also needs to really needs to learn our inclusion criteria, judging from their warning-packed talk page. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above all JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ABORTION. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Lugnuts, and block editor for violating WP:POINT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:02, 21 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morono[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about a MMA fighter; fails WP:MMA and WP:GNG. Only four professional fights and no significant coverage of the person. TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no independent sources (thus failing WP:GNG) and with no fights for a top tier MMA organization he also fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found no significant independent coverage and no evidence to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 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 Merged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovelies[edit]

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

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

Ivan Julian is notable, but is the band? If they only released one disc and no singles, I'm not convinced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is simply no case for deletion here. Ivan Julian is notable and I would say Cynthia Sley is also. Even if it doesn't justify a standalone article, at the very least it should be merged to Ivan Julian, so why hasn't that been explored before bringing it to AfD?--Michig (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because a.) I'm an idiot who keeps forgetting that you can merge, and b.) every time I remember, someone undoes it for no good reason? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Ivan Julian - I cannot find any reliable sources for the band but, as Michig said, a merge would be preferable to a deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:50, 18 February 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. Though the consensus is to keep this article, it is an unsourced biography of a living person. Therefore, I will be redirecting this article to FIBT_World_Championships_2011#Skeleton. Please do not revert this action without adding sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have restored the article's previous history. There might be useful sources there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Tress[edit]

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

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

No references or reliable sources to suggest notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not competed in the Winter Olympics, so does not meet WP:ATHLETE, nor does he meet the WP:GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes he does meet WP:ATHLETE, because he has competed at the World Championships, the highest level of competition in the sport, which also acts as Winter Olympic Games in non-Olympic years. As per Wikipedia's own guidelines, Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.161.170 (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. I have been unable to locate a single reliable source regarding anything about him. Bzweebl (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd click on the "news" link above – there are plenty of reliable sources that have written about Tress. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the IP above says, Tress meets WP:NSPORTS because he has competed at the World Championships. This can be verified here. Jenks24 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he passes WP:ATHLETE.Cavarrone (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets notability as an athlete competing at the highest level in his sport which would be the World Cup circuit. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 22:55, 25 February 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 *without* leave to speedy renominate. This AFD was made while the ink on the first one was still wet so even though the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", I'm going to consider the !votes on both AFDs together. In both AFDs we more or less have the same editors making the same arguments so I am going to close this AFD the same way Deryck C closed the first one. If someone disagrees with this close then they are welcome to file a DRV but do not turn right around and renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beloya[edit]

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Banana Fingers (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and as per comments from the previous nomination, the subject has received coverage but no sources address the subject directly in detail therefore fails WP:GNG. Banana Fingers (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject has made no professional appearances, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, despite contrary arguments in the last AfD, there is nothing beyond routine coverage of Beloya in any reliable sources. Local sources and football reports are not helpful; a mention in a national source outside of the sports pages would be necessary for him to meet WP:GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Beloya seems to be more than the normal football player, multi-national, with remarkable goal scoring skills and has been noticed by several news sources (as well as the national assistant team manager). In my view, the coverage is more than routine reporting of football matches. Meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Nowhere near enough "significant coverage" to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the same rationale as last week, nothing has changed, so why the renomination? I agree that this person fails the notability guidelines for footballers. However, the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems as if you're completely ignoring the rationale of those who have voted for delete. Those news reports/match recaps do not comply with "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG, sources address the subject directly in detail. It seems you've got a different definition/understand of "significant coverage". Banana Fingers (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems you're completely ignoring the fact a full debate was concluded only 4 days before you re-nominated this article for deletion. It is complete and utter time wasting to immediately re-nominate because you didn't get the result you were hoping for! Sionk (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems you got a stick up your ass. What the hell do you think this is, a personal crusade to get articles of my choice deleted for the fun of it?!?!?! There was no consensus, simple as! And it clearly doesn't meet notability criteria! So I don't know what the hell you're on about! Banana Fingers (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see it meeting WP:GNG. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by User:UltraExactZZ in the previous discussion, as [5] and [6]. I don't see common sense in re-opening a discussion three days later its first closing. Cavarrone (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No common sense?!?! lol! There was no consensus! And those two links that you've provided still doesn't pass the "address the subject in directly detail" criteria of WP:GNG! Banana Fingers (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Before I nominated this the first time, I proded it. However, User:Alpha Quadrant deproded it stating that it passes criteria #2 of WP:NFOOTBALL. I tried telling him that it doesn't but he never replied so I took it to AfD. He joins in and back peddles and all of a sudden agrees that the subject doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL but argues that news sources with things like, "Beloya scored in the nth minute..." or "Beloya has been named in squad abc...." more than passes WP:GNG. Yet I'm the one being called useless and a time waster for opening up a second Afd after there was no consensus on the first. Ya... Brilliant, frickin brilliant!! Banana Fingers (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I don't see is how a discussion closed with a clear no-consensus should give a different outcome just three days later and without new arguments to support deletion. I just hope, if even this discussion (as it is probable) will be closed with a no consensus, that the nominator will avoid to re-nominate the article for the third time a couple of days later and with the same arguments. Cavarrone (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:54, 24 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of model railroad clubs[edit]

List of model railroad clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is a WP:LINKFARM. Discounting the external links, the redlinks, those bluelinks which do not point to articles about the specific club (such as links to placenames) and the unsourced black text yields just nine valid list entries, of which only one is referenced. Those nine can be made a subsection of Rail transport modelling. Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the few notable links can be mentioned elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reusing content from the article would be merger not deletion. Warden (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination wants to make this into a subsection of another article. That's merger, not deletion, and so the discussion does not belong here. Warden (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - note with no clear threshold for inclusion this list would become fairly unmaintainable - within the blue links- I'd expect at maybe 100 for UK alone. I suggest a hardlink to Category:Rail transport modelling associations from somewhere sensible in Rail transport modelling. But not an attempt to sectionalise the current info into the article - notable clubs should make it into articles of themselves - there are a few eg Tech Model Railroad Club, also National Model Railroad Association maybe MOROP that spring to mind maybe others. Minor regional ones might just about make it past notability tests through regional newspaper coverage can be covered through categorisation.

