Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 30 September 2 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SexBomb Girls

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

No claims that this group is notable, and there are zero references. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is crap, if no one else does it, I will do it later is an awful keep comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2:20 a.m. here. Once I clean this up, this discussion is over. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Just saw the article, it's bad, but serviceable. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have trimmed it to a fraction of what it was, and a user has added a few citations. Imo, if articles are rubbish there is no reason to keep. It is simple to userfy them for a user or even two or three users that want it kept and are prepared to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a rubbish article is no reason to delete either. As long as it satisfies WP:GNG and is adequately referenced it's good to go. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea ok. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the article doesn't need a trim; it needs a complete rewrite. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many thanks to the user that added the citations, User:Bluemask, and I have trimmed the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven T. Murray

edit
Steven T. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. Those awards are not for his works, per se; they are for the author's works, which he has translated, and were not awarded to him. Ironholds (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clubberstv

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

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) with the explanation: "Mass removal of pages added by PeterRoyce: More copyvios". (NAC Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boopity Boop! Writes Her First Poem

edit
Boopity Boop! Writes Her First Poem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BK, Just published book with few google hits to establish notability. Single independent source in article is not in English and only mentions the book in passing as part of an interview with the author. noq (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia writes articles on relevant, authentic projects, companies, etc, foreign or otherwise, varying in dates. I notice some projects on Wikipedia are dated for 2010, so I do not see the date as a problem here. Book is notable and wikipedia should support a confluence of information varying in its importance since the site is a community site relevant to many people. People who search the book should find Wikipedia among its articles since it is a real, published book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) October 1, 2010
Comment You assert it is notable but do not show it. The reference you linked to only mentions the book in passing - this is not significant coverage. The book does not even appear to have actually been published yet. noq (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:BK. No reliable sources, no Amazon sales rank, publisher is either a vanity press or extremely small (their authors page asks "Do you have a dream of being published?" and their store page lists all of 3 items including this one). Not a notable book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment; this is not even a just-published book. According to its website, it is not due for publication until November 2010. An article on a not-yet-published book, in the absence of substantial extenuating circumstances not present here (for example, the next highly-anticipated book in a highly notable series of books), cannot be justified on notability. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity wikipedia (a community site) should be this selective about what truthful information is revealed to the community. Here is another link. However it's your call. Not worth arguing about. http://www.borders.com/online/store/EventView?city&state&zipCode&within&all_stores&selectedStoreId=10696&eventId=351430& —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough that something be true. It must also be notable. I had lasagna for dinner tonight, but you don't see me writing an article about that. You've made no argument about notability, and that is the point of this discussion. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If hundreds of thousands of people around the world wanted to know if you ate lasagna for dinner, I would presume wikipedia would create an article for you informing the public with information they wanted to know ie eating lasagna. Book is relevant and notable because it is inherently tied to a notable actress and book is relevant because it is translated in more than one language. Also, baby Suri Cruise has an article on wikipedia. Please enlighten me, what did she do besides being born to Tom and Kate Cruise? Same with this book. Inherently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the guidelines that say that books inherit notability from the author? And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. noq (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please explain WHY suri curise is on wikipedia if she isn't INHERENTLY notable?? then remove EVERYONE who does not stand legitimate in their own right.

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS noq (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note also that Suri Cruise is a redirect to another article - not an article in its own right. noq (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe weighing the level of notability applies here. As a celebrity, who ever that person marries, gives birth to, creates, dates, writes, publishes is considered notable... inherently so. Otherwise, thousands of articles on wiki should not even exist. To weigh a book as to whether it is relevant should only apply if the writer is just as new as the book, and the book carries the writer's worth and therefore should be weighed in relevance. But when the writer is a celebrity, whatever that celebrity creates for the public, (movie, books, children, dates) are relevant. I can give you an entire list of people, books, and children who shouldn't even be up there if it weren't for the notability of someone else. Please consider this. Thank you. PeterRoyce (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot believe sadads would even suggest simply deleting a legitimate fact. At least the redirect was more logical if it in fact does not weigh any significance WHATSOEVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRoyce (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Ohio

edit
Egypt, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No modern evidence to support that this is a still in existence as a community. Needs to be deleted due to lack of evidence. Some refer to this as a "lost city" or "ghost town" and its Post Office was decommissioned in 1905. The community is no longer in existence. http://www.midwestlost.com/locations/ohio/belmont/egyptsearch.html --Mmann1988 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the nominator is confused with the URL that s/he provides in this nomination: the article is in Auglaize County (upper map), while the midwestlost.com covers a place in Belmont County (lower map). Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Auglaize County
Belmont County
Not much is left, but it does still exist somewhat; click the coords on the article to go to Google, and you'll see that there's Street View on the north-south road through the community. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but three sources is not enough. There is no evidence that this is a community in any sense of the word. We need more evidence besides the ___location of a church and a google street view.--Mmann1988 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living with Bipolar Intervention

edit
Living with Bipolar Intervention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a press released. Anything meaningful can be merged into Treatment of bipolar disorder, but there shouldn't be a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge and deleting the redirect is normally not a valid option for an AFD result. Yoenit (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on gbooks, gnews or gscholar. Couldn't find anything useful on google either, but searching was a pain because "living with Bipolar" is used on practically every site about the disorder. Without any independent sources I have to conclude this is not not notable.. Yoenit (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tried some alternate searches using the University name, as well as Scholar searches using the researchers, and still don't find anything. With only self-published sources, this appears to be a non-notable research study. They may well produce notable results in the future, in which case they may deserve an article later, but not now. I would redirect to Bipolar disorder, not the treatment article, as this is seems to be less of a treatment center and more of a scientific study. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business transformation management

edit
Business transformation management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was found to be copied from a web page, that is asserted to be freely licensed. Unfortunately, that page is now not reachable, nor can I find it elsewhere on their site. In any case, this is an unencyclopedic essay, written as a tutorial, . Based on the references, the term seems to be used only in a patent, and consultation reports based on it. I note the apparently related and wholly unsatisfactory article Business transformation. I have never found a good way of writing articles on business management concepts, but copying their jargon is not it. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Tang Soo Do Federation

edit
International Tang Soo Do Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no reliable third person sources to support to support an article therefore a delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like it could have been speedied since I see no claims of notability. I also found no reliable sources that support notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced article with no notability claims. I found no coverage by independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – At this time. I was able to find a few articles with concern to the ITSDO, as shown here; [4]. However, I do not believe the coverage is significant enough to warrant the organizations status as notable for inclusion here on Wikipedia. The majority of the articles are from a local paper, where the ITSDO is headquartered, covering small events. The remaining pieces discuss individuals who were granted black belts or won gold medals at events where the ITSDO was affiliated or sanctioning. Again, just local press coverage. Though some readers may claim that the organization ability to sanction or bestow Black belts on individuals is notable in and of itself, this is not necessarily true. If the ITSDO was the only organization within the Tang Soo Do community to have this ability, than yes, notability could be established. However, in my research I have found several other organizations and Dojos granting and sanctioning similar and like events within the Tang Soo Do society. Until the ITSDO can stand as the premiere organization or the only organization that Tang Soo Do associations looks to for guidance, sanctioning or affiliation and generates significant coverage, I must stay with my delete opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nilosree Biswas

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

Non-notable indie filmmaker advert. Orange Mike | Talk 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 UNYCHL season

edit
2009–10 UNYCHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable recreational club level hockey season. Recreational hockey is regularely deleted. This is not a NCAA level team. Just a recreational club league. DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The one keep vote is illogical; so I'm not considering it. If someone has an objection to that, kindly contact me on my talk page. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cazenovia Club Hockey

edit
Cazenovia Club Hockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable club hockey team. Hockey teams at this level are regularely deleted for non-notability. Ths is not a NCAA level team, but instead is a recreational club team. DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

411 SOLUTIONS International

edit
411 SOLUTIONS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently nonnotable IT company which has won a couple of local awards. The main source cited, Chicago Business, requires a subscription to view. Regardless, this company doesn't meet the notability standards of WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree - this is a notable IT company, as they are presented in several publications including WE USA, Crain's Chicago Business and the CEO appeared on a Radio Show. The company is associated with IBM, another notable entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonjk17 (talk • contribs) (article author, no edits outside this topic)

However, being an IBM PREMIER Business Partner is not common. Only 5% of all Business Partners have Premier status. This level is extremely difficult to obtain and is only granted for demonstrating exceptional market success. They actively collaborate with IBM to deliver significant client value through innovative solutions. Allisonjk17 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not written appropriately to justify our notability, that is understood, but your comments are both disrespectful to myself and to this company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonjk17 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not that the article is not written appropriately to justify your company's notability, it's the fact that your company is not notable enough to justify an article, so could you spare us the self-indulgent passive-aggressive nonsense, or is that too much to ask? And you want to bring up people being disrespectful? You know what's disrespectful? Someone who only signs up to edit Wikipedia so they can create an article about their company and then whines about the consequences when they get caught doing it. That's disrespectful, and a couple of other words come to mind too. You joined today, and the first article you created was about your company, and the only other page you've edited is this one, in defense of keeping your company's page, so please don't act like anyone should care about any possible offense you may take when they make the argument that your company's WP article is blatant self-serving crapvertsing and ought to be deleted as such. Wikipedia is not here to be a business directory, or to give free publicity to any and all comers, or to help your so-thoughtfully-named company get a better position in Google search results. You want publicity? Take out a paid advertisement. I'd tell you to advertise here, but since WP is a not-for-profit funded solely by donations, you can't. So until your company actually does something notable, I guess that scuttles your company's page.Mtiffany71 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore, the Wikipedia "Notability" Requirements summary states the following: Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If 411 SOLUTIONS has had mentions and features in Crain's Chicago Business, WE USA, appeared on the Aldonna Ambler Radio Show and has visibility for special programs and credentials within IBM, how does this not justify enough "Independent Resources" that have "noticed" this company. The notability piece also dictates that "popularity" is not something that justifies something to be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonjk17 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CM028

edit
CM028 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

airsoft gun that is not notable AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Cricket Club

edit
AfDs for this article:
Windsor Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Windsor Cricket Club is not in an ECB Premier League, which per WP:CRIC is a criteria English recreational cricket clubs need to fulfill before being considered notable; therefore Windsor Cricket Club is a non-notable cricket club. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private Jet Group

edit
Private Jet Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria for inclusion. Blue Rasberry 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpey

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

Non-notable product - fails WP:PRODUCT. Ghits do not reveal any significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn. – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please make some effort to find sources before nominating an article. Click the links which appear conveniently next to your nomination on this page. Google hits are largely irrelevant to demonstrate notability, but I see over 3.9 million Google hits for Sculpey when Wikipedia results are removed. Google News archive has 509 hits. Google Book search shows 3300 results.Google Scholar has 335 results. Sculpey is well known and widely used in art classes, by crafters, by teachers, by artists and in stop motion animation. There are a great many books which have independent and significant coverage of Sculpey clay, satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ol Irish Design and Build Company

edit
Ol Irish Design and Build Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Oliver

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

Fails to establish notability. Nothing special or noteworthy about this college basketball player that would pass even the most liberal GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - though he may be notable as a player in a pro league somewhere - I don't really know. If someone wanted to verify that, add it to the article and source it then he's probably notable. As is, though, he doesn't meet the bar for college athlete notability. Rikster2 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most notable award he received was one awarded weekly, which does not meet the notability standard. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


He is projected to be first team all wac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameelraymundo (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dina bint 'Abdu'l-Hamid

edit
AfDs for this article:
Dina bint 'Abdu'l-Hamid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. She is notable because she was married to King Hussain and gave him a daughter. All that information is already in the King's article. Apart from her marriage, she is not notable in her own right. I know that this might be controversial (it's a contested PROD), but I can't find any policy or guideline that says Queens are inherantly notable (although I concur that if the Queen is the reigning monarch herself, as Queen Elizabeth II, then they are inherantly notable) - if she hadn't married the King, she wouldn't be notable herself. Again, I feel the mention in the King's article is sufficient coverage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have expanded the article and added some sources that demonstrate her notability. Phantomsteve, according to your reasoning, Wikipedia should not have articles about queens consort at all because almost every queen consort derives her notability from her husband. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Queen Consorts' public lives pales in comparison to their sovereign counter-parts, it is a disingenuous comparison. So do the lives of the American First Ladies and the wives of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom when compared to their husbands, but they certainly are notable in their own right. They all have public and official roles to play, often greater than many government posts. Side-note, she did not inherit the royal title, but married into it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will re-look at the article, and the newly added sources - and the arguments presented here (probably on Monday, as I have family commitments over the weekend), and will consider my position here. However, I would like to point out the "notability is not inherited" does not mean that I thought she inherited the title as you seemed to think I meant. I actually meant what you said "[she] married into it". If I was to marry a famous/notable person, that would not make me notable (leaving aside the fact that it would really annoy my girlfriend!). She was married to the King for 2 years and 67 days - I'm not sure how much of a public/official role she played, which is what would make her notable in her own right, especially as the article itself says Hussein determinedly said that she would have no political role. but does not mention that she actually did have a political role in spite of this - but as I said, I will look into the article/sources on Monday. If I feel that this nomination was incorrect, then I will withdraw it. If I do not feel that way, I will not! This was not a simple case of "she only married him and got notability in that way" - I looked for some sources and didn't find any reliable ones. The "Cairo Times" one is not actually at the Cairo Times' website - it is a typed copy purportedly of the original - but I have seen sources rejected because they are a scan of an original newspaper article that is on a website which is not the newspaper's website - this isn't even a scan, it is a transcription. However, I'll look into this on Monday (and try to get a copy of the other references). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have some notability in her own right, too. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Surtsicna rightfully says, nearly all queens consort, and for that matter First Ladies, derive their notabilty from their husbands. After all nobody had ever heard of Diana Spencer until she became engaged to Prince Charles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being married to a reigning king is normally reason to declare a person notable. (There may be exceptions, but I don't think this subject is one.) Whether the queen actually had a political role should not be a determining factor here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Catch Them Young

edit
Operation Catch Them Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [6]. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, non notable and promotional.TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Totally Awesome Proteid

edit
The Totally Awesome Proteid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self-published comicbook. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfectionist (Natalia Kills album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love is a Suicide

edit
AfDs for this article:
Love is a Suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The reason is because:

  1. It isn't released yet.
  2. There are not enough info to support the article.
  3. It does not indicate any importance or the significance.