I also note the list is painfully incomplete.. (relates to unmaintainability)

Note of those blue links Alamo Model Railroad Engineers and The San Antonio Garden Railroad Engineers Society redirect to Texas Transportation Museum. Sheffield DCC looks like a speedy delete due to lack of notability.Mddkpp (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll start by saying I'm predisposed to List of... articles; this seems to me valid subject material for a List of... article. It may well need a great deal of clean-up, but to the extent any List of... article satisfies WP:GNG, for me, this one does; there are articles on clubs, and lists of clubs, in a wide range of the model and rail-related press as well as in more general press. I checked out a couple of redlinks on google, and the two railway clubs both appeared at a quick glance to satisfy GNG in their own right. On the basis that I think it's legit to have this article, I don't think Rail transport modelling has space for a comprehensive listing, and so I'm not supportive of the merge. If kept, then it would be desirable that there were criteria for inclusion on the list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the validity of an article Model Rail Road club - that's a valid topic which doesn't seem to exist as yet. Probaly the few articles that currently exist would be linked as most seemto be examples of "oldest club in the country" etc. Such a thing would need a big rewrite.. and a volunteer... Q. Aren't there lists elsewhere online for model railway clubs (per country) - It though these things had 'clubs of clubs' - eg aren't most N.American clubs members of NMRA? I'm sure I've seen lists somewhere else.. That would be simpler than keeping the list here.Mddkpp (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there are several dozen external links in the article, many (but not all) associated with a nearby redlink. A good proportion of those external links will be found by a Google search, but that does not make the club notable - it merely means that it's got its own webpage. Any club worth its salt will have a webpage, if only to show where and when they meet. Once the ELs that fail WP:ELNO (or if you prefer, those that don't satisfy WP:ELYES) are removed, what's left? Very little. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Though basically all the redlinks and external links should be removed. That is, a list of notable clubs probably makes sense, but a list of all clubs with a website is an unencyclopedic directory. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a sourced list, though some of the entries may not be notable enough for their own wikipedia page. I see no reason to delete this material and every reason to improve. Like User:Tagishsimon above, I'd like to see some criteria for inclusion, and I'd like to see the source formatting completed. I'll start. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 27 February 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 prejustice against recreation as a redirect The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Demolition[edit]

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

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

No reliable source coverage to establish notability per WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Apart from the occasional directory, or specialist magazine mention, I can't find anything to show it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect - I cannot find any reliable, third-party coverage of this company. It's too bad we don't have an article on aircraft recycling to merge this with, in the meantime I suggest a redirect to Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ridiculous use of references. Another single article editor, blatant self promotion. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:32, 22 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Andersen[edit]

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

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

Contested prod. Model of questionable notability. Google search on "Lottie Andersen" model shows only 28 unique results, none from reliable sources. Searching on just "Lottie Andersen" shows only 69 results - none of them relevant to the subject or from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for Lotte Andersen (without the i). The results seem to be relatively similar. Callanecc (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:37, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable as a model (even the directory listings provided in the article are quite sparse), even less so as the author of a non-notable pamphlet on modeling. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:02, 18 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incovar[edit]

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

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is the youth wing of the Buddhist Gem Fellowship. I can find no significant coverage about this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Efi Thodi[edit]

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

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

Deprodded based on longevity of career, but I see no reliable sources in English or Greek. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• De-speedied, for the record. Searching in Greek will give more sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Fences&Windows 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can make sense of most European languages, but Greek is an exception. The nominator says that he has checked Greek sources, so could he please explain why he considers those found by the Google News archive search linked above to be unreliable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Google News hits seem to be false positives, as none of them match in terms of album names. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just from a quick look at the Greek Google News hits these clearly have significant coverage of this article's subject: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This person seems to have had a career of some length; most sources will be in the Greek language though. My question: if this article is considered possibly suspect or else in need of work; then why has there been No discussion on the discussion page? Isn't that the correct venue to raise initial concerns? NewbyG ( talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources linked by User:Phil Bridger. Translation of found links demonstrates direct detailing of the subject in non-trivial sources. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 27 February 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. Can be userfied on request. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babble-On Begins[edit]

Babble-On Begins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fanfilm of questionable notability. Contested prod. COI from the article creator, all of the provided references are either primary or unreliable sources. Google search on "Babble-On Begins" "fan film" shows only 89 returns, none from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Return to author until such time as this gets reliable coverage. Curently spoken of only in non-RS. and thus fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage in reliable sources, news, etc. Userfication is a possibility because it might become notable in the future. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 February 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 merge to Cannabis. with no prejudice against spinning out the article again if sufficient sourcing is found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Indica and Sativa[edit]

Difference between Indica and Sativa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"This is not a noteworthy topic for an entire acticle. Some of the material could well be included in other articles, but not as a standalone." (from contested prod) Bulwersator (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support To add to my original proposal for deletion, information on the differences between the "species" or "strains" of Cannabis belongs at Cannabis, where the issue of what is meant by "indica" and "sativa" has been properly discussed. I don't see that it makes sense to have a separate article on this topic. I would suggest that all well-sourced material in Difference between Indica and Sativa is moved to Cannabis#Difference between Indica and Sativa, and the article deleted. (There are other problems with the article: the title doesn't make sense by itself; "Indica" and "Sativa" shouldn't be formatted as they are in the title; the main source, http://www.differencebetween.com is hardly a reliable one.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful to Cannabis. The topic isn't inappropriate for Wikipedia, but a stand-alone article on the differences between sativa and indica doesn't seem warranted. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A merge concerns me. Many of the statements are referenced to images (graphs) in an article, not to the text. I have not read the article, so I don't know if these references are used correctly. Some other material is referenced to blogs; this should not be merged. The correctly cited material is used in a biased manner. I think a merge would be a lot of work for someone besides the original author of the article. If he's willing to take it on, another editor would have to verify everything as the author appears to be using wikipedia to advocate marijuana clinics or specific strains carried at clinics. Guettarda, my arguments against do not mean I know whether or you not you are volunteering to do the merge work. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant a procedural, rather than (necessarily) an actual merger of the article into Cannabis. I do believe that the topic is encyclopaedic, and if someone is willing to spin off an (appropriately sourced, encyclopaedic) article about this topic, they shouldn't have to go through DRV or worry about it being tagged as a CSD G4. Guettarda (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I agree, then, that the procedural merger would be preferable, as the topic is notable. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support or procedural Merge as described by Guettarda above. deletion of this article, due to problems I mention above. However, I disagree that the topic is not noteworthy. This could be taken to Cannabis, but at some point it could be its own well-referenced article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge referenced information to Cannabis, which will serve to expand the Cannabis article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. The topic is perfectly noteworthy, but it is likely to be most valuable in context in the Cannabis article. Stand-alone it is a bit spare IMO. JonRichfield (talk) 07:22, 22 February 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 Monster Beverage. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Energy Drink[edit]

Ace Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Unless there are reliable independent sources that someone is willing to update this with, I'm for deletion. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively to Monster Beverage, the parent beverage company. No substantial WP:RS sourcing to be found, but the parent is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bzweebl (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monster Beverage. A reasonable search finds nothing substantive. BusterD (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I do not think merger is appropriate. There is no product listing for Ace on Monster's website, and I do not think Ace is a current product. This places undue weight on Ace, and we still don't have any reliable sources. If Monster doesn't care that it made Ace, and RS don't care that they made Ace, why would we merge? While Monster may be very relevant to Ace, Ace is not relevant to Monster. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:50, 28 February 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 Userfied to User:Colette work/Freaky Clown. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freakyclown[edit]

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

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

This article purports to show the notability of the eponymous quasi-anonymous character. It has been developed since its brief inclusion as a two line article and may or may not be similar to a previously AfD deleted article of the same name. I have no access to the source and can therefore not tell what similarities there are, if any. It alleges that the character is a co-author of a book given as a reference, but the sole author listed is a "Dr K" thus the claim cannot, so far, be verified. It also uses non reliable sources for the non book references.