If you objected or agreed to this decision, please write in some comments about it. Abcassionchan 05:30, 1 October 2010 (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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW etc. No way we will get a consensus to delete given what we have so far, especially now that the article has been moved to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Cf. the closure of this AfD. T. Canens (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler clementi

edit
Wikinews has related news:
Tyler clementi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Tyler Clementi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earlier versions of this article have been deleted on WP:BIO1E grounds. However the incident has gained further press interest and with the pending prosecutions on 'invasion of privacy' grounds, it seems likely that the requirement of "significant impact" may be addressable. Raising for discussion as the issue is not clear cut. Fæ (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For now I'm going to cautiously move to Weak keep due to the move fitting my suggestion. (Unless his loved ones or family object to this article) I'm still open to merge, but that doesn't seem like a popular option. Also I'd say if in a year from now it's clear this wasn't significant then it could be re-argued.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NB there is a better-capitalized article at Tyler Clementi covering the same subject. Don't know what the procedure for handling cases like this would be. (I'd ordinarily convert the miscapitalized version to a redirect, but since this discussion's underway I thought it might prove confusing.) Should we just add the AfD tag to both and discuss the subject's notability here? Gonzonoir (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Tyler Clementi also exists; if the articles are kept, they should be merged and moved to Tyler Clementi. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I have migrated the sources to the correctly titled primary article and changed the original (i.e. created first) into a redirect. There is no apparent loss of information, hopefully. Fæ (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Earlier speedy-deleted versions were two-line unsourced stubs. The article as it presently stands is a very different case. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; AfD discussions discuss the suitability of an article about a given subject, not the current state of that article. If an article is unsourced, find sources. If it's a stub, expand it. This discussion is primarily whether or not WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E means that this article should be deleted; notability for the time being is clearly established by sources, and even when it was an unsourced stub, sources could have been easily found (and anyone commenting on an AfD on an unsourced article is meant to make some effort to find and discuss the available sources anyway) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You nominated the version I deleted for a speedy on BLP1E grounds (the text amounted to "Can we have an article, please?". Fae replaced the tag that was removed by the OP on the same grounds before I made the deletion. Nakon deleted a slightly more substantive stub. Newyorkbrad deleted a third stub. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I missed the word "speedy" when I read that. This discussion is about whether it should be deleted rather than whether it was valid to have speedily deleted it previously (which would have been more appropriate for the DRV thread), so I assumed you meant that the situation would be different at AfD and that the state of the article at that time should influence a deletion discussion, which it shouldn't. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. The state of an article and the content of an article are two different things; we obviously agreed yesterday that the content was inappropriate and speediable, as it was just a placeholder. None of this has much to do with the present discussion, so carry on. Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one will say I am very displeased as a user of Wikipedia to have seen the article autodeleted so many times before it got to its recent state. We have to do a better job at making sure things dont get autodeleted before discussion starts. I think the first tenent of Wikipedia is to do what's best for the encyclopedia and to debate and work out "the rules" later, not just simply delete stuff because you don't think it fits at that point in time. Teamwork, people. No one-person decisions.12.177.104.148 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the discussion, tyler clementi and Tyler Clementi have been merged, with the latter added here, and this discussion is now of the merged whole under one umbrella. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notable, based on media coverage: Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, BBC Radio, People Magazine, Chicago Tribune, MTV, Daily Mail, Barcelona Reporter, etc. I should also note that the notability in this case involves the circumstances and the politics of the story. Kingturtle (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Kingturtle. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the event's notability isn't in question; there's no denying that the event received very good coverage in reliable sources. However, it was just that: a single event, and the individual isn't notable enough for inclusion based solely on the coverage of their suicide. Moreover, at this point the story itself was very recent and there's no evidence of enduring notability for the story (it's been in the news a whopping 2 days so far and it may or may not continue to be covered as a significant LGBT afterwards, but at the moment we don't know that), so per WP:NOTNEWS neither the individual nor the event should be included at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My argument isn't that it's not notable; it clearly is. My argument is that there's no evidence of enduring notability, which is what distinguishes between a news story suitable for wikinews, and an event suitable for encyclopaedic coverage on wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS is separate from notability and is policy. Simply repeating that the event is notable does nothing to counteract the fact that the story very clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS until enduring notability can be established. Wikipedia is not a news site, that's what wikinews is for. Notability is not the only condition for inclusion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, I understand that. Are you then saying that we should never cover events until enduring notability can be shown? That quote above, from WP:EVENT, doesn't agree with such a claim. And EVENT is a guideline clarifying NOTNEWS. In my opinion the question is if it seems likely this will have enduring notability. And at the moment the event clearly is headed in that direction IMO. The subject of this AfD is less clear to me (see below). My reading of NOTNEWS is that we are to avoid routine coverage, not nation-wide front page stuff. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep<ec> I think the event is clearly notable. The person is less clear at this time. It's clearly a WP:BIO1E and I'm not yet certain the bio will rise above those standards, though as Kingturtle points out we are well on our way. That said, it's at least a close call and I'd prefer to keep for now and revisit in a month or so. Hobit (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's currently impossible to tell how much long-term notability this event has. Other instances of suicide following bullying have not achieved lasting importance, but this one may be different because of the nature of the events and because it particularly highlights the issue of young LGB people being bullied. My question is, how long do we wait and see? When is 'enduring notability' established? WP:NOTNEWS only really says to avoid 'routine news reporting' and that breaking news should not be 'emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information'. It's not clear to me how this necessarily precludes an article on a subject that is currently notable and will almost certainly prompt further debate about bullying, cyber-bullying and treatment of LGB youth. --Korruski (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was wondering yesterday if there should be a "September 2010 bullying suicides" (or equivalent) article. A significant amount of press is being garnered by the four suicides this month (Asher Brown, Billy Lucas, Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh). It's said that Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project is in response to Billy Lucas, for example (and that was two suicides ago). - BalthCat (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would probably a bit artificial as a merge solution. If any case is cited many times (in the long term) in national press or quality publications as grounds for lobbying, changes in the law and legal precedent or just plain newsworthy for pundits and opinion makers then I suggest they meet the GNG and probably ought to have their own article. In counterpoint, I would argue against lists of those bullied but not notable enough for a free standing article as such listings fail the WP:NLIST guidelines. Fæ (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with Fæ that this isn't a good merge solution unless the coverage turns (and it hasn't yet, so we shouldn't yet) to consolidated coverage of those cases. However, if we did decide to make such a merge, we'd also want to look at possible inclusion of Justin Aaberg (13, MN), Cody J. Barker (17, WI), and Raymond Chase (19, RI). --j⚛e deckertalk 17:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that the resulting article would BE a list. These suicides (six, now) have resulted in two at least two new projects from notable people and organisations. Yes, perhaps a little time is needed, but articles are already referring to "Fifth suicide..." or "Another..." etc. I'm not sure combining them is necessarily artificial, as I think their timeframe is garnering real attention. Of course, who knows, maybe it will continue on into October... - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. As sad as this event is and as widely covered as it was, it is only one event that so far has not demonstrated any lasting effect, it may in the future but this is not what Wikipedia is WP:CBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - on the basis that the article easily meets all the criteria of WP:GNG. I understand the guidelines of BIO1E and NOTNEWS, however these are not intended to supersede all other considerations. The article title could be changed to reflect the event, as suggested above, which would include the prosecutions involved and the associated legal case. This event is not simply the suicide but the article encompasses what the sources describe as a notable "hate crime" (as per CNN coverage) and invasion of privacy legal case. The deletion guidelines do not encourage deletion when there is a real prospect of improvement in the near future (which is normally interpreted as several days rather than several months). Fæ (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an exceptional case, high profile, lots of media coverage, in an important category. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News coverage does not mean the notability standard is met. Lots of things are noted, but pass, thus not notable. Also, this man killed himself because his personal life was made public, it seems disrespectful that we do the same. If the event leads to prosecutions and even a new law about Internet bullying, then there should be an article about the event, but not the man. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been moved to the event of his death, which has received much coverage and appears it will have staying power, even sparking debate about new laws to govern behavior on the Internet. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- There are similar pages for suicides of other victims of cyber-bullying, (see: Suicide_of_Megan_Meier, Suicide_of_Ryan_Halligan, Death_of_Phoebe_Prince), who are not otherwise notable beyond the circumstances of their deaths. CharwinBrussell (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Suicide of Tyler Clementi and Keep- for now anyway. This is the usual problem with breaking news stories in that its really hard to tell the difference between "in the news" and "falls under notnews". The only way we'll be able to tell the difference is after a month or two has passed. Oh, and troutslap the article creators for creating articles about the person and not the event. We've been at this wikipedia thing long enough that we should know better, Cover the event, not the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cyber-bullying. This got press coverage, but Wikipedia is not a summary of things that were in the news each news cycle. The individual was not notable prior to his death, so WP:109PAPERS, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. Edison (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per earlier comments by Kingturtle,Fæ, Paul (User:Lpgeffen), and because the person in question has become notable not only because of the events leading to his death, but also his personality has come to the fore in major debates across media and university campuses about bullying of those who are perceived different from a presumed majority. Malljaja (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The scope of the initial coverage, together with the already extensive followups, indicate that this is not a case of transient newsworthiness. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is extremely important to help outsiders learn of the taunting and bullying faced by students simply because of their orientation. 12.177.104.148 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) — 12.177.104.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep, and by keep I mean merge the two articles, move to "Suicide of Tyler...", add a redirect from "Tyler...", and keep all that. The argument for deletion boils down to real concerns about newsy, one-eventy non-lasting coverage. Normally that's a "delete, then wait and see", but the broad nature of the coverage leaves me leaning keep, with a nod to "let's look again in a month" as per Hobit. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (Edited to note that this merge has already been accomplished.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) See also: WP:BDP. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to "Suicide of...", per the reasons already given by others above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to expand on my specific reasons for keeping. Looking at the applicable policies and guidelines, WP:NOTNEWS says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is a different kind of news than that, something far less routine. WP:EFFECT identifies pages like Murder of Adam Walsh and Matthew Shepard that pass notability and are similar to this one. The sourcing so far passes WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE. WP:SENSATION clearly does not apply here. It seems to me that the decision here hinges on WP:BREAKING, which, on the one hand, suggests that it might have been more prudent to wait a few days before creating the page, but that's water under the bridge now. On the other hand, it also points out that AfDs like this one should not be started within the first few days after the event. And, that, for me, is the bottom line. We should keep the page, with no prejudice against a second AfD in a few months. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (background) As the nominator I can clarify the background here which may not be obvious. The article was speedy deleted twice (see log), before someone (not me) created a version with a lower case surname. It so happens that I had previously requested speedy delete on an early unsourced stub but after examining the new article (flagged to me as potential vandalism on IGLOO) I tidied up a few of the key sources and discussed the rationale for not speedy deleting again with the previously deleting admin (see diff). I then not only added several quality sources to the article but raised this deletion discussion as we were already beyond re-speedying the article. I raised an AfD discussion as this would clarify the situation with regard to the balance of encyclopaedic notability versus possible recent-ism. Personally I do not see AfDs as a negative process but as a means of gaining consensus for the merits of having a free-standing article. My expectation was that this was not clear cut (as stated in the nomination) and so would be likely to take several days to reach a conclusion. However, if the end result is a deletion, then I would expect the article to be userfied for further improvement. There appears to be a criticism that raising the AfD was not a prudent thing to do, however I beleive my actions fall well within the WP:BEFORE guidelines. You are welcome to discuss further on my talk page if you disagree and feel I misunderstand the guidelines. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fæ, please let me say here, where everyone can see it, that I apologize to you for making my comment sound like I was finding fault with you for starting the AfD. It's not what I was thinking, and I was mistaken to make it sound that way. What I meant was not that we shouldn't conduct the AfD, but rather, that the reasons I gave were reasons to not delete now, but instead, to keep while leaving open the possibility of a later AfD if future developments indicate that the event did not have lasting significance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to the event per the various reasons above. WP:NOTNEWS lists plenty of examples of trivial news that we don't cover: this doesn't fit by any stretch of the imagination. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per all above. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Question of rename should be discussed elsewhere. The only thing to be decided here is whether the content, history and talk page of this article are to be kept or deleted at this point in time. For me that's a no-brainer, the material is clearly encylopedic, and at the very worst will be included in another article with an appropriate redirect. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Wait and See. Not a big fan of keeping so soon after the event, but it looks like the keep effort is snowballing. Might as well move the article title to one that is more appropriate. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for clarity: the page has been moved to Suicide of Tyler Clementi. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said elsewhere, the event satisfies WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE based on coverage in several well-known news publications; I think it satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE by virtue of the fact that large numbers of the LGBT community outside the US have now heard about the incident; and WP:EFFECT seems like it's likely to apply in time, as this is causing calls for anti-bullying measures to be taken (c.f. The Ellen DeGeneres Message), and Matthew Shepard is even listed as an example there. This, of course, remains to be seen. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable story. Tommy! 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from one of the people urging deletion: "not notable; it clearly is. My argument is that there's no evidence of enduring notability". This is confusing newsworthiness and encyclopediaworthiness; the very names show this: to be worth covering in the news, something has to be important here and now--one goes to a news site to read what is newly notable--new things that have just become important this day or this week. An encyclopedia encompasses whatever has been notable at any previous point. Personally, I think the concept of "enduring notability" in our coverage of news events is ridiculous, and the sooner we get away from it the better: what people want to see when the look at a comprehensive encyclopedia is, to put it bluntly, everything that ever was thought important. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of your own views on enduring notability, it is policy, and this is not the correct place to challenge the validity of the WP:NOT policy. WP:EVERYTHING, as well, is a "classic" poor rationale for use in an AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, WP:EVENT specifically allows us to have events where enduring notability is not yet established... Hobit (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Providing there's fairly strong indication that enduring notability will be established WP:EVENT may be a fairly convincing argument for keep (I'm not a big fan of trying to predict this per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is looking fairly likely, I'll admit). I was simply pointing out that challenging an established policy and making a WP:EVERYTHING keep rationale, is a rather less convincing argument. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete not warranted a whole article by himself (and there are others like this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesnt jsutify it). An addition on the circumstances can go on 2010 in LGBT rights if its notable as a whole, by itself its not.Several people kill themselves over many issues (and ITN says there were 4 this week/month in america alone), they dotn warrant placement.
Out of sensitivity to the people who loved this person, perhaps we can avoid invoking the "other crap exists" formulation of that guideline's title. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also becasue it has media coverage today is more of a concern to ITN, not the broader encyclopaedia. WP:NOTNEWS would suggest wikinews is better than wikipedia for this.(Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]
"it's a major news event, not a notable event." That is your opinion. I know I personally feel that the event is notable. If we followed your logic, why wouldn't we delete Matthew Shepard's article before the MS act had been passed? 12.177.104.148 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a BLP, btw. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shirik. In response to Joe Decker, as has been explained previously now, BLP also applies to the recently dead out of consideration for their families. And regarding Matthew Shepard, remember that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or indeed "other stuff existed early") is not a valid reason for keeping. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you about BLP, as per my reading of WP:BDP, which you don't mention but which I believe is the controlling consensus and policy on this point. A second point that got lost in my too-terse response is that, as the article is now renamed to "Suicide of...", the article is guided by event, not biography notability, which additionally limits the application of BLP notability requirements to this article. I would, however, agree that protections against specific content (not articles, but dubious statements, etc.) based on BLP still exist as per BDP. And, indeed, I completely agree with you that the Matthew Shepard argument is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad and tragic indeed but not notable, If some law gets passed because of him maybe we can recreate it but right now, no —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs)
  • Delete We really should have a mechanism for talking about whether to create these kinds of articles before they are created. Anyway, I agree with Shirik. Distinguishing BLP1E because the subject is (as of a few days ago) no longer alive is semantics. BLP is about ethical treatment of living persons. We should extend the same treatment to the families of the recently deceased. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree - this is a teachable moment and if someone can learn from this tragedy and think twice before bullying, than wikipedia has done it's job. Why not have an article that can teach us about hate toward any person? So we should delete Matthew Shepard's article, too? What the heck? 12.177.104.148 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP guidance does apply in any article where living people are discussed, there is a very large notice on the top of the article talk page to that effect. However that a recently deceased person has living relatives is not a rationale to delete an article, only a reason to improve it. Fæ (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jayme (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (& wait) This event is too recent to determine if it is "notable." For now, this article should be kept and updated as news unfolds. Once this moves from current event to history, then it is easier to determine if this is notable enough for its own article or should be a footnote in another or if, sadly, it's not sufficiently notable for anyone to remember. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and if these things aren't remembered in an encyclopedia where will they be remembered? Vroo (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. WP:EVENT doesn't supply us with a good mechanism for reconciling the requirement that "an event must have a lasting effect" with the proviso "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I strongly suspect that this event will have a lasting effect (to acknowledge my biases, I bloody hope it does and that this poor man's death spurs change that will protect others), but I do not have a crystal ball and do not think that my hunch is reason enough to ignore the requirement for evidence of lasting effect. No prejudice to recreating the article (at the title "Suicide of...") if the passing of time does confirm a lasting impact. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination tells us that the matter is having a significant impact and the topic is certainly notable. There is therefore no case for peremptory deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International attention surrounding this tragic incident is growing. The details surrounding his death ought to be provided in an article as it is now. For years to come it seems likely that this poor boy will be the face of anti-gay bullying in the same way that Matthew Shepherd was and still is the face of anti-gay violence. Ncondee (talk 12:28, 2 October 2010 (CEST)
  • Weak Delete Some seem to be getting things backwards. We don't keep an article and see if it becomes notable, thats WP:CRYSTAL. Attention is already fading a few days later, and Though I find it unfortunate, I don't feel that many will remember this or use it as an example in the future. Though unfortunate, these type of things are common. WP:EVENT doesn't have enough strength to sway many !votes, so this is just my interpretation. Grsz11 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement about attention fading a few days later does not seem to be supported by the measurable media attention. The article under discussion was created a day ago (now locked for 7 days) but the suicide was ten days ago and my searching of GNews articles shows that the number of matches almost doubled in the last 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E. In itself not an event with lasting or enduring notability as of now. No prejudice against recreating at a future date if further developments make the event fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated previously, some people unfortunately become notable because of their deaths. Wolf1728 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and there is every reason to expect that there will be even more coverage in the future. With the article as currently titled, the subject is the suicide, not the individual. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the event has been covered in multiple sources for a while now, and now the biographical article has been renamed. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only has the story had plenty of notable news coverage, but considering why he has become notable, it is likely that he will still remain in the public's consciousness long enough to justify this article's existence. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sourcing has been provided for the death of this individual. It is entirely possible that the subject will receive no further news coverage and so will constitute an event with no long-term notability, but it's too early to make that judgment now. Hut 8.5 11:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's too early to make a judgement as to whether the article has long-term notability per WP:CRYSTALBALL, but be aware that WP:NOTNEWS states that news stories must have long term notability. It makes more sense to userfy the article until such time as enduring notability can be established; "keep it because you don't know it won't be notable" is a WP:BALL argument. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was a weak keep. I'm not sure I object to userfying for now, but I think just keeping it might make sense because of the response. If a bill on cyber-harassment is being written due to this incident, as a source appears to indicate[9] than I would say lasting notability seems plausible. Still I could see a case for having this in the cyberbullying article rather than on its own.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having problems figuring out how to clearly say this, but I think you and others are misapplying WP:BALL. Yes, it's about not guessing about the future, but it's with respect to the event itself, not the coverage of the event. We can and should use common sense when we apply policies and guidelines--even if that means guessing about the degree of future coverage. Is there a chance this event won't have long-lasting notability? Sure. But I think most all of us agree that's extremely unlikely at this point. If we turn out to be wrong, we can delete it later. We should also be asking "what's best for the encyclopedia". And delaying coverage of notable topics seems like a mistaken priority. I also think folks are misapplying WP:EVENT and NOTNEWS. They are for fairly trivial events. Even if the coverage on this ended today, this would be significantly more than a passing news story--the number of article and editorials and the like on the topic has created enduring notability already. 4 articles over 8 months is no more "endearingly notable" than 100s in 10 days. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not wish to discourage consensus building discussion, but could folks please avoid repeating the same argument when responding to other !votes? As an example I note one contributor not only expressed their opinion but has managed to repeat it at least five times with various shortcuts to WP:NOT. Refer to WP:DUCKSEASON. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Repeating a counterargument is perfectly valid when others appear to be failing to acknowledge and address it. The big difference between what "one contributor" has said and the example at WP:DUCKSEASON is that I am pointing out to those who are !voting to keep with arguments like "there are many references so it's notable", that that hasn't been disputed. There's no point saying "keep because it's notable" in response to "delete because it may not remain notable". And trying to undermine an argument in such a way is a poor substitute for refuting it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article at nj.com does a good job summarizing why Clementi and his death became more than a news story. Hekerui (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came to this wiki page looking for sourced material on a notable event currently sparking a great deal of debate across a variety of media and organizations. This event has already shown itself to be the most notable gay teen suicide in recently history, and this wiki page has utility as a reference. Slamorte (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; mainstream media still covering event, aftermath, and legal ramifications. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd appreciate it if the keepers could please explain why this should not be deleted in terms of WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If this is kept, then those policies and guidelines seem invalid; if they are, that raises bigger questions, including whether or not Wikinews should exist at all. I'm open to discussion; I just do not understand the purpose of those sections of policy and guideline if this is kept.  Chzz  ►  18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of us did explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, you were kind enough to elaborate in your reasoning, and I appreciate that. The question I have there is, I think (and forgive me if I misunderstand) you're saying we should "wait and see". This is the exact opposite of Wikipedia norms in deletion; we look at whether, right now, something appropriately suits the policies and guidelines. If, over time, the situation changes and it falls into the remit, then it could of course be created / undeleted and fixed at that future date - but I don't believe we should be predicting that.
In addition, could you give your views re WP:1E - this individual, it is quite clear, is not notable for any reasons other than this terrible tragedy.
Please note, I am not directly criticising your opinion, which is absolutely valid and welcome; I am only asking the questions to further my own understanding of these things. If it turns out that these types of events are indeed appropriate, then that's all good, and I will adapt my thinking accordingly, for future cases.
In the interests of full disclosure here, I must point out that I, personally, spent a great deal of time working on a Wikinews article, Wikinews:US undergraduate commits suicide after 'outing' via webcast. And if, indeed, having it on Wikipedia is appropriate, then I am certainly all in favour. My reason for working on the Wikinews piece was to raise awareness. If we can have it on Wikipedia too, that's great, excellent. My deletion !vote here was because, as I interpret policies, it is not appropriate here; I kinda hope I am wrong, actually.
I hope that is clear; I could imagine people will misinterpret my questioning here as, in some way, my wanting this deleted because of my 'rival' article; I absolutely assure you, that is not the case. the more publicity this gets, the better, as far as I am concerned. It's an utter tragedy, and the more people consider it, the better chances of preventing similar incidents in the future. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the article is no longer about the individual, as per the title change discussion. The article is about the cyber-bulling case, the suicide, the high profile media and celebrity interest and the on-going prosecution of two students. Consequently the article can be considered to meet the guidance of 1E (as it is more than one event and is a continuing important legal case) and is more than just a news item published on one day. BTW, I thought the news article was excellent and I added the inter-wiki link back to this article yesterday; I agree that they exist for different reasons and never thought of them being in competition. I was pleased to see you expressing an opinion here as the AfD can only benefit from your experience. Fæ (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And thank you for your very kind elaboration. (And I doubt that anyone is concerned about the rival article thing; I'm definitely not.) About WP:1E, what I take from it is that the page should be about the event, rather than be a bio page, and now, it is. About the "wait and see" issue, well, I see that as the point where there are good arguments either way, and where the tipping point of this AfD decision probably lies. For me, what I said about WP:BREAKING in my earlier comment is what makes me lean in the direction of considering wait and see to be appropriate, but I can certainly understand an argument that, instead, the page should be userified during the wait. I perceive it as the more constructive way to deal with what we have now, which is not, of course, a perfect situation, but the situation that we have. (By the way, today's New York Times has a featured review of the significance of the incident.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Cali Cigal