The article appears to act as a promotional vehicle for a Blogspot blog rather than anything else, at least with the revision at the time of this nomination.

The article appears to have been created after these tweets appeared: here and here and the Wikipedia page is used as part of the person's Twitter profile.

That is a long preamble to my suggesting that the article, while it purports to assert notability, really spoofs it sufficiently for an incautious reader to believe true notability, and that the article serves to promote this individual as having its notability verified by appearing in Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is slightly fuller than the version previously deleted at AfD, maybe just enough to escape ((db-repost)), but it does not demonstrate notability. He is claimed to be co-author of two books: in the first case he is not credited, at least under this name, and in the second his name appears among a long list of others. Even if those claims are accepted, they, together with presenting at various conferences and "being the inspiration" for a book character, do not add up to notability, which would require evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I nominated for speedy deletion as a repost but the article was then only a two liner and thus escaped it by being stated, quite reasonably, to be sufficiently different. Based upon the current article your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A case could be made for db-repost, but it would be arguable - now we're here, let this AfD run. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement by a WP:SPA that lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … none of the "references" (like a link to purchase a book on Amazon.com) can be considered WP:RS. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.155 (talk · contribs) _{03:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete - Appologies not sure on the correct format for this, and happy for other users to amend if necessary, but I would like ask that that deletion process is suspended. This would allow me time to recreate this page, paying careful attention to the reasons that have been proffered for deletion and hopefully overcome the objections and show that the improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. I have no personal involvement with the subject, other than attending a keynote presentation at the recent Hack to the Future unconference. I found his williness to give up his time and present to some 365 primarily kids, and their guardians, interested in becomming the next generation of computer scientists engaging and insightful. User:Colette work 07:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I see no particular obstacle to userfying this article so that it can, if such a thing is possible, be improved. But it has no place in main namespace at present. I do fear, however, that the vanispamcurftisement aspects are unlikely to be addressable. What reliable sources? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for your comments Tim, I agree that it is not suitable in its current form and I am happy for you to userfy this article so that I may flesh it out and also add in approprate ciataions regarding talks held at various conferences, if you do this would other users also be able to edit the article? C~S~W (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone may edit a userfied article, though, by convention, this tends not to happen except by invitation. I suggest this discussion run its course and, should the consensus be to delete, you ask the closing admin to usefy it for you. Alternatively you can grab a copy now in your userspace. Ether or both is generally acceptable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Info. I come to this page, reviewing a photo's license on Commons, and routinely renamed the article title to Freaky Clown. --Dereckson (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per good faith request by User:Colette work. As is, delete. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 27 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Erie Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

Lake Erie Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any sources to reference notability. A Google, Google News, and Google Books search doesn't turn up anything. Fails WP:GNG. Albacore (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the source. I have the award from the Civil Rights Commission sitting in my living room. Also, the picture below the article is a clipping from the local newspaper. It is too old to be found in online records, but clearly shows that the team was a world champion. I have photos of the award if you do not find me credible enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustRealMC (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article itself inserts a news source clipping right now that shows the group won an international championship. Frankly, this makes the nomination's claim that no sources can be found a bit ridiculous. We need to be looking a little harder, I think, though the lack of online sources will be a difficulty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. World Twirling Association [12] awards are not major awards (see [13] for the plethora of awards they give out). Coverage has been passing mentions on local interest items. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, run-of-the-mill org. Abductive (reasoning) 13:25, 26 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brown (chess player)[edit]

Andrew Brown (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This chessplayer is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.

While getting the "International Master" is a good achievement in chess, it is nowhere near the top-level as there are tens of thousands of such "International Master". The consensus on Wikipedia is to consider notable the chess players who got the "Grandmaster" title, which is above the "International Master" title.

Also, this chess player has not won any significant tournament, or played for his country in international competitions (only junior competitions). SyG (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In fact, it's even incredible that he won the IM title with his highest rating being 2275! I mean, you have to get to 2300 to become an FM, and usually, IMs are 2400+. Anyways, he hasn't done anything impressive or noteworthy in the chess world besides obtaining IM, so I agree with the deletion. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stappenmethode[edit]

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

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

There is no source, and a google search did not bring any significant coverage, appart from a promotional site for this method. The article may have been created for commercial and promotional aims. I do not see why this so-called "chess method" would be notable, by any standard. SyG (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article to promote the product (and I have no affiliation with them), however I partially agree with your point about notability. The reason I created the page was that the method has been generating a reasonable amount of discussion recently and that if the article had remained on the .nl site, then at least that information could be copied over. Thomasdav (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no sources and this "method" doesn't seem the least bit notable.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 February 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Cloudz679 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marbella Cup[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD on the grounds "Google News searches demonstrate obvious notability" but results do not demonstrate significant coverage (only trivial mentions), or the property of reliability. Doesn't meet WP:N or criteria for football articles. Cloudz679 12:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles purely about the Marbella Cup (as are most of the first dozen or two found by clicking on the "news" link above) not significant coverage? And how do sources such as Sport Express, Interia.pl and Gazeta.ua not demonstrate the property of reliability? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a Google news search throws up a large number of international articles which address the tournament directly in various languages, particularly Russian, Polish and Ukrainian. There are also a team from China, so undoubtedly there will be other coverage that Google doesn't easily pick up. Sionk (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a different set of results on google news when I looked before. I am withdrawing my nomination. Cloudz679 14:47, 18 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SomaPlayer[edit]

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

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

In the 7 years that this article has existed it has never got beyond 2 sentences (about 20 words). It is also completely unreferenced. Perhaps unsuprisingly given the length, it doesn't state why the subject is notable. Searching the Internet I found little to nothing in the way of reliable sources or reasons that I could grant the subject notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I really can't find anything which can be described as "significant coverage" through Google. No professional reviews of the software on the internet. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the best source I found was [14] (note size of mention and editor's disclaimer). The home site suggests that there could be some sources in Italian, though even if this is the case, the article would be better deleted until some interested editor comes to write something more extensive. That said, the last release happened in 2007, AFAIK, so the chances this article will re-appear are low. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 21 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yico Zeng[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google links consists of Wikipedia mirrors, file sharing sites and social network links. Gsingh (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 26 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:46, 2 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 9 February 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, henrik•talk 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's an article on the Chinese wiki [15] with 24 refs. Can someone who speaks Chinese please check these out? Edgepedia (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles [16] and [17], I'm leaning toward a keep here, with a stubbify and a translate from Chinese tag. Edgepedia (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I've tidied up the article. Needs a Chinese speaker to go further but she's notable. Edgepedia (talk) 21:21, 20 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of FTP hosting services[edit]

Comparison of FTP hosting services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

blatant WP:OR/WP:SYN, inherent lack of WP:RS, failed WP:GNG. The whole article is based on two sources - one (freehosting) is based on user submissions, and therefore is not WP:RS, another (top10ftphosting) is "top 10" list according to an unknown criteria. Moreover, finding different WP:RS which will allow to create unbiased article on this subject, is extremely unlikely (which also indicates that WP:N is not satisfied). Ipsign (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a review site. --Carnildo (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : 7 out of 9 columns provided do not contain any information..can be merged with other FTP pages. or should be improved.but in its current state doesnot show any notability.--Dude7190 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Alam[edit]

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

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

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and coverage is only regarding competitions in 2009 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:36, 23 February 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. Two of the delete !voters also support merging as an option but there's no consensus for a target. Therefore a "NC" close makes the most sense at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FUBAR[edit]

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

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

Subject is not encyclopedic per WP:DICDEF. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 09:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; FUBAR is more of a concept than that of the word, and therefore is not covered by WP:DICDEF (see WP:DICDEF#Major_differences). Also number of redirects to this page illustrates another major difference of article (per WP:DICDEF): that "synonyms are ... duplicate articles that should be merged". Ipsign (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a dictionary definition, and it's already covered at Wiktionary. --Michig (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ipsgn. Legit article. Madman (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The point of WP:DICDEF is just navigational: "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.". It therefore not a reason to delete. Note that this title is used for a book of WW2 slang. Is this the topic that the reader is expecting? The existence of the book indicates that the title ought to lead somewhere and figuring out what that is is not a deletion matter. Warden (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• but the point of WP:NOT#DICDEF is that Wikipedia articles should not be mere dictionary entries, which is all this is.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT#DICDEF says explicitly that "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". There's no policy reason to delete here and there are quite reasonable alternatives to deletion, as the book indicates. Warden (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (actually redirect... to one of its previous targets) - I don't think it's any more a "concept" than most other words. There's nothing in this article describing a "concept" beyond the etymology at the moment, which should tell us something for an article that's been around since 2001. Of course during most of that time it sat as a redirect or a disambiguation page to the actual "concept". Perhaps there's a cultural slang of WW2 or something similar article. I would also be open to the idea of merging BOHICA, SNAFU, and TARFU, all to a single article about these related slang words. I'm all for preserving content here but this is just having articles for the sake of having articles. The bulk of the content (that wiktionary doesn't cover) is lists of pop culture refs. I don't see much hope of it growing beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as DICTDEF and move FUBAR (disambiguation) over. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete (no objection to merge). This almost looks like a (rather crufty) Wiktionary entry: a definition, an etymology, and a list of sample usages. If there were a concept here, it would be Military slang or perhaps Error. Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article has no encyclopedic content, and is basically a dictionary definition. I don't think that it would be possible to write an an encyclopedic article on this topic, and no one has achieved this in the 6.5 years this article has existed for. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Shadowjams. I do think this article could be made into a proper article on its own, if sources were available and someone were so inclined. And the Disamb page needs to retain the definition, particularly if this is deleted. If it's sat this long, though, there's no need to keep it any longer. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur that the article's style is not very encyclopedic, but it is a sufficiently notable acronym. With some sourcing and rewriting it can stand on its own as a proper article. It should be merged at the very least. -Anagogist (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ipsign. -- Armchair Ace 00:28, 26 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-emission rocket propulsion[edit]

Zero-emission rocket propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be original research. I can't find any relevant Google results for this. One of the external links is to a password-protected forum, while the other is to a page that doesn't mention the topic at all. --Carnildo (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Ipsign (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also per WP:NEO (agreeing with Andy Dingley on WP:NEO below) Ipsign (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The article's creator was user:KVDP. It's thus no surprise to find a nonsense article where some random discipline has had "green" technologies stuck arbitrarily to it.

There is scope for a good article here, on the emissions of rockets, on the "benign emissions" of cryogenic hydrogenic etc. rockets and also on the use of emissionless thrusters in space. All three of these are real techniques of notable interest, and especially the first two, of clear relation between them. However this is not that article.

This article's title is also pure WP:NEO. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete rockets are pure reaction engines. Reaction engines emit a fluid to produce thrust, in an action-reaction, so it is impossible to create a "rocket" that doesn't emit something, it would not be a rocket if it didn't emit something. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemont Star FC[edit]

Charlemont Star FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnotable football team Cloudz679 08:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 08:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Not played at a high enough level. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sunday league teams are rarely (if ever) notable, and there no indication this is an exception. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 08:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 25 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes[edit]

Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization with no coverage in mainstream sources. Has been tagged for years but no editors have attempted to improve it. TFD (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - out of 3 provided refs one is from Estonian Embassy, 2nd is from WSJ, but the only mentioning there is transitory: "Mr. Laar, a former prime minister of Estonia, is a founder of the Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes.", 3rd is WP:PRIMARY. Ipsign (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can't find multiple reliable sources with coverage of this organization, but the inauguration of the foundation is covered in detail by The Baltic Times (original source, full article) I am not sure if this single source is enough to establish notability. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:51, 22 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ioana Spangenberg[edit]

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

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

I'd say this falls under WP:BLP1E. Yes, the woman has gotten plenty of coverage in recent days, mostly in the "odd news" section. But she has only garnered attention for one event, news of her unusually small waist. WP:PERSISTENCE also applies: "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". We don't have further analysis or discussion, and it somehow seems unlikely that more will be said on this topic, although we could recreate if we get it wrong. She also fails WP:PORNBIO criterion 4 ("Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"): this seems to imply multiple reports over a period of time, which haven't taken place. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom must be right, this is going to be short-lived fame indeed. BLP1E. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I created this stub article after I read about her in the news, then discovered no article in Wikipedia about her. To the nominator (Biruitorul): it is poor form for you to nominate the article for deletion without informing me. Anyway, the basis of her notability is not "an event". Therefore I do not believe that BLP1E is applicable. I have no idea why Biruitorul is quoting WP:PORNBIO. It is completely irrelevant. In summary: Reliable references here establish notability. Keep. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I may be cynical on this point, but the girl will have to actually do something other than mutilate her body to get a wikipedia article. This is simply a novelty item, not compliant, at this stage at least, with our policies on biographies. Dahn (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremenly rare to see such a thing - no website will keep record of this. There have only been a handful of women over time who were this small - and healthy (think what you will about her 'beauty or lack of'. This woman claims to be 100% natural - no modifications... There are others into 'extreme corset piercing' - some like Cathie Jung ( Guinness World Record holder 2011 SMALLEST WAIST IN THE WORLD ON A LIVING PERSON!) wear Corsets their entire life and purposefully change the shape of their bodies - by squeezing their internal organs into new and different positions so that they can look very 'waspy' (I believe that is the term used-though it needs checked) http://www.cathiejung.com/ or http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/smallest-waist-living-person/

There should be a topic that describes this process and some of the famous people who covet the look. I'm not sure that each individual person should have their own page - but I'm sure a page with a variety of them could be created. =I am against deleting any information from Wikepedia - especially information that is not gathered and displayed anywhere else. ((subst:unisgnedip|139.55.250.214))