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ahmed Cali Cigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since January 2008. This was kept at the last AfD in 2008 with the main argument being "there's lots of GHits". Having looked for both spellings of the name, I could not find significant coverage at reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jade oil

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

"Jade oil" is a brand name for an obscure antiquing fluid, made by a company called Liberon (see here). The article is out-of-context, cut-and-pasted from the catalog description and sort of makes it sound like it's a natural oil, presumably related to jade. Given that there is no reasonable notability for such a product, I don't see any reason to retain and revise the article vs. simply deleting it. KarlM (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sloan

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

NN musician. A contested prod. GrapedApe (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toto je posledný film z série Camp rocku . Vysielanie : 9.6 .2012

Postavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dievča (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock 3

edit
Camp Rock 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. Our Camp Rock 2 article states that the third film "is in question. Many online reporters and have said that the idea of a third film is a '99% chance'", but no source. A quick Google search uncovers nothing that affirms the third film is anything more than speculation matt (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, not only is the article too soon, but the grammar in it is horrible, it doesn't have a talk page, and contains less info than a stub. Please obliviate this article ASAP. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That section shouldn't even be in the article because it's completely uncited. Going to add cite tags now to that, though I would prefer pulling it out completely. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly there is a consensus to keep. A differerent decision could only be justified if there was some overriding consideration warranting the exclusion or marginalisation of the keep !votes. An attempt to do so was made here, claiming that if a GNG pass could not be demonstrated, deletion was mandatory. That isn't the case. The GNG is a guideline that creates a presumption of notability. Unlike WP:V, the GNG is not a policy the failure of which results in automatic exclusion. The clear consensus here is that an article is warranted, GNG aside. As there are no policy reasons to delete (such as verifiability failures), the local consensus here must be upheld. Mkativerata (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Thompson

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

The previous discussion closed as a "no consensus", with the closing admin admitting that it was marginal call over whether to close in that way or to delete. Wikilawyering aside, it was was clearly established that the individual does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL in the first debate. Far more important though is the question of whether he passes the GNG. In the BBC source, Thompson's name is merely mentioned in the lineup. The second source is a primary source, and the other two are routine pieces of local journalism. It has previously been established that the likes of refs 3 and 4 do not constitute "significant coverage", meaning that Thompson quite clearly fails the GNG. This discussion goes ahead with the consent of the previous closing admin. [11] —WFC— 06:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been the subject of a neutrally worded additional appeal for input from the WikiProject Football community. —WFC— 09:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The general consensus over the last few years has been that someone playing in a cup game between two clubs both from fully-professional leagues meets WP:ATHLETE in spirit, if not in the technicalities. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline that replaced what was WP:ATHLETE has been in place for less than a few months. More importantly though, in no way shape or form has this keep rationale explained how this subject is notable under the GNG. After all, sub-notability guidelines exist solely as a way of helping us evaluate whether or not an article is likely to pass the GNG, as clearly stated at the very top of WP:NSPORTS. —WFC— 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is irrelevant how long the renamed guideline has been around, given that it has pretty much exactly the same wording as the previous one (i.e. playing in a fully professional league). The old guideline did not mention cup matches, but past discussions have always put cup matches between two clubs from fully professional leagues on a par with league games. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I accept that the length is irrelevant. Although the wording is of some significance: given that the standard is treated as an inherent guarantee of notability by football editors, it needs to be robust. But I see this as a relatively unimportant issue. If he passed the GNG, you would not need to continue along this line. At no stage have you attempted to address the question of the subject's general notability. —WFC— 11:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because if he passes WP:ATHLETE (which he does by past general consensus about cup matches between professional clubs), WP:GNG is irrelevant. It's only in cases when someone fails WP:ATHLETE can WP:GNG "save" an article from deletion. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • So to clarify, a footballer does not need to pass the GNG provided that he passes WP:ATHLETE? —WFC— 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to be pedantic about it, the actual wording of WP:ATHLETE is contradictory, claiming that "this guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline", but then that "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", so make your own mind up. As I said, in the past, footballers who have played in cup matches between clubs in fully professional leagues are deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • My mind is made up. I was merely trying to give you an opportunity to clarify whether you think the GNG is relevant, which you declined to do. I didn't want to be accused of misrepresenting you by stating later on that "editors such as Number 57 did not establish that this person passed the GNG, and instead argued that the GNG was irrelevant", without at least giving you a fair chance to qualify what you have said. I now feel that I have done that, and respect your opinion. —WFC— 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has got a couple of u-21 caps and is probably going to get a appearance for Watford soon. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems peopel want to keep based on notability that could come later. While he may have potential, we operate under the guise of notability needing to already be established. Create the article later if he becomes what everyone hopes. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Number57, playing in a League Cup game between fully professional teams is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE (or whatever the current guideline is called). Standard historical practice by WP:FOOTY has been to say that player has to pass either WP:ATH or WP:GNG to warrant keeping the article; both is prefereable, but not essential. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - one appearance in the league cup is not enough to reasonably assume that the person will meet the GNG. Looking at the references provided in the article, they are pretty routine coverage. Then again, this article doesn't hurt the project and all of the information is verifiable. However, it's probably best to re-create this later when the player has accomplished more and is the subject of more coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I searched a bit for significant coverage in reliable sources not already included in the article and only found one article from the Evening Standard which is possibly more than routine coverage. I'm still thinking the article doesn't quite satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still on the fence on this one. However, I do have one question. Why is playing a match in one national competition more noteworthy than playing the same match in another? While I'm well aware that Watford F.C. and Notts County F.C. do not play in the same league, but if Mr. Thompson had appeared in a league fixture between the two, even in the lower of the two leagues in which they currently play, there would be no question whatsoever of him meeting WP:ATHLETE. Just some food for thought. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should also be remembered that you always have to meet WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE/WP:NSPORTS are just guidelines as to when sources are likely to exist and are not a guarantee of notability. If you can find sources to source this bio then what either of those guidelines say is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current consensus of an appearance in the Football League, Football League Cup, or Football League Trophy conferring notability works perfectly well. I don't see what is with the current obsession of purging out the several players each season that make only the one appearance and then drop off the face of the Earth. Even those that only make one professional appearance often end up with a non-league career that can easily be documented and updated, especially currently active players. There are seven separate sources used in the article, and the player is even notable enough to have his signature traded on eBay for Christ's sake. 95% of footballers on Wikipedia can be only be found in obscure books and yet nobody is suggesting they get mass-deleted. The player meets more than meets notability guidelines, there is no reason why this should have even been nominated in the first place save to confirm the current long-standing consensus.--EchetusXe 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happening to have been born after the fall of the Berlin wall doesn't make an individual more notable that someone who happens to have been born before the city originally got out of hand, particularly if they are notable for precisely the same thing. And heck, I could put my signiture onto eBay for 70p without selling it. Should I have an article? —WFC— 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not, but similarly, just because a young player happens to have started his career at Watford doesn't mean he should be denied an article despite passing notability guidelines. This precedent of notability being established by a professional appearance has been around for years and has worked perfectly without any complaints from anyone. I notice that you yourself were perfectly content to follow these clearly established principles, yet one morning earlier this year you woke up and decided that the precedent set on this project MUST be changed, regardless of how much time must be wasted on these "discussions", or how many people disagree with you ("this article is going to be deleted" despite a 7:2 ratio of keep to delete votes). Please give me a reason why you find the precedent so offensive all of a sudden, and please tell me why the **** we should look over the 30,000 or so footballer articles to make sure there is x amount of coverage for each of them?--EchetusXe 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article is going to be deleted, because every single keep argument is null and void. All BLPs must pass the general notability guideline, and 0% of keep arguments have attempted to explain why this person is notable. Calling the process a vote serves to highlight your total ignorance of sitewide process. And if you feel the need to swear at me, at least have the courtesy/courage to actually do so. —WFC— 07:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seem that appearing in the League Cup counts as passing WP:NSPORTS. The coverage is reasonable enough to write an acceptable article and it all looks fairly uncontentious, so there's no WP:V or WP:BLP concerns either. We kept Ross Worner as passing WP:NSPORTS on the basis of one League Cup appearance with little protest, so I don't think we should delete this unless something's changed in the last month. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article meets the NSPORT guideline as the player has competed in a fully-professional cup competition. The article has numerous references from reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single person has established that this individual meets the GNG. If that does not change, this article is going to be deleted, as meeting the GNG is a requirement of NSPORTS. —WFC— 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to add my thoughts but it sounds like you are going to delete this anyway regardless of comments?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision whether or not to delete cannot be made by the proposer, but by an independent admin. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll add my views then...Regardless of which piece of Wiki law trumps another I am a great believer in precedent, simplicity and comparisions of like articles. One minute in the Football League (e.g Jerome Federico, Charlie Stimson (English Footballer)) - notable. Similar playing time in the League or FA Cup - not notable. There are many like this that have no more references than for Adam Thompson and yet their articles remain. Therefore I cannot see the logic in deleting this.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am concerned by User:WFCforLife adding additional criteria to the WP:ATHLETE guideline during the course of this discussion to make it fit with his views.[12][13] Bad form. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that isn't adding additional requirements. Those requirements already exist and say so at the top of the page, he rewrote them in the football section, because football editors have been notoriously bad for ignoring the fact, that WP:ATHLETE does not overrule WP:GNG. Articles still need to meet WP:GNG even if they meet WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:ATHLETE asks for an appearance in a fully-pro league. This person has appeared in a fully-pro competition. Deleting purely over semantics is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has played in a fully-professional cup competition, therefore satisfying WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you kindly explain how he meets the general notability guideline? Regards, —WFC— 13:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meets WP:NFOOTY thus being notable as a sports person. --Jimbo[online] 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're not going to explain how he meets the GNG? —WFC— 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • He passes ATHLETE which is sufficient enough. Neither WP:GNG or WP:ATH state that one supersedes the other. --Jimbo[online] 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually WP:ATHLETE does indicate that you still have to meet WP:GNG, right at the top of the page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where exactly? To me, the sentence "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." says that if someone/thing meets the criteria on this page, it automatically meets the GNG. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • When athlete was rewritten earlier this year they went to great pains to make sure that point was very clear. That GNG still overruled athlete. Here is where it says it Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and also under the Applicable Guidelines and Policies section it says All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. (emphasis mine). It goes on to say This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline This is where the sentence you quote comes in. It is trying to say that the guideline is a guideline for when sources are likely to exist for a person such that they probably meet GNG but not necessarily, in other words this guideline is just a rule of thumb to make it easy to see at a quick glance if a subject is likely to meet GNG, but not a guarantee that they do. Unfortunately the football bar for some reason was placed alot lower than all the other sports, every other major sport requires to you play at the highest level of the sport professionally. I think this is where people are getting caught up, because a single game at a low level of pro probably isn't enough to get the sources that this guideline indicates they probably have. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if everything is subservient to WP:GNG, why do we have the specific notability guidelines? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because they help people at a glance see if someone is likely to be notable but the sources are hard to find. An example would be someone who played say in 1890 on a top flight team. No internet then so sources would be hard to find but if someone were to go looking through old newspaper archives they would likely find sources. It basically protects articles where its hard to get at sources immediately but the sources surely exist. To prevent things like recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'lowest level of pro' is vague. For English football for pro-players in pro-teams is playing in the FA Cup or League Cup somehow a lower level of pro football than playing in the football league? If a definitive statement could be arrived at we could save anymore discussion on cases where players make only appearances in a cup games--Egghead06 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ....... Leave a message 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.L.O. (Players Only Live Once)

edit
AfDs for this article:
P.O.L.O. (Players Only Live Once) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article for unreleased album has unreliable sources and unknown release date. Possible speedy candidate. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of sources found. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Borgundvåg

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

fails WP:BIO. Norwegian article doesn't have much either. 1 gnews hit [14]. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you can provide a link to some of these sources? I'm not familiar with Atekst and couldn't find any of these articles. Also, did you mean "701-word" or "701-letter" article? A 701-letter interview would not be very significant. SnottyWong communicate 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:BEFORE is not a policy which can logically be used to argue for or against the deletion of an article. It simply lists things that you should do before you nominate an article for deletion. Therefore, saying "Keep per WP:BEFORE" doesn't make sense. SnottyWong chat 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snotty, Bearian you should know as an admin that WP:BEFORE does not apply as an argument for keeping. My nomination did include a search. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is one is a challenge, but I am finding some useful sources by searching Aftenposten archives and Kvasir (a Norwegian search engine):(1) July 7, 2005 article in Teknisk Ukeblad, see [16] (trans. [17]), crediting him as having a major role in the development of Norway's largest shipbuilding area. See also, [18], a September 3, 2001 article in Aftenposten (its the Design-boom i Ulsteinvik article (Design boom in Ulsteinvik), which seems to also address his influence in that area, unfortunately you have to pay for full text); (3) Feb 16, 1999 article in Aftenposten[19], I can tell it talks about the guy, can't tell if in depth; (4) article on maritimeandenergy.com (this may be a shipping industry PR service, so its not independent necessarily)[20] (noting him as leading designer in ships). There may be more if anyone looks further.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- nice improvements and searching for sourcing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google news search only has one result at first. Looking deeper I found a French news result calling him the "architect of genius" and talking about his boats he designed. [21] They write his name as Sigmund Borgundvaag there though, but mention his boats, and he is a famous boat designer from Norway. Dream Focus 07:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, å is usually rendered aa in other languages. I've added references supporting all the article's claims based on what was mentioned here plus what else I could find, but I was unable to find the 2005 interview User:Arsenikk found, so I encourage him and others to add more. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steel Thistle Pipes and Drums

edit
Steel Thistle Pipes and Drums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Band The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Family Niteclub

edit
The Family Niteclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources that show that this company is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Village at The Rim

edit
The Village at The Rim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seem to be spam of a Non notable shopping center The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Touradji

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

Seems to be non-notable, has been cited bbut does not seem to have any Biographical sources on her The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one country albums of 2009 (Canada)

edit
List of number-one country albums of 2009 (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada), a thorough search by several editors has failed to turn up a reliable archive of these charts. Until one can be found, this information is all unverifiable and should be deleted as such. Eric444 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make it explicitly clear that rationale for the nom is that the information in the list can't be reliably verified, no one is objecting to the subject matter of the list itself. Just so no one gets upset because there's a list of number one billboard Latin albums for 200X, etc, and might think that anyone has anything against country music or the Canadian music industry. Mtiffany71 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is a total absence of reliable sources, causing fundamental verifiability problems let alone failing to meet relevant notability standards. Mkativerata (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Evangelical Old Catholic Communion

edit
The Evangelical Old Catholic Communion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to Find a RS for this article with Longterm WP:GNG issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All religious denominations in real existence should be considered notable,(and have been in the past), as long as there is WP:V. I consider their official site meets this. The reason for apply such a broad standard here is the frequency in which discussions over the notability of such articles become divisive, and the need to avoid discrimination on the basis of who shows up at an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I agree, but Their offical site is a Dead link, "ArchbishopFrancis" created it, and no RS can be found to verify anything about it. The one book that mentions it is from a vanity press and could have easily be circular source. I Just check Melton's The Encyclopedia of American Religions and it does not list. (And if you do a little googling on him you'll realize he often criticized for being too inclusive with its entries). I can't find anything to verify this is any more then one man trying to start a church. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I find a consensus for keep, given the comments of all ivoters, although the author(s) should take into account Kudpung's relevant points of view on this article. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davis & Shirtliff

edit
Davis & Shirtliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability at WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:SPIP, and WP:ORG, The article is a recreation of a page speedily deleted some hours previously (Davis & Shirtliff Group). The company may, according to unverified claims, be a reasonably large retailer in its country but that alone does not assert notability. The article reads heavily promotional and a rewrite will probably not enhance notability. The article only contains links to its own website for references and an a link to Loughborough University that does not meet verification. Repeated further searches for reliable third party coverage have again only revealed a very large number of business directory entries, B2B sites, and magazine reviews, that all generally reproduce material submitted by the company. On various talk pages, the creator has requested explanations of deletion policy, but various editors' recommendations on improving the article have not been followed up. Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Kudpung appears to have a personal vendetta against this article being published. With regard to your first comment at 00:48 that the Loughborough University link doesn't mention the company, I turn your attention to pages 12, 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 52. This article shows the role that Davis & Shirtliff play in providing products to NGOs working to provide potable water to underprivileged members of society at a competitive price whilst also providing the necessary product support. Futhermore, the company Davis & Shirtliff has been recognised by the Water and Sanitation Programme as one of Kenya's most successful suppliers of water related goods and an African success story. Lastly, Kudpung's suggestion that I had ignored various editors recommendations on improving the article is a bit hasty. If you were to look at the timings of the said suggestion you will see that these occurred late in the evening/night. We can't all live in a cyberspace bubble regardless of space and time.

With regard to its content being 'promotional' and not 'notable' I would like to raise the following article on Grundfos which is a large player in the European water industry. There are no references other than a link to the Grundfos website and its content follows similar lines to that found in the Davis & Shirtliff article. Yet it has got away with a slap on the wrist.

I have taken the comments by DGG on board and accept that the article may still be considered promotional and will attempt to increase my resource base to improve the credibility of an article which I believe is important. Swordi 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —This comment is unsigned by GeorgeVaulkhard (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes (~~~~). Please sign your posts![reply]

Comment Alas, pointing to other articles won't help your argument; we have to assess each article on its merits. If the Grundfos article has some flaw, we should try to address that flaw separately (if not, then good for Grundfos). bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was but a moment's work to find articles by four different newspapers which are specifically about the subject, plus a couple of other pages from other websites; I believe this easily satisfies WP:COMPANY: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I added these to the article and copyedited a little to make it more descriptive than promotional. I would invite Kudpung and Kimchi.sg to reassess their position on notability in light of this change (and DGG's edit); if still unsatisfied, it should be fairly easy to add additional refs. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out (again) that this article is a recreation with just a slight change of title to circumvent the rules, of one that was already speedy deleted for good reason a few hours before, I have explained, in detail, how it does not comply with the rules for notability. Rather than just stating 'It complies with the rules", please offer some detailed explanation as to how you feel it does.--Kudpung (talk) 01
24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to provide a reason? Generally, unqualified 'keep' or 'delete' !votes don't contribute to building a consensus.--Kudpung (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Faculty of Engineering

edit
Monash University Faculty of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per WP:NOTDIR. no need for a directory of what comprises a university faculty. I'm sure this can be easily obtained from the university website. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First=order academic division of a major university., and therefore normally considered notable here. Presently just a list, but obviously expandable. Suitable place for merging information about the constituents and academic departments, that are normally non notable -- the university as a whole is too large a unit for this. Most things about a university can be learned from their website, & this does not preclude covering them in an encyclopedia , Some things, like details of buildings and personnel , and specific requirements for individual degrees , belong there only--these are not encyclopedic. But the basic information like this, is. A rule that we include nothing that can be found on a website is perverse: an effective way to eliminate the more important half of the content in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if information on the history, notable events etc etc then it is worth an article, but you have provided zero information/sources into the article to build it up. presently it is just a directory and thus violates WP:NOTDIR. simply listing an organisational structure that can be found on a website is not what for Wikipedia is for. information from website is valid when it is combined from several sources and represents indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Cobb, Georgia

edit
East Cobb, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article discusses something that doesn't really exist. It proposes the existence of an "unincorporated city" (note that this alone makes it suspect, since US cities are always incorporated) whose existence isn't confirmed either by the US Postal Service or by the GNIS. Given its stated ___location in eastern Cobb County, Georgia, I believe that this is a neologism for a region of the county, rather than a community. The only source actually on the article refers to an "East Cobb Station"; this says nothing about the existence of East Cobb as a community, and it surely refers to the station that serves the eastern part of Cobb County. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - East Cobb is an unincorporated community, but an identifiable community nonetheless. It just happens to have an awkward name. While "east Cobb" could also refer to the eastern side of the County, it is clear when one says "East Cobb" they are referring to the community. This is proved by the various names in private developments and governmental facilities - a public library, a US Post Office Branch, etc. If the area was to incorporate, there is no doubt it would form as the City of East Cobb. The same cannot be said for any other "directional reference" in the Metro. East Cobb is truly an exception, and allowing it to remain will not encourage a "North Gwinnett, Georgia", "South Dekalb, Georgia", etc.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_Cobb" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmann1988 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It seems that East Cobb sees itself as a city, whether it is formally incorporated or not (see: CITY OF EAST COBB WEBSITE. That's good enough for per se notability in my book... There are thousands of unincorporated villages and small towns on WP, whether or not a town is formally incorporated isn't decisive in this regard. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
Do you have any independent reliable sources that speak of this being a community rather than just eastern Cobb County? No evidence has been presented that it is commonly considered an actual populated place; a self-published website could be simply something that a few local residents set up. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is from Realty Times, which is pretty reliable. And yes it is definitely an actual populated place - its called a suburb. Maybe you should just fly down to Atlanta and see for yourself. Sheesh.

Kindly lay off on the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to put on the record that I'm not the one that made the previous snooty unsigned comment. I tried to find out who did in the edit log but haven't been able to figure that out... —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
Thanks for this note; I thought it was you. Turns out that it was Mmann1988 in this edit. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to the meat of the unsigned poster's link, here's a quote that may be of service: Say Realtors Sandy and Jim Koza, "Close-in East Cobb is known for its convenience, excellent schools and terrific shopping. Located in Cobb County East of I-75, East Cobb is a terrific place to live. A well-established area, you will find many wonderful swim/tennis communities throughout the area and golf communities too. There are also quite a number of older subdivisions where you can find nice homes on larger lots. As popular as East Cobb is, the area has long been well built-out." This would make East Cobb an unincorporated suburb of Atlanta. I'm not sure what Wikipedia standard practice is for such entities... —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
It still doesn't say that it's what the Census Bureau calls a populated place. Of course we don't need the reliable source to say "It fits the Census Bureau definition of a 'populated place'", but we need evidence for the existence of such a thing. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the Wikipedia requirement that unincorporated communities must be defined as a populated place to have a page.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the source says, communities are located within it — there are settlements within it such as Roswell. Moreover, the source contrasts it with "west Cobb" — that's likewise an area of the county. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the source carefully. The community is treated as a proper noun (place) and is capitalized as East Cobb. On the other hand, west Cobb is simply referring to the western end of the county, and is NOT capitalized as a proper noun. Roswell, an incorporated city, is not even in the same county as East Cobb, thus it cannot be located within the East Cobb community. No incorporated city lies within the East Cobb community, which proves its existence. If you live in an incorporated city, you cannot live in East Cobb the community.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by the source. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but wonder if certain editors have made it their goal to make it hard for other editors to contribute. East Cobb has already more references to it than some cities. As a resident of Metro Atlanta, I can assure you that East Cobb refers to the community of East Cobb. Everyone knows it as such. It has libraries, schools, and post offices named after it. Besides, there are hundreds of unincorporated communities in Metro Atlanta alone that are much less verifiable than East Cobb.--Mmann1988 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, lay off on the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack. We are allowed to speak on the motives of editors, something you have done yourself.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment - This link to the EAST COBB CIVIC ASSOCIATION is sort of ambiguous, speaking of "East Cobb" as a place to which one has moved, but referring to "communities" (plural) within it. So it's not really a city, but it's not a county and seems like a concrete and defined place with a sort of consciousness of itself a quasi-city way. Are there any other unincorporated urban communities (say in the Chicagoland area) from which we may draw precedent here? I'm still of the belief that this is a KEEP rather than a DELETE situation here, but I can see where the nominator is coming from... —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
Expanding this further, in Illinois it looks like they've got a structure called a "village," such as Oak Park, Illinois. Does anyone know (a) if these are incorporated; and (b) whether these structures are any way comparable to the East Cobb situation? —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
Actually, this line of thought is helpful. See Village: "A village is a clustered human settlement or community, larger than a hamlet with the population ranging from a few hundred to a few thousands (sometimes tens of thousands), Though often located in rural areas, the term urban village is also applied to certain urban neighbourhoods, such as the West Village in Manhattan, New York City and the Saifi Village in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as Hampstead Village in the London conurbation." As long as we can put OTHER STUFF hysterics aside for a moment and look at this from the standpoint of precedent, the West Village of NYC is considered worthy of an article, even though it is not in and of itself a city. It is a definable place, conscious of itself as a place, where people live. Whether East Cobb is an unicorporated city-in-the-making or an amalgam of several urban communities or neighborhoods seeing themselves as part of an entity called East Cobb, it still seems very comparable to me. As long as East Cobb sees itself as an entity and people see themselves as being from an entity called East Cobb — both pretty clearly true from the above-cited material — it would seem that precedent would indicate that the entity is inclusion-worthy. —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
Villages in Illinois are incorporated, and are rather similar to cities, so they are quite unrelated to East Cobb. Actually, there's not much in Illinois that can be compared to this, or much in other states for that matter; most counties don't have unincorporated sub-regions above the community level, and this isn't necessarily an unincorporated community. The other areas you mentioned are neighborhoods of incorporated places and are also an entirely different category. The closest thing I can think of to East Cobb would be large CDPs with their own neighborhoods, such as East Los Angeles, California or North Bethesda, though even those are both more recognized and more community-like than East Cobb. I still say it should be kept based on significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia operates under a strong county system. Thus, the county, be default, provides every service cities do - fire, police, schools, garbage, etc. There are no villages or townships in Georgia, the only municipality is a city. This is an unincorporated community that just has not been given an official CDP resignation by the Census Bureau. The community has tried to get CDP status, but this is a lot harder than you would think.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book that TheCatalyst31 links seems to provides compelling evidence that this is considered a community in its own right rather than just an arbitrary area of the county. But the fact that none of the people listed in East Cobb's "notable residents" section are listed as being from East Cobb in their own articles (most simply say "born in Marietta") concerns me, as does the lack of a GNIS entry. 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of populated places like this one, the article provides sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.From what I can find out from one resident, it is directional, so technically there could be a North Cobb, South Cobb, West Cobb. Pretty much like any large place, but we probably don't want to multiply all place articles by five! Student7 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isnt directional. I live in Metro Atlanta. East Cobb is the only one that actually designates a community. There is no community of "South Cobb", etc. Just because a community has an awkward, confusing, semi-contradictory name doesn't mean that it is not a notable community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmann1988 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete vandalism. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roxorz Boxorz