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no current pages about this that would be appropriate to redirect to (corset body modification, Guinness world record holders, etc) and even if there were, I'm not sure that she would be appropriate to be added to them. Spangenberg did not achieve her small waist due to corseting and it just wouldn't be appropriate to add her to an article about body modification. As far as the "one person one event" argument, the policy extends to cover people who have only gained notice for one thing or feature about them. Other than a handful of articles about her thin frame, there's nothing out there to show that she has any lasting notability at this point in time. I don't have any issues with the article creator userfying the page, though. I doubt very seriously that she will ever be able to pass WP:BIO, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E, not notable enough for a biography. Might merit a mention in some suitable article. henrik•talk 09:51, 18 February 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. Promotional content has now been largely subdued. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for International Research[edit]

Institute for International Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Corporate puff-piece written like an advert / marketing brochure with little substantiation of the company's notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ipsign (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This easily qualifies as entirely unambiguous advertising:

• ....provides business information solutions worldwide.
• IIR offers conferences, training, event management and increasingly bespoke solutions to professionals and senior business executives.
• IIR’s events are based on market research to produce insight and intelligence to reveal emerging trends, critical interest areas and opportunities to interact. Events often feature noteworthy speakers – heads of state, global CEOs, entrepreneurs, best-selling authors, trendsetters. Influential and sought-after experts ensure the the events feature authoritative information and the latest best practices.
• Today in America, Front End of Innovation focuses on provoking change, exchanging best practices and defining next practices. GAIN USA has also gained a reputation for identifying the rising stars of the Alternative Investment sector...
• continues to build a diverse portfolio of professional conferences, training seminars, exhibitions and custom training solutions developing flagship events...
• IIR staff investigate new trends to identify the event and training needs of each market and based on this information, design program content, where corporate practitioners (almost exclusively directors Managing Director, Head of Department) are invited as speakers, seminar leaders and recognized trainers or consultants. The company relies on a network of leading industry experts ("Advisory Boards"). IIR markets the products through direct marketing (primarily postal mailings, but also fax transmissions), email and online marketing. In addition, specialist IIR consultants are used to advise individual clients (large companies) or their employees individually. Events primarily take place at five star hotels and training centers.

Given this text, no reference and no claim of significance can save this; it requires a complete do-over. I gather that what this business really does is serve as a booking company for celebrity motivational and salesmanship seminars, but the bullshit is so thick that it's hard to tell. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Speedy delete?!? Really?!?! I don't have time to dig this morning, but it's pretty clear that this roughly $1 billion company established in 1973 has a big enough web footprint that there is sourcing out there in the business press. The tone of this article is promotional, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since this text is promotional nonsense from top to bottom, questions about whether the underlying business is big or important shouldn't even arise. Wikipedia's servers should not be misused for the purpose of circulating this stuff. Being unambiguous advertising remains grounds for speedy deletion, and this is unambiguous advertising. We'd be better off not having an article on this business than having an article with this text in the history: this is simply not an encyclopedia article. And, of course, speedy deletion is typically without prejudice to creating a real article. I don't see a whole lot of coverage about this business itself (as opposed to events it has promoted), but with this text that shouldn't even arise as a question. It might be better to not speedy delete this, but only to establish a clear precedent against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 9 February 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,  Sandstein  06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PRESERVE and WP:N but with severe cleanup to avoid WP:ADVERTISING. Subject is clearly notable (even quick search in Google News on "institute for international research" returns several dozens of recent mentionings), so WP:N is satisfied. And even if all WP:ADVERTISING is removed, there will still be something left, so WP:PRESERVE applies. Ipsign (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article cleaned up to a certain extent. Suraj T 12:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I added another source and cleaned up the lead paragraph. The company is notable and AFD is not for cleanup; really the nom doesn't purport to claim that the company is non-notable, just that it wasn't "substantiated" among the ridiculous puffy content that polluted it. I believe it worth's keeping.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ipsign (talk), but continuing improvement to remove advertising tone is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 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 per consensus and lack of reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes[edit]

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a list of game show episodes with no references to reliable sources. Determination of production numbers and production order appears to have been obtained almost entirely through original research. Renominating in light of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (3rd nomination). RJaguar3 | u | t 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article has absolutely no reliable sources for verifiability. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In the last nomination of this article, it was a non-admin closure for Keep. This discussion seems to be centered around the references. TV.com is a reference: http://www.tv.com/shows/legends-of-the-hidden-temple/episodes/ Notable TV Shows are predestined to have episode lists in some place. This one is no exception. Also, the is not true because there is one external link. But its a primary source, so I can understand your point. References can be easily found via the internet. There should be no reason for an article to die if its notable, yet unreferenced. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV.com is not a reliable source. For one, the airdates are completely unverified and contradict known information. The most egregious example is their claim that Eps. that they number 1 through 14 aired 11/29/92, almost a year before Legend's premiere. As I understand it, the numbering appears to have come from fans doing their own research on reruns of the show in 2007. No reliable source has stood behind this numbering. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for presumed inexistence of reliable sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:07, 13 February 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,  Sandstein  06:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No reliable sources corroborate the information presented in the list, unfortunately. Rorshacma (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no way to independently verify in a reliable source. Even an unreliable source contradicts what's here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For a fundamental reason; this is a game show, so they don't really have episodes. Abductive (reasoning) 13:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many lists of TV show episodes are unsourced and should be revisited at AfD. This one has no sourcing legs to stand on. BusterD (talk) 19:56, 27 February 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 merge to Manglish. as a selective merge. Not all content from this article should be merged to Manglish, but some of the content could enhance the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manglish vocabulary[edit]

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

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

A language dictionary is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT. I can't find any precedent for an unprescriptive list of words. There is already a general article on Manglish, which should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My concern is that this is unsourced. I'd advise following precedent employed previously for glossaries of similar dialects, whatever that may be. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 12 February 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,  Sandstein  06:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. List is in any case unsourced so this looks like WP:OR. Without the list it'd just be a dictionary definition of the term itself. No choice but delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as English, but not quite and The prodigal tongue: dispatches from the future of English. There seems to be overlap between this article and other articles such as Malaysian English and Manglish and it might be best to merge them all together. Deletion would not be helpful in this. Warden (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can certainly agree that 2 or 1 instead of 3 barely-cited articles on almost-but-not-quite the same thing would be an improvement. The two Manglish ones are both seriously crufty - in the case of the list, decrufting would mean leaving not a lot; in the case of the non-list article, it would be a deal lighter. I'm honestly not sure why deleting the one and editing the other down wouldn't be better, but if you want to call it a merge that should give much the same result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Ma^t_chups 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge - the main article would be somewhat improved by additional examples. But this is just not what an encylopedia is about. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover (cyclecar)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable automobile.Fails WP:N Edison (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - changed my !vote since Bushranger found a second reliable source. Haus^Talk 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Merge & Redirect to cyclecar, unless anyone can find some more WP:RS. I can only find one. The redirect should probably be Hoover Cyclecar. Haus^Talk 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as an independent make and model of automotive conveyence, verifiable via a reliable source, it is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Being a brand under which someone may have built a few cars does not convey inherent notability per any guideline I am familiar with. Can you cite a particular guideline that says it does, without there being multiple reliable and independent sources having substantial coverage of the car brand? Do reliable sources exist to create more than a permanent stub or directory listing? For instance, how many of the little "cyclecars" did Mr. Hoover make and sell? Any?Edison (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're not talking about the brand name; we're talking about a make and model. The applicable guideline is WP:COMMONSENSE. A Chevy Camaro is notable as a Camaro; an Opel Insignia, as an Insignia, because they are independent models of automobile. The number sold does not matter - we have a reliable source that verifies that this marque constructed this model of automobile. It's the same principle as applied to aircraft through long-standing consensus; each independent type that can be verified as being independent is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable makes and models of motor vehicle are generally held (and should be held) to be notable, however obscure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 11 February 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,  Sandstein  05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is unclear whether the coverage in the source is "significant" (in WP:GNG sense), but even if it is - WP:GNG requires "reliable sources" (in plural), so single source is clearly not enough. Ipsign (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that reference by Bushranger below (in "Automotive Industries" 1913) stands, I think that article does have a chance. Ipsign (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Second source: [18] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book itself? What can be seen on the excerpt, is so obscure that it not enough to say if it is related to the same thing. Source doesn't need to be online, but somebody needs to take a look at it to claim it is WP:V. Ipsign (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both references refer to H.H. Hoover's cyclecar being manufactured in St. Louis and date to October 1913, so it's pretty clear they're referring to the same vehicle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per new sources applied. BusterD (talk) 19:22, 27 February 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 merge to Cribbage. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (strategy)[edit]