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

Unnotable article that has no meaning whatsoever. Borderline G3, but I don't think this is in bad faith. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calgary Catholic School District. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St.james school calgary

edit
St.james school calgary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like an unnotable school. — Timneu22 · talk 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry (historian)

edit
William Henry (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability and he appears to be another run-of-the-mill historian. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now. Most of the delete !votes simply cited WP:NOTNEWS. The keep !voters did a better job of explaining why NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Note that a keep close doesn't prevent us from revisiting this issue later. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai

edit
Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another POV trojan horse. No evidence that this killing of a settler is any different than any other killing anywhere. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". TM 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Another POV trojan horse. Is it too much to ask that you nominate an article for deletion without maligning the creator's intentions? If you think the subject is more suitable for Wikinews, you're entitled to your opinion. But this is something that actually happened in the real world, according to all points of view, and I worked hard to describe it thoroughly and neutrally. If you're trying to dissuade people from editing Wikipedia, you're doing a great job. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is not to dissuade anyone from writing NPOV articles. My problem is that it seems a group of editors are furiously creating articles which seek to demonize Palestinians. If this is not your intent, I hope you will change the way you edit articles so that it doesn't do so. Fighting to include "Arab terrorists" and emphasizing the number of children a person had then fervently reverting attempts at neutral wording are examples of this.--TM 02:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor made a direct comment towards me, so I responded. I don't think my intentions are questionable.--TM 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How bout you just discuss the article and not the editor, that might be better. Otherwise somebody might start questioning your motives for nominating this article for deletion. nableezy - 04:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As described in the article, the killing had a significant effect on Israel-Palestinian Authority relations, which are considered among the most important bilateral governmental relations in the world. So the fact that the nom can say that there is "no evidence that this killing of a settler is any different than any other killing anywhere" is stunning. Other differences between this killing and others include the fact that this one drew at least two government ministers to the funeral and that it led to a military operation. But I'm drifting into summarizing the article, when people should just be reading it. All in all, this incident is nothing like "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports or celebrities" and everything like a textbook case of a significant, influential and widely reported WP:EVENT. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above by the article's creator, for the record. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
  • Delete - Another in an endless series of articles attempting to memorialize news events of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war as encyclopedia articles. As usual, this is a cloaked POV push and Wikipedians need to just say no. Wikipedia is NOT A RANDOM ACCUMULATION OF NEWS STORIES, particularly a tendentiously-selected set of news accounts memorializing one team's losses while ignoring those of the other. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
So -- justfixit -- memorialize both "team's losses" that are notable. See otherstuffexists. This is certainly notable, as reflected in the clear majority of comments below. What seems tendentious is some of the delete voters who only appear to seek to delete losses on one side, in the face of a notability that the majority/consensus clearly notes.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Really, how many more AFDs on Israeli articles do we need? This must be the 10th one. The killing of Rabbi Hei was a significant event and generated international press. It continues to be recorded as a major terror incident within the Israeli government. It was one of the most violent acts since Israel's link-up with the Palestinian security forces and disengagement from major checkpoint/roadbloc areas. I can think of many articles related to terrorist acts that are frequently created on wikipedia without challenge. It seems the only articles attacked are incidents involving Israelis. Surprise surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- nableezy - 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some context on why Israeli-Palestinian related articles may well be undergoing additional (and justifiable) scrutiny, please see WIKIPEDIA SIGNPOST, Aug. 23, 2010. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
This is not relevant in the least!!! The article was created nearly a year before this signpost issue. Looks simply like part of a POV-motivated campaign to remove any article that portrays Palestinian terrorists in an unfavorable way. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to explain why articles of this ilk are being scrutinized more closely than usual — for good reason. I make no assertion that this particular article or any particular editor is part of the well-documented coordinated campaign to skew Wikipedia content. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- nableezy - 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of the 13 sources currently in the article, 12 are from within 3 days of this "event". The last is an editorial that mentions this killing in one sentence. This is an open and shut case of WP:NOTNEWS. There has been no lasting impact from this and no evidence of any sustained notability. There was a spike in news stories at the time of the event and not much of any coverage since. nableezy - 02:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The cross-border coverage, along with the number of articles, suggests notability sufficient to satisfy NOTNEWS. Recency of an event is not by itself reason to not cover it -- otherwise we would never have articles on events until months after they took place. And a simple google search shows many news articles subsequent to the first three days after the event -- editors should not feel circumscribed at AfD by the refs reflected in an article. Just the opposite. We make AfD decisions based on what refs exist in the real world, not whether they are reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an issue of "recency", this happened 9 months ago. And a "simple google search" does not show that. Google news misindexes the dates on articles from Haaretz. For example, a google search shows this article as having a date of Sep 3, 2010 when in fact it was published on December 27 2009, 3 days after this killing. That accounts for almost all of the google results for any results since the initial spike in coverage. That is of course if you are only looking at the results page. If you look deeper than that you may find that there arent any sources covering this killing after the initial spike in coverage. You may find some sources mentioning it, as in "this killing took 6 months place after Rabbi Meir Hai was killed", but that isnt "coverage". nableezy - 04:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to this gnews search and google search as well as this gnews search, and this google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My above comment is discussing the first result. Look at each of the Haaretz results on the first and second pages, the dates are misreported. Those are most of the articles that show up after the first few days. The rest barely mention the topic, they dont cover it. The second gnews does have some real results after the initial days, but again they for the most part barely mention the event. A general google search is so wide that it is useless. I dont plan on wading through every garbage site that google indexes to find 2 that may be pertinent. If you would like to feel free. nableezy - 04:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing through it, I see a few. You can narrow it down w/various searches (e.g., include rabbi, don't include rabbi but include "west bank" or "shooting" or "killed" or "shot", etc.). I see the mentions that you view as bare mentions as sufficient to reflect continued coverage, and am also impacted by the fact that coverage is international, which the guidance indicates is a factor to be considered. In all searches, both spellings of the name yield more fulsome results. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you added are for the most part either unreliable (Arutz Sheva) or barely touch on the subject (such as ones that say "came three months after Meri Hai was killed in the West Bank") or come from the days after the incident, such as all the Haaretz ones which you oddly only included an access date but not a date publication. nableezy - 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree -- they are for the most part reliable and many are solely about the event and its aftermath, while another discuss the event and or its aftermath. And they were produced in the google search looking for articles more than a few days after the event -- there are many more in the few days after the event. As to reflection of dates, if any were not added in the ref that would be due to a refserv snafu. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTNEWS is not being applied correctly (again). It is not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It is not against "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" since it is ongoing coverage. It is inline with the GNG with significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It also may meet EVENT with ongoing and widespread national and international coverage. Google News Archive hits shows it all. This happened in December 2009 and continues to be discussed months later.[24] The article shows that it could have ongoing effect. It is hard to determine that at the moment but the other requirements are sufficient for this article to be kept.
Reasoning to delete based on POV is (again) a problem. POV is reason for deletion if it is bad enough (WP:NOT#OR is part of WP:NOT which is reasoning at WP:DEL) However, just because it is a touchy subject and might be a favored article of those with one POV or the other (those in support of Israel can see this as beating up on the practices of certain Palestinians while those in favor of HamasFatah and armed resistance can see this as a successful operation) but unless editors are willing to start listing how the article is POV then it needs to be not regarded as a legitimate concern.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note another somewhat similar AfD has been started regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asel Asleh.--TM 15:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Blacker

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

Non-notable hockey player. Hasn't played professionally. Page was inexplicably recreated after being previously nominated. See original deletion discussion Suttungr (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTC HD Mini

edit
HTC HD Mini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This particular cell phone does not appear to be notable. It is un-sourced and does not explain what the importance of having a separate article. Perhaps merging into HTC HD2. Alpha Quadrant talk 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Black Bear

edit
Lucinda Black Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Only possible indication of notability is a passing mention by National Public Radio. Nothing else at all. There's not even a discography included, nor any other references aside form a link to the band's website. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band's discography is listed on the page, which can be confirmed by going to iTunes, Amazon or CD Baby. You can find a video for one of their singles (You Got It Blue on YouTube). Also, the band has worked with Austin Lynn Austin, a notable director who has worked with Madonna and the like. Mentions by the Village Voice, NPR, Prefix, Brooklyn Rail and km cero I think justify the existence of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.221.92 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said existence equates with notability or that working with someone notable makes them notable? Don't try to take things out of context in order to strengthen your argument based upon the original comment. Be honest and give this band an honest shake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgracie (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that Realkyhick was making is that we agree that the discography and home page verify that the band exists, however, nothing in the article proves that they are notable. Please see WP:MUSIC, which lists the specific criteria which must be used to establish that a band is notable. If you believe that the band meets that criteria, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what we're discussing here - the band's notability, and whether or not it is sufficient for it to have its own article. And I'm being brutally honest. You're not telling us how the band meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, as we requested that you do. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Being a poorly sourced BLP tips this to the deletion side. Will userfy/incubate on request or someone can create a new sourced article on this subject. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beena Sarwar

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

Longterm notability tags and other issues since 2007. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is some evidence of notability via google hits. She's mentioned in 1, plus seems to be an extensive writer as shown here, here, here, here, here, here and some other places. Mar4d (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. She does appear to have some level of international visibility. But while I can find plenty of stories by her in Google News Archive and Google Books, and a few that mention her, I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are actually about her and that would allow us to write a proper encyclopedia article about her. The one we have now looks more like a cv than an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GDiesel

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

Previously deleted, (Not sure what reason was given) and recently recreated. (Not sure of that either). Article is several months old now and still missing any evidence of notability. Five references are listed but three are industry publications, one is vague, and one is a news article about approval by state environmental regulators in one US state.