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

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

How to like page about strategy in Cribbage, without any real encyclopedic value, should go somewhere else but not Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cribbage. There could easily be a section there on this topic and the article is not so cumbersome that it wouldn't fit. Sourcing is an issue, but I'm fairly sure there would be whole books on the topic, ergo this is an encyclopedic topic, albeit misdirected as a stand-alone article. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Carrite. A Google Books search for "Cribbage strategy" shows that some books have been published that devote great attention to cribbage strategy, and that many books have sections or chapters on the topic. That being said, it seems more appropriate as a section in Cribbage at this time, until that article grows significantly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, Redirect to Cribbage as well stated above. An article purely on a game's strategy is always going to be close to HOWTO; a brief section on strategy would however make good sense in the main article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Warden (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts exactly, Sadads (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden and Sadads, you are correct that Wikipedia is not a video game guide, where we would be expected to host instructions for the thousands of commercial video games that come onto the market constantly. However, cribbage is not a video game. It is a notable non-commercial card game using a distinctive physical scoring system, and has been played and studied for approximately four centuries. There is nothing in WP:NOT that prevents us from covering the strategy of exceptionally notable non-commercial games. See our well-referenced article on Chess strategy for an example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Cribbage is a video game and it can be quite expensive too, for example $124.99 at Amazon. In its traditional form, it is commercial too as it commonly requires a cribbage board. But distinctions of commerciality and physicality are obviously irrelevant. The point is that we don't want people filling Wikipedia with their views on strategy because, in a game worth playing, strategy is debatable. If a game has been solved then we might say something of the solution because that would be a plain fact supported by a proof. But a full game tree which supports such a proof would be outside our scope because we are not a database of raw information. Warden (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete: Merge what is reliably sourced to Cribbage, and ditch the rest per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE and WP:NPOV; we are not here to push our opinions on what is/isn't good strategy. If in doubt, axe it. WP already has 1000x more unsourced stuff than it should have. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cribbage which could use the sourced material. Cribbage (rules) and Cribbage (statistics) should also be be truncated as excessive detail and merged into the parent. All of this material violates GAMEGUIDE as the Colonel points out. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I found a few books and an article on the topic such as [19], [20], [21], and [22]. It is most certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. Bzweebl (talk) 20:32, 28 February 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 or merge, not delete regardless -- Y not? 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life Will Be the Death of Me[edit]

Life Will Be the Death of Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article indicates that the song is a single but this is unsupported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly Merge. The fact that it was released as a single is not hard to verify. It also reached #50 in the UK (this was already sourced in the band article). I didn't find an awful lot, but have added what I could to the article. It wouldn't fit well if merged into the band article. Perhaps a merge to Brassbound would be an option.--Michig (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michig's comments/additions; I've also added a musicOMH track review to the article.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brassbound. I don't see that this song meets WP:NSONG, but the sourced materila would do well for expanding the Brassbound article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the album Brassbound article. WP:NSONG is lacking. The sources refer mostly to the album as a whole anyway. They don't convey notability about the track (other than the chart reference, but that's handled in the criteria). Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 15 February 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, Bmusician 01:34, 18 February 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. Wifione ^Message 16:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Schwyzer[edit]

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

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

This BLP apparently asserts the subject's notability as a writer and a professor. The subject is clearly a prolific writer about himself, sex, and feminism, mostly in the blogosphere, but fails to as to WP:BASIC substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable third parties to show significance as a writer or professor. He unambiguously fails the notability requisites that seem most applicable – WP:WRITER – and the alternate WP:ANYBIO. The subject is also on this side of stellar as to WP:PROFESSOR. JFHJr (㊟) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After doing a search, I just added one short paragraph to the article about Schwyzer being banned from a feminist blog. At least it was reported in a real secondary source (the Atlantic), as opposed to self-reported. Even with that addition, although the guy gets a lot of notoriety, I don't see any real notability, as an author, a teacher, or a commentator.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am familiar with his work, and was not expecting to vote delete on this AfD, but after a pretty thorough search for sources, I haven't found any besides the atlantic article that meet our standards. 98.248.194.216 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "He has also written of the many times he has had sexual encounters with his students, including a class trip he was charged with chaperoning in which he had sex with four of his students." What? This is legit?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. No BLP issues here. It's a large part of what has made him a controversial figure - he's written about that and more in his personal blog, and in articles he's published elsewhere. 98.248.194.216 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible speedy G10. The combination of primary sources cherry-picked to show the subject in a bad light (however much he may deserve it) looks like a BLP violation to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 20 February 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. Despite the number of comments, arguments on both sides were rather weak. A significant number of the keep vote were based on the article being "useful" and/or "popular", which are both weak reasons to keep at best. Several people suggested the vowels article should be deleted in part because it was conflating two topics, but that is a reason to edit or split, not a reason to delete. (Generally these people felt neither topic was notable, so this wasn't their only reason.) Most of the remaining comments on both sides focused on debating whether the articles' topics were of scholarly interest or not. While relevant for the content of the articles, this is not the standard for notability in Wikipedia terms.

Finally, there was the issue of original research. This was the most significant concern and a valid reason to (potential) delete. However, I do not feel that a consensus was established that the article(s) consisted solely of unsalvageable OR. Taking all this into account, I can only close the AfD one way - no consensus. I strongly encourage those who want to "save" this material to improve the articles ASAP and/or to transfer anything that is a mere list of words to Wiktionary where is probably better suited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Words without consonants[edit]

Words without consonants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Words without vowels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Words without vowels was deleted via prod for lack of sourcing and dubious notability. This article has the same problems and the same utter lack of sources — I couldn't find anything discussing this in depth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both articles ("Words without consonants" and "Words without vowels") are both interesting and useful to me. I would like to see this article kept, and the other article restored. Also, I would like any lack of sources to be remedied. —Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection "interesting and useful to me" is a prohibited WP:ILIKEIT argument. Ipsign (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems like the perfect case for WP:IAR to waive WP:NOR as this article's content is useful information (for anyone looking for or interested in words without consonants) and is inherently verifiable. Besides, there are sources for such information - just because the article does not (yet) cite them is no reason to delete. What is the harm in keeping it? I see only benefits.

  I've requested that Words without vowels be undeleted accordingly[23]. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also note that the page gets at least 1,000 hits per month, sometimes over 2,000. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid argument against WP:OR; OTOH, it would be helpful if you could provide references (which you've mentioned in your post above) instead. Ipsign (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really think WP:NOR can be waived? What planet are you from? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm from Planet Wikipedia where Ignore ALL rules is one of five pillars, which states:

    • If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it

    • In this case WP:NOR prevents us from "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" - so we're supposed to ignore it. At least on Planet Wikipedia. What planet are you from? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argument "[something] prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" can be brought into absolutely any discussion, that's why WP:IAR arguments are traditionally treated with a very big pinch of salt. Ipsign (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a depository for lists of non-notable information. There are other places and wiki sites available for this sort of thing. Popularity of pages is not a criteria for keeping non-notable WP articles. Sionk (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Like "words that begin with the letter X," his article's content is more appropriately a category listing at Wiktionary than an article at Wikipedia. There's nothing special about words without consonants or vowels; it's just a random collection of funny words at best. The topic is certainly not WP:N in any way, and presents only WP:OR. WP:ILIKEIT is a good indicator that just because some might find it strange, interesting, or entertaining doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Compare the much more clearly academic topic of click consonants. I'm from outer space, but I know WP:NOR is not a waivable offense in Wiki County. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - articles of a linguistic nature are just as encyclopedic as any others. And comparative linguistics is indeed of scholarly interest. - jc37 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So prove it. The assertion on Talk:Words without vowels#A Mess is that scholars do not consider the notion to be a topic, because it is wrongheaded in its fundamental concepts of words and its conflations of written and spoken language and phonemes and letters. If you want to prove otherwise, show the world sources by linguists that indeed do cover this topic. A mere handwave isn't enough at AFD. This is money-where-one's-mouth-is time. What and where are these linguistic scholarly sources? My searches haven't turned up anything beyond Scrabble playing guides, yet.Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? well first, we have an article on the subject: Comparative linguistics. (We also have Contrastive linguistics, for that matter...) To give some overview about the idea, I spent less than 5 minutes doing a quick search and came up with the following: here's an educational link: [24]; Here's something interesting: [[25]]. This is an interesting work on the subject [26]. Basically, the looking at the written language as representing certain sounds of the spoken language, and comparing the various aspects of it. Incidentally, that this article is nowhere near complete is not a good reason to delete it I would think, and to me seems rather contrary to the "wiki-way". - jc37 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, seriously. You should not be surprised to be held to the expected standard here at Wikipedia of showing that sources document a subject. Nor should you present straw men by misrepresenting an assertion that this is not a topic studied by scholars as "this article is nowhere near complete".

        This isn't comparative linguistics, note. You've got that wrong. It's logology. And your purported sources don't even discuss the subject, possibly because of that error. One's just a vague hand-wave at a book, with no clue as to chapter or page number. One's a treatise on reconstruction of roots in Proto-Indo-European that has nothing to do with the subject at hand here. And one's a list of speakers at a conference that hasn't even happened, for goodness' sake.

        Claiming to have found sources in five minutes only works when the sources that one points to actually turn out, upon reading, have any relevance whatsoever. It looks rather silly when they don't at all, and one of them isn't even a source. At least I found the Scrabble lists …. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Rofl. I have to admit you made me chuckle due to the tone of your response : ) - Anyway, sorry I wasn't more specific in what I was referencing or why. Your first comment (reprising an assertion on the talk page) was what I was directly responding to. As I had read it, you made it appear that your feeling about comparative linguistics was: "that scholars do not consider the notion to be a topic, because it is wrongheaded in its fundamental concepts of words and its conflations of written and spoken language and phonemes and letters." - And that would seem countered by the links I provided. First, showing how letter usage differs over time and over language (among other things), not to mention how these items are compared (pater/pitar etc.); then showing that this isn't something that scholars disdain, by showing the upcoming conference; and the book has some excellent information, I was looking over the back sections of the book in particular. The point I was making is that this is just one way in which words can be studied in this way. There are MANY. Incidentally, while a logologist (if there is such a person) may also find the information study-worthy, that doesn't make it any less worthy of an historical linguist. - jc37 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • After typing the above, did another quick search [[27] (pdf) and [28] (google books) - while noting they're not about English, they do show that the topic is scholarly. And here's another conference (just for you : ) - [29] - Enjoy : ) - jc37 22:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought that it was clear from my pointing to the talk page discussion that it was the subject(s) at hand that Maunus was asserting wasn't a subject studied by scholars. It certainly wouldn't have been relevant to the discussion had I been asking you to demonstrate with sources that comparative linguistics was. The challenge, just to make it abundantly clear, is to demonstrate, with sources, the assertion that these subjects at hand have been a topic of scholarly study.