I can't check on the history of it as it is a recreation, but I think the article has had a speedy declined and a prod removed. Still no evidence of notability has been added after all this time. Dmol (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please provide cites for the Sufficient news coverage you mention. They are not in the article. Both myself and another editor have dismissed the article's cites as insufficient.--Dmol (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – If this really works, it could be an alternative to liquefied natural gas in exploiting stranded gas reserves. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GDiesel is a product of technical significance, and the process has been patented and the fuel is being sold as an "alternative fuel" in Nevada, as authorized by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. A letter as of August 16 designates GDiesel as an alternative fuel. We are working on linking that letter to the Wiki page. Also, media coverage has been dedicated to the product, more importantly an AP story that was carried nationally, and picked up in several prominent papers including the Washington Post, etc. Other articles are being added to the list of references. There may be some technical hurdles to overcome such as listing citations properly, so there is a learning curve. George2140 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about any technical hurdles to listing citations - just tell us the publications' names, dates, headlines and page numbers here, along with the urls if the articles are available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times reference in the article is substantial coverage from a 3rd party independent published RS, and sufficient for notability, even though the earlier AP article is unavailable. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intertel (group)

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

The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found any reliable sources at all about this organization? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly: There's this, from Kiplinger's Personal Finance, and a Google Book search shows a few seemingly legitimate books that mention Intertel, if fleetingly (in the context of "high-IQ societies such as Mensa and Intertel...") Not super-significant RS coverage, but I think with those secondary-source mentions the group does eke by on notability. 28bytes (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking. Doesn't the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline require "significant" rather than fleeting coverage of a topic that is suitable for a Wikipedia article? It does seem, on the basis of what I have seen so far on the article talk page and here, that there are not sufficient reliable sources in any form to write an encyclopedia article about this subject, which would be grounds for deletion under the verifiability policy quite apart from notability concerns. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ran a Google News Archive search for +Intertel +Mensa to filter out any references to other uses of the word "Intertel" (assuming any article about Intertel would mention Mensa in passing). Seems like there are plenty of reliable source candidates in those results. I'm not sure how much depth of coverage they have, but the breadth of coverage is definitely there. 28bytes (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • On closer look, most of the GNA search results appear to be obituaries mentioning that the deceased was a member, so that's not of much use in the RS department. However, there do appear to be a couple of promising sources about the organization itself:
          • Miami Herald, The — THE BRIGHT STUFF — Jan 27, 1985
          • Chicago Tribune — Mensa: A social club for the mind-over-matter crowd — Oct 26, 1982
          • Sacramento Bee — IQS ARE HIGH AMONG THE MEMBERS OF MENSA. HOW HIGH? THEY DON'T ASK - AND THEY DON'T LIKE TO TELL — Dec 21, 1994
Unfortunately, they're all behind a paywall. So I think we're probably left with the Kiplinger piece (and maybe this) for now, unless someone has access to the paywall stories (or other sources.) It's not great, but we do have evidence that Intertel has been discussed repeatedly by reliable secondary sources, so I think I'll stick with my (weak) keep for now. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly - They have a webpage here and are listed here. True, a membership of "about 1,200 in thirty countries" (updated in 1/2010) is dwarfed by Mensa, but it still seems far more notable than the stray rugby players I keep coming across in here.


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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosio C. Cruz Jr.

edit
Ambrosio C. Cruz Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and Verifiability is challenged. Mayors are not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN as they don't hold provincewide positions. Verifiability is also challenged as the references doesn't stand to scrutiny. I've searched the Manila Bulletin archive and see that B. Cahiles-Mgakilat did not create an article dedicated to Mr. Cruz. I cannot comment on the Philippine Free press reference as its online archive only goes until 2005. Google search doesn't give significant coverage as well Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level Playing Field Institute

edit
Level Playing Field Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this organisation is not substantiated in the article. There are many references to it online, but I couldn't find any significant non-primary sources which verify its activities. Note that a concern over the article's sourcing has been tagged in the past, but this was removed by a recent editor without being resolved. Elusive Pete (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll leave the issue of redirecting to the normal editing/discussion process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layer (electronics)

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

As far as I can see, this is just a dictionary definition. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "this" ? The topic is a good one, as "layer" has a long and interesting history in electronics. Two-dimensional geometry, and its limitations, are hugely important in the physical design of electronics. Every new electronic construction technology (PCBs, hybrids, LSI, connection machines) has introduced a layer-based construction technique with its benefits and the difficulties when construction needs to be more than two-dimensional (how are bridges and crossings to be made?). This is a topic for a great potential article.
    The article, as it stands, is a long way short of even a dictionary definition and no good case can be made for keeping it. A redlink might be better, as an indication that there's a gap worth filling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Fair City characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gleeson

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

No references. No real world information (not even actor's name). I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Kavanagh for a similar discussion that concluded with deletion. Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Auman

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

I can find documentation for some of his work, but I do not think it is notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a unreferenced BLP. --Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baron von Luxxury

edit
Baron von Luxxury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found outside a trivial mention in Billboard. Tagged for notability since 11/09. Simply having remix credits for notable artists doesn't transfer notability, nor does having a single song appear on an episode of CSI: Miami. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North American Scrabble Players Association

edit
North American Scrabble Players Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. no extensive coverage, more listing of events [28]. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since this challenge has been sitting around gathering dust, I decided to pay it another visit. It looks like the National Scrabble Association is a players' membership organization and the North American Scrabble Players Association is an independent body that sanctions tournaments. This per the HASBRO WEBSITE, makers of the game. The North American Scrabble Players Association maintains their own Wiki, which may be found at THIS URL. Since the NASPA is independent of the NSA (both of which being mentioned on the independent-although-commercial Hasbro site) and since I think that Wikipedia should as a matter of general practice give other wikis the benefit of the doubt, I am changing my vote from MERGE to KEEP OR MERGE. I find it a little hard to believe that the sponsoring organization of annual national Scrabble championships has not been the subject of some sort of coverage in the mainstream media, and would argue that even if it hasn't, its role as the sponsoring authority of publicized national Scrabble championships constitutes sufficient achievement to confer notability for inclusion in Wikipedia as the subject of an article. —Carrite, Oct. 1, 2010.
please see WP:ITSNOTABLE you have not demonstrated it has reliable sources to meet notability. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link which you yourself provided seems adequate to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please read WP:N, you need reliable sources demonstrating in depth coverage, event listings do not meet this. Have you actually made any effort to find sources or do you just say WP:ITSNOTABLE? LibStar (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made some effort - browsing the sources online. I could have then browsed my extensive personal library of journals and books about this topic but I preferred to go to bed as it was late. And, as I've finished my breakfast and have plenty to do today, I am disinclined to exert myself further. It is very clear that this organisation exists and that bodies such as the Washington Post see it as a significant authority for this well-known game. The worst case is that we would merge into our main article about the game but that is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. This should have been obvious from the outset and the matter should never have been brought here. Please see our deletion policy: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or redirect. Clearly no consensus to delete. How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest municipalities by population

edit
World's largest municipalities by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As another user already has stated on the talkpage, this list is "a blatant POV-fork". According to the article, this list should rank cities based on the population in the "city proper". Well, we already have that list, List of cities proper by population. We also have World's largest cities (one of the few properly sourced lists), List of metropolitan areas by population and several other lists, but that is not a problem since they measure different aspects. The list I'm now nominating, however, is just a new version, created last month, of a list that already exists. For the record, the user who created this list appears to have created it after not having had his way in discussions on the talk page of the list he copied and introduced his own views into. Talk:List of cities proper by_population.
So to sum it up: this is a copy of an already existing article, created by a user who did not have it his way in the existing article and decided to create his own version. It fills no purpose other than to confuse the reader Jeppiz (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should perhaps add that the reason I'm suggesting this page for deletion instead of the other is that the title of the other is better (both lists are about the population of city propers), that the other list has existed for a long time and have been edited by many different users whereas this list is, as already said, almost entirely created by a single user last month. I also feel it would be a severe mistake to merge them, as that would encourage users who don't have it their ways in discussions to create POV-forks to have their POV imposed in the original article after a merge.Jeppiz (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Notable information that is well-referenced. I'm not sure how this article even got nominated. BlueRobe (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am going to ask that the closing administrator disregard the comment by BlueRobe, (who seems to be Wikipedia mostly to pick fights according to ANI [29]) as it is obvious that the user did not bother to read the nomination before voting and thus had no idea what s/he was voting for. Nobody is contesting that the subject is notable The article was nominated because it is a copy of an existing article. It is nominated because the article has existed for several years before one user who was dissatisfied with it simply copied it so he could his own changes unopposed. It doesn't change the fact that it already exists and has existed for several years. I have no problem at all with users who oppose the nomination after they have read it, but I find it rather arrogant to go around voting without even bothering to read the nomination first. Jeppiz (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL, give the argumentum ad hominem a rest and calm down. Absurd rants like that help no one. I read the nomination, I checked out the article, and I concluded that a merge (or a keep) is the most appropriate result for this nomination. Don't bunch your knickers at other editors like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum just because they disagree with you. BlueRobe (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I strongly urge editors to vote to keep/merge this article as it now appears (see above) that the primary reason for this nomination is personal to the nominator. I don't know what Jeppiz's problem is, or what really inspired this nomination, but s/he is taking my disagreement with his/her nomination way too seriously, which makes me very suspicious of an ulterior motive. BlueRobe (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some remarks
  • This is rather rich. BlueRobe has several blocks for his uncivil behaviour, and his constant incivility is (more than ten warnings in five days) and his bad behaviour at Wikipedia currently discussed at ANI[30]. I don't know in which way he feels I've been uncivil - pointing out that his vote did not appear to be based on the nomination in any way is a factual remark (right or wrong), not a personal or uncivil one. .
  • BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great. I would then like to ask why he thinks we should have two different articles, both of which are a list over cities proper by population?
  • Needless to say, BlueRobe's argument that editors should vote "keep" because he thinks I'm being "personal" is strange, to say the least, although characteristics of BlueRobe's behaviour on Wikipedia. Editors should of course vote "keep" if they feel that the article adds to Wikipedia, and "delete" if they feel it doesn't. I have outlined why I think it doesn't; it is a copy of an article that already exists. I welcome any argument for keeping it, despite being a copy, but note that BlueRobe has not yet provided any such argument, just a long list of comments about my supposed motives. That is completely beside the point.Jeppiz (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're ranting and raving. I am disengaging from your pointless personal squabbling. BlueRobe (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second glance, it appears that Jeppiz has amended my comment. Needless to say, I am unimpressed. Calm down, you angry freak. BlueRobe (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not amended your comment, simply moved it to the bottom of the page which is a rather standard procedure. As for t your "angry freak" comments, I'm taking them to the ongoing discussion about you at ANI, as this is the the place to discuss the nominated article.Jeppiz (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so long as you're not having a ridiculous over-reaction to someone disagreeing with your nomination for deletion, it's all good ... lol *locks the door*. BlueRobe (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deny request for factual misrepresentation. Keep, and possibly merge, pending consensus
Why this list is here: As mentioned, there is no shortage of lists of cities by population. However, there are very few lists that answer a simple question: “How many people live within the administrative, legal boundaries of a city?” In other words, what is the true population within the city limits, and not inflated “urban agglomeration” or arbitrary “inner core” numbers? What is the official population the city uses itself, instead of data copied from an outdated list of dubious provenience?
List of cities proper by population could do that. After all, the leading demographic institutions of 230 countries of this world agree year by year by written ballot that "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government." However, List of cities proper by population doesn’t stick to that simple definition. If you stick with it, a city many people haven’t heard of and most can’t spell, Chongqing, comes out on top. Huge cities that are broken down into independent Local Government Authorities, such as Lagos, Sidney, or Melbourne, sink into oblivion. Such an outcome is heresy in the eyes of some. In order to “correct” this, some editors of List of cities proper by population resorted to blatant forgery, invented sources that do not exist, and applied arbitrary formulas to data they don’t understand. List of cities proper by population became a mess. To wit, Beijing, a city of 22 million people, is listed as having 10,123,000 people (not for the city proper, but for “Core districts + inner suburbs” with a fake reference.) Some forgeries were crude, some pretty slick.
Attempts to correct this led to edit wars, waged by experienced edit warriors. I was told that I should do my own list of municipalities (as opposed to “cities” …), and this was finally done. As the article says, "This list of municipalities has become necessary because there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities." World's largest municipalities by population was created, using painstakingly sourced population data, wherever possible sourced from the city, sorry, municipality itself. In the no good deed goes unpunished dept., this list, created at the request of editors of List of cities proper by population who wanted me off their turf, is now up for annihilation. The editor-demanded nuance between "city" and "municipality" was obviously lost on the requester, who thinks "that the title of the other is better" and that "both lists are about the population of city propers."
As for the AFD request: The AFD request is full of factual errors. The list in question wasn’t „created last month,“ it was created in July 2010. It lived in relative peace until now, its data withstood intensive scrutiny. The list is not a “copy of an already existing article,“ as anybody can ascertain who goes to the trouble of comparing the articles, their data, and their scope. It is not "a blatant POV-fork" (a comment made on August 3 …) How can there be POV if one goes to the trouble of researching official data published by municipalities around the world? The request should be thrown out, based on the factual misrepresentations alone.
Back to List of cities proper by population. After the most egregious acts of fraud had been exposed on its talk page, a consensus was reached. Details there, for those who bother to read. Even the editor who had lambasted this article as a "blatant POV fork" was for the consensus agreement, well, he was "willing to acquiesce in it if everyone else agrees." The planned merge fizzled the minute work became involved. Some like to talk and to delete, but shy away from real work. I am still willing to implement the terms of the consensus, and to merge the articles as discussed. But I have been waiting since August 14th for the go ahead. The offer still stands. From reading the AFD request, I get the impression that the requester attempts to torpedo the consensus reached before it gets implemented. The requester is aware of the compromise, he does not mention the compromise in an attempt to mislead other editors. Successfully, as it seems.
In the meantime, edits based on official data are highly welcome.
This was the short version. A longer version is available on request. It may, however, step on some toes, and expose the true motivation behind the nomination. In light of the discussion above, most already know what would be coming, so I rest my case. BsBsBs (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On September 21, he gave the same humorous treatment to World's largest municipalities by population. That edit also had a short shelf life. He pouted, left a few not very enlightened tags and suddenly recommended the article for deletion.
Possibly that explains why he suddenly likes List of cities proper by population much better, of which he had said on July 11: "Exceptionally bad article, filled with original research. Rewrote parts of the introduction so that it matches the list - this is NOT a list of cities proper by population." Maybe we should delete both? BsBsBs (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Alright, Let's Cut Out The Garbage and Settle This Debate Once and For All.