            Again, you've missed the mark, though, although you're a lot closer. Two sources dealing in phonetics, one about words without vowels and one about nasalization, don't deal at all in the logology of words without consonants. (It's a shame that this is a bulk nomination of multiple articles, since the two purported subjects are not equivalent, despite the articles at hand making them look so.) Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added Words without vowels since it was undeleted and I'm treating it as a contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The lack of sources makes this a clear case of WP:OR. And while lists like these can be interesting, there's really nothing inherently notable about the information presented in them. Trivial information just doesn't belong in an encyclopedic setting without a clear cut reason as to its notability. Rorshacma (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unambiguous WP:OR, also WP:NOTDICT. Ipsign (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - certainly OR. As above, Wikipedia is NOT a DICTIONARY. Basically just trivia, not in any sense academic comparative linguistics; and ILIKEIT isn't a reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – non-notable and OR. The languages treated are only a minute fraction of the many natural languages that have one or more vowels-only words; the selection presented is completely arbitrary. From an encyclopedic point of view there is nothing of interest to say about these words beyond the fact that they are vowels only.  --Lambiam 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a situation in which it's quite easy to attribute information to reliable, published sources. Do you believe that there are no reliable dictionaries that include this kind of content? Plus, you'll observe from the references list that one non-dictionary source covers the no-consonants article, and a quick JSTOR search revealed this article, which examines the linguistic aspects of a no-vowels word. On top of all that, you have the fact that original research doesn't include things that are extremely obvious, such as mathematical equations, and the spelling of a word is no less obvious than mathematical equations. Finally, while IAR is to be used carefully, the idea (given above) that it cannot be ignored is blatantly at variance with this core policy; arguments that completely deny its applicability are far from being founded in policy. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article? It is a book (ISBN 0-8248-2932-8), a translation into English of Otto Dempwolff's Grammatik der Jabêm-Sprache auf Neuguinea from 1939. This example is also a case in point. Thousands of human languages have been described, most of which have vowel-only words. Is there any argument to treat Jabêm in the article, and not Achagua, Beja, Chuukese, et cetera? If there are reliable sources that discuss words without consonants in general, we can base an encyclopedic article on these sources. But an article consisting of randomly composed lists of vowel-only words from a totally arbitrary selection of languages, with no hope of ever covering more than a fraction of one percent, even if each individual entry is properly sourced, does not make sense, just like an article titled "Red-haired people" essentially consisting of lists of red-haired people would not make sense.  --Lambiam 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? We have a reliable source covering this topic for one language, and you admit that there are reliable sources covering it for other languages. This is an established phonological topic, and the fact that sources cover certain languages but not others is not a reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moreover, I can give you Hoard's paper (pages 59-72) from Syllables and Segments (1978 proceedings from the Languages Syllables Conference), or Kehrein and Golston's "A Prosodic Theory of Laryngeal Contrasts" from Phonology 21.3 (2004): 325-357, or Hall's "Cross-Linguistic Patterns of Vowel Intrusion" from Phonology 23.3 (2006): 387-429, or Ridouane's "Syllables without Vowels: Phonetic and Phonological Evidence from Tashlhiyt Berber" from Phonology 25.2 (2008): 321-359, or Bagemihl's "Syllable Structure in Bella Coola" from Linguistic Inquiry 22.4 (1991): 589-646. Hall discusses ways that languages cope with "illicit" syllables and words, such as ones without vowels. Bagemihl's article concentrates on the occurrence of consonant-only words in the Nuxálk language (note that our article on this language pays attention to this issue) K&G study words with seemingly impossible consonant-only strings from a wide range of languages (including Georgian, Berber, multiple Salishan languages), multiple Wakashan languages, and multiple Mon–Khmer languages). In a two-paragraph section, they cite 28 articles that deal with this topic, and they conclude the second paragraph with a statement of "Much of this literature will be familiar to linguists already." Would you like me to copy the citations for all twenty-eight of these articles? If linguists reading Phonology can be familiar with the subject, and if an article published in a reliable scholarly journal says that there is tons of coverage on the topic, how can you say that it's not been covered adequately enough for a Wikipedia article? We'd better call up the editors of Phonology or Linguistic Inquiry and tell them that they need to publish retractions for articles on subjects unworthy of scholarly study. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nyttend, those papers do not treat the topic of the article - they treat the topic of whether it is possible to have words without vowel sounds - the list includes only words without vowel letters - it is about orthography not phonology. Furthermore if it as about the topic you propose it wouldn't be a list but an actual article summarising this research. It would make no sense to make a list of th examples used in those articles. The discussion of this literatur would be very useful to include in th article on vowel because it is basically a scholarly discussion about how to define a vowel. But it really has nothing to do with the topic of the "words with out vowels" list we are discussing .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not so. The article covers both, since "vowel" is ambiguous. (Comment below.) — kwami (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case my argument that the article does not have a clarly deimited topic stands and makes it run afoul of "not a indiscriminate collection of information".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That may be an argument to narrow the scope or to split the article. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per my explanation of why the topic is nonsensical here. Also because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a dictionary. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually a discriminate list. indiscriminate would be a list of something like: horse, 186721, the colour red, and zombie. - jc37 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be if the defining criteria actually made it possibl to discriminate between words to be included and words not to be left out which it doesn't since every language and orthography defines different sounds as symbols as vowels or consonants. IF the list were to be discriminate it would have to be "English words without vowel letters" (which is actually the topic that it currently describes) or something equally restrictive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that a rename of both pages would be a good idea for clarity. - jc37 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Renamed to English words without vowels. The consonants page however is more of a list, and covers more languages. These should probably not have been nominated together (well, they weren't, the vowels page was added after the fact...) - jc37 18:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Wiki contains enumerable lists of seemly less importance then this one. A quick Yahoo search presented several listings that lead to possible notability and secondary sources making the material "not" original research. Any number of dictionaries should easily provide verifiability. Though the Wiki is a scholarly tom, no age group has been clearly defined as its audience so for the young users of the Wiki I will vote to keep the article. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, can you provide some of those listings? JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk:Words_without_consonants#helpful_links Actually usable sources would need to be sought out by the authors of the article but I think those provided show they maybe more numerous then one might expect. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I followed your link above to find...your post with a link to Tripod website? And an irrelevant Omniglot page on Welsh? Either you must be joking about using those as sources for "Words without consonants," or you haven't digested WP:RS (Tripod SPS) or WP:OR, since there's nothing of relevance you could glean directly from Omniglot (search for "vowel" or "consonant"). That leaves the sources provided by others (the article has two now), though you haven't pointed to a single reliable one that presents any sort of coverage of this topic. I hope you'll either base your vote on particular coverage or consider striking your vote. JFHJr (㊟) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The words-w/o-vowels article conflates two topics, because both letters and sounds are called 'vowels' in English. I suppose we could split the article if we decided to keep it. No-vowel-letters is of perhaps trivial interest, though it has been enough to inspire poems without vowel letters. No-vowel-sounds is of theoretical interest, as mentioned above: how do you syllabify a word with no vowels? Does the concept of 'syllable' even apply? Some have argued, from the existence of such words in Wakashan etc, that it does not—and if it does not apply there, why assume that syllables always apply in words with vowels, or that other languages must necessarily have syllables? Not an easy thing to answer. Though of course those points could be merged into syllable.

  Words w/o consonants: perhaps every language which allows V as a syllable (not all do) allows V-only words. That is of no interest. However, there is a minor point of interest re. hiatus and language pedagogy and the vowel sequences that are possible in languages like Hawaiian. Though of course that point could be merged into hiatus (linguistics). — kwami (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears to me that anyone who posts a keep vote or makes a comment about a delete vote gets jumped on by a bunch of editors challenging everything he/she says, while delete votes are mostly untouched. If I have an opinion on this AfD (I don't) I would be reluctant to vote to keep it, knowing that I would be opening the floodgates of criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's called discussion, and it's what we're supposed to do at AFD. This isn't an election. It isn't about votes. (Which is why it's completely superfluous to put "comment" in front of every paragraph.) If you cannot handle the idea that people who disagree will want to discuss your rationale for keeping, and challenge you to support it with sources that will convince them, but want to cast an unadorned vote and walk away without taking on the responsibility of supporting and justifying your opinion, then yes you probably won't enjoy the process. But it's not the ideas that discussion should happen, that people be challenged to show scholarly support for claims, and that people should state what effort they put into looking and where they looked when they claimed not to find scholarly support, that is wrong. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Keep the work, just move it to the project where it belongs. Wiktionary's Category:appendices has other pages along these lines, like wikt:Appendix:Palindromic words. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have de-prodded the linked page List of words that comprise a single sound, which was nominated at the same time as this one, and tagged it for transwiki to Wiktionary. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]