    BsBsBs, you are the one who created the article nominated here for deletion. The list sections in both articles appear to be the same. And the rest of the info in your article is pretty much unneeded. What do you have to say to that? Additionally, note where you said above: "On September 21, he gave the same humorous treatment to World's largest municipalities by population. That edit also had a short shelf life. He pouted, left a few not very enlightened tags and suddenly recommended the article for deletion." You were the one who reverted that edit! How are we supposed to trust that?!

    This debate is just filled with bickering, arguing, POV disputes, and just rotting, stinking hot garbage. Let's put a stop to all this garbage, OK?! It will be a lot easier to settle this battle if we just give our own opinions without any trash. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: Unless someone has reading comprehension issues, it will quickly become evident that the list is not the same. Use the sort button. If the list would be identical,it would not be there in the first place. Whether the rest of the information is unneeded is in the eye of the beholder. To judge it requires a basic understanding of demography. The article tries to impart some of that arcane knowledge, but obviously, it fails. The core issue remains: There already has been a consensus to merge the lists, and neither article must be deleted until that consensus has been implemented. And you are right, once a discussion degenerates to "rotting, stinking hot garbage," it is better to end it. Taking part in an AFD discussion is akin to sitting on a jury. It comes with a responsibility, and it requires the proper decorum. Nominators should familiarize themselves with WP:Articles for deletion before nominating. Editors who want to take part in the discussion should refer to the rules of engagement beforehand. Uncivilized comments have no place in this discussion. BsBsBs (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user who created the article, BsBsBs, has written a long reply to my AfD. Sadly, he also keeps removing all tags from the article [31] in disregard of WP:OWN. It only goes to show that he considers this article his personal pet and will keep reverting edits. As for his reply here, I don't agree with the distinction he tries to make to keep the article (The nominated article clearly states, repeatedly, that is is a list for population by city proper, and that article exists), but he should of course be free to make that argument. I have less time with his many personal insinuations about me, as I don't see how they are related to the case. I've never met BsBsBs before and have no personal grudge here, but I do believe that the article is redundant. The important thing is that the creator of the article admits, and even states in the article "This list of municipalities has become necessary because there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities." Disagreement about an existing article is not a reason to create a new one. With all the edit wars and debates going on in many areas, take the recent wars in the Balkans as an example, we would have a bewildering number of articles dealing with exactly the same issue but from different POVs. Yes, it might be difficult to reach a consensus, but a failure to do so is not a reason to create a new article. Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment I would also like to repeat my request for the article to be redirected, not merged. BsBsBs is right to say that I don't think the existing of List of Cities Proper is good, we agree on that. However, this is not about my POV nor about BsBsBs POV. Regardless of own view, the List of Cities Proper is the result of many editors working together for a long time, whereas the article I've nominated is the work of BsBsBs alone. I think that the long established list with many contributors should take precedence over this list, for precisely that reason.Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD recommends to abstain from an AFD discussion if "a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." This appears to be the case here.
I am trying not to bore anyone with arcana, but the reason why this list exists is that there is a difference between "municipalities" and "cities." The concepts are explained at length in the article, in city proper and in municipality. I can't help it if some people don't bother to read.
In short, a municipality is a generic term for a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status. It is not necessarily a city. A municipality can be anything from a village to a city. In some cases, for instance Tokyo, a municipality consists of several cities. Large Chinese "cities" (which are called "city" in Chinese) are called "municipality" outside of China to make that point. That "there is a debate whether certain cities should be called cities" is not an admission, it is a statement of fact.
So this is a list of municipalities, which is a different thing than a list of cities. At least if people are nitpicking. Which they did and do.
As for city proper it would also help if you would inform yourself before you ask for the deletion of an article. "City proper" is a technical term. It denotes the area within the corporate limits. As city proper says: "city proper is not limited to a city."
Also, World's largest municipalities by population wasn't created because there was disagreement. It was created because some editors of List of cities proper by population requested it.
Your request for deletion is based on factually wrong statements, and it comes too late. As stated repeatedly, there has been a consensus amongst the major stakeholders of both List of cities proper by population and World's largest municipalities by population to merge the articles. A fact which you were trying to hide. There even is agreement about the format and the sourcing. The only thing that stands in the way is reduced enthusiasm about doing the work. However, the lists will be merged. Apparently, this is what you are trying to prevent with your AFD. Your request for the articles not to be merged is made in the wrong venue. It is up to the editors to make those decisions and to do the editing work. Many editors in this discussion have recommended a merge, and the stakeholders in both articles had already agreed to that solution.
This discussion does not belong here, it belongs to the talk pages of the articles. There, the discussion has already been conducted at great length and it has led to the decision to merge the two articles. BsBsBs (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems as if most of your argument consists of directing personal attacks at me, at my lack of knowledge and at my dishonesty. Saying that I was trying to hide something is clearly only intended to attack me. For the record, I did not find, and I still don't find, any such discussion on the talk page of the article, so I am not trying to "hide" anything. I recommend you for the last time to focus on the article, not on other editors. I can understand that you are upset that an article you have worked on has been nominated for deletion, but to keep attacking me for nominating it is only childish.
As for the argument about this list being different from the list of population in cities proper, I quite the very first sentence of this article "This is a non-exhaustive list of the world's most populous municipalities, defined according to the concept of city proper". The headline of the list reads "Municipalities by population (city proper)". And would you please stop removing fact-tags from the article?Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • In conclusion, I humbly ask the administrators that
No action is taken in this matter for the following reasons:
* The request does not fulfill any of the criteria set forth by reasons for deletion
* The request is factually incorrect
* No attempts have been made to solve the issue in discussion
* The alternatives to deletion were not considered
* The requester has not sufficiently familiarized himself with the subject matter or the talk pages
* The matter had already been solved by a consensus reached among the stakeholders of the two competing articles, and a merge had been agreed upon in August
* The requester attempts to preempt and interfere with a consensus decision
* To make matters worse, the requester now claims no knowledge of the consensus reached in August
* The request is frivolous
Thank you BsBsBs (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, I respect BsBsBs's opinions about the article. It also goes without saying that I disagree with them, and I have outlined the reason why above. As for the rest, it might perhaps be a matter for WP:ANI that most of the points that BsBsBs brings up concerns me and BsBsBs unfounded speculations about me, rather than the matter at hand. I was not familiar with the discussion BsBsBs keeps calling a consensus, although I have read it now. A few points striked me:
* If it were true that a consensus was reached two months ago, why has no action been taken?
* Reading the discussion, I still don't find a consensus.
* If a consensus really had been reached to merger this article with the article I claim it is a copy of, why would it be a problem to redirect this page to that very article?Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It does not matter what could be wrong with the nominator when discussing an article for deletion. Instead, Wikipedia policies absolutely matter. When I said to "stop all this garbage", I did not mean "stop the discussion". I meant "stop all the bickering, arguing, POV warring, personal attacks, and just leave our own opinions without any of that garbage in them". And I agree with Jeppiz. A lot of what you have been ranting and raving about is what is bad about Jeppiz. I don't see any links to Wikipedia policies in there, besides the Deletion Policy (which is not the policy that I'm referring to), that explicitly say that this article for deletion should be kept. Jeppiz has a point. Maybe we should send you, BsBsBs, to WP:ANI, and see what the jury there finds you guilty of.

    The lists in both articles have the same few cities at the top and bottom of the list. The list in List of cities proper by population is shorter (61 cities versus around 76). I am changing my opinion to Merge only the lists, as long as the additional cities in World's largest municipalities by population are backed up by reliable sources. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Sleator. NW (Talk) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Dolls

edit
Among the Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the guidance of WP:BK. I find no GNews items about this book. Fæ (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy E. Vaughn

edit
Billy E. Vaughn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure academic whose chief claim to fame seems to be that he was quoted in a Washington Post article once. Note, though, that finding references is a little difficult as there is also a famous bandleader named Billy Vaughn. —Chowbok ☠ 12:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Neilson

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

This article is about a basketball player that plays in a semi-professional league, and lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As a basketball player, he does not meet notability in that sport. As for general notability, he is mentioned, as part of routine coverage but there is no substantial coverage about him. Whpq (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - thanks for pointing out the spelling issue. The article title is spelled incorrectly but it is correct in the body text. Reviewing recutls from searchiing with the proper spelling doesn't really boost up his notability enough to put him over the bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. To me it almost cuts it, but he hasn't done anything specifically noteworthy yet to warrant an article. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The BBL IS the top league in the UK - but the UK has one of the lower standards of play in Europe. He plays for one of the top teams - last year's league champ - but I just scanned a handful of game reports and he wasn't mentioned in any of them. I say delete, but it raises a good question/test case about just which pro leagues make players "automatically" notable. The top Greek, Spanish, Italian leagues are no-brainers - but what about Poland or Finland for example? Rikster2 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With DGG being uncertain, and three others (including NW) ivoting delete, I find consensus for delete. However, if the author wishes, a copy of the deleted article could be made available. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. C. Pollard

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

Does not seem to meet notability criteria, specifically WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. There are a few sources to interviews with local papers and such; I don't think that is significant enough. NW (Talk) 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My entries here may be in several takes, as my computer keeps going down today. First, let me say that I know Mr. Pollard and wrote the article in question after writing a story about him for the Lawrence, KS, newspaper. Pollard's name appears in many Wikipedia articles on Kansas Civil War history. Footnotes in those articles reference his PhD dissertation, articles he wrote and correspondence with individuals. Also, he told me he wrote a number of articles about central Florida lakes, such as Lakes Jackson, Verona, Olivia, Pabor, Trout, Cracker Lake, Crystal Lake, etc. Please look at the footnotes from Wikipedia articles about Forts Aubrey, McKean, etc. Jroony—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroony (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One small-press book, two self-published books, and a local newspaper interview don't add up to WP:GNG for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot see how notability is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Uncertain I'm thinking of proposing a new guideline, that we extend very generously inclusive treatment to articles on any book, publication, or website, or the authors of any book, that will clearly be helpful to people writing Wikipedia articles. the purpose of this is so that users can better judge the reliability of sources,. In the case of authors, by assessing the degree to which they are aRS in their subject and their likely biases. I know perfectly well that it is not current practice. It could, however, be justified even under current policy without using IAR: First, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to judge the notability of subjects, but to be a useful encyclopedia. Whatever helps the reader is appropriate content. Second, WP:V is a basic policy, one of the 5 pillars, and supersedes almost all other considerations; WP:N is just a guideline. To see whether WP:V is satisfied, editors as well as users need a way of judging the sources. If this principal were accepted, the article would be justifiable. From such an article, if properly rewritten to concentrate on his books, the reader would learn that 1 of them (A career of defiance : the life of Ian Smith) is self published, 1 (A short history of the Methodist movement a self-published collection of his articles in a Methodist Church journal, and the third (Dark Friday : the story of Quantrill's Lawrence raid) published by a significant local publisher that is not a vanity published, & found in about 85 US libraries, DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 1st Wikipedia article I have written. I have been writing free-lance for 19 years and never knew I would create such a controversy with this article. I will add info on the books Pollard wrote in his article. I hope that ends this controversy.Jroony (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Jroony[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Valence, Drôme. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libélo

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

PROD removed with comment "Article has subsatnce". Non notable bike sharing scheme in one city in France, fails WP:ORG Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
does this book cover the subject in depth? This is one source, you need multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Please read WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you need indepth coverage, multiple non-indepth coverage does not count. does the book you refer to cover the subject in depth or does it merely mention this bike scheme? LibStar (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 sources, or 2 hits in gnews does not make an article. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is not substantial coverage. I think that merging with Valence, Drôme is the best way forward. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_October_1&oldid=1142640006"