Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 7 September 9 September >

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. The consensus is keep, but it's fair to say that I agree with Casliber, that not all parts of the articles should necessarily be kept. The miscellany at the bottom of the Hot 100 list seems particularly in need of a critical look. Hot 100 has now closed as keep for three successive times, & consequently it's my opinion that another try at deleting it might well be considered disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones

edit
List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate, overlong, undersourced lists. Some of the content is verifiable, but things like "most weeks at #2" are unsourced trivia. There's no rhyme or reason as to what's a notable achievement here, nor is anyone trying to rectify the problem. I would say that the only records of any real importance (longest run at #1 and longest chart run overall) can be included in each chart's individual article, but the rest is very indiscriminate trivia. Previous AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia (2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (2009) both closed as keep, but both were kept only due to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL without any policy-based arguments either time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep most of it is well-defined and well-laid out and should be easily sourced. I am in two minds about something like "Most weeks at number two" - but then again that could easily be removed. There are only a few sections like that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the past two times this was nominated, I believe the info is notable, an important part of pop culture and items that are not specifically sourced can be (actually the sources need to be re-formatted, as a lot of this info comes from Joel Whitburn books). Again, the article does tend to become overlong as people add stuff, but I've pruned it down before and can do it again if required. - eo (talk) 10:47, 9 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knaack

edit
Knaack (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 indication of notability. Disputed prod with no rationale. noq (talk) 23:44, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Printinghouse.tv

edit
Printinghouse.tv (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)

An non-notable website. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and I cannot find any coverage about it. (Contested PROD) Stickee (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article promotes a pay-per-view website with an active PR team. "Chicks and Cannabis." Sounds like Wayne's World Wannabes. Site Stats Notices on Craigslist state the following:
This show contains mature themes and should not be viewed by anyone. But if you do decide to watch please remember that all characters are fictional even those representing themselves. We are live to the world 24/7 streaming from our basement in Vancouver, BC. We party, try to get girls into bed, talk about politics and current events and generally just fuck shit up. Everything is broadcasted live. Come by and sign into the chat or just watch. Cindamuse (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general requirements for "notability include"

  1. Significant coverage" - the printinghouse site is listed in over 300 separate links and listings on Google.com, it's hosts have been interviewed in major regional and national publications all of which are cited. visitors from over 115 countries have visited the site, and over 6,000 separate visitors per day log on to the site.
  1. "Reliable" -sources are from local, regional and national newspapers who have commented on either the work of the printinghouse.tv cast or crew in the work that their tv show has done for animal rights.
  1. "Sources,"[2] sources are from local, regional and national media, and other experts in teh field
  1. "Independent of the subject" the person submitting this has no personal or financial interest in the subject. I am academic who has done research on the field of social justice, social media and social enterprise.
  1. "Presumed" there is nothing to presume, these really are just facts about the work of those at the reality show.

Thanks!@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.170.77 (talk) 01:04, 9 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LiTHUM

edit
LiTHUM (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 indication of notability. Disputed prod. Article creator believes a blog is a WP:reliable source to establish notability. noq (talk) 23:36, 8 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 keep. This looks like a case of WP:SNOWBALL for keeping; note that merging or renaming also implies keep. If the consensus builds toward merging or renaming, that should be discussed on the article talk page; it isn't a debate that belongs in AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Burn a Koran Day

edit
International Burn a Koran Day (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 publicity stunt by a minuscule group of Floridan bigots. WP:CRYSTAL applies, as no books have yet to be burnt. The title is misleading, as the event is in no way "International", and the any encyclopedic "content" could be placed into any number of existing articles. Pure propaganda, to be deleted with malice. Physchim62 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was closed as a speedy keep here, after only 26 minutes of listing. I notified the editor who made the decision to close the debate here and, having no response during the time that that editor deemed suitable for discussion, I have decided to reopen the discussion on this page. I note that this edit shows that there is at least some support for deletion of the article among other editors. WP:SNOW is inappropriate at such an early stage, and accusations of WP:POINT are pure bad faith. Physchim62 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Following comments here and on the talk page the article has since been renamed to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy to better reflect the contents and the notability which is the controversy rather than the actual day. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment re: "Although the naming of this day has already achieve notoriety, this is entirely due to its inflammatory nature." - Wikipedia institutionally does not care where notariety (or in it's own parlance, notability) comes from. The value of the source of notability is a subject for opinion, the reality of there being large numbers of referenced secondary sources is fact. Fact trumps opinion. I see that someone has removed the non-admin closure so I won't perform it again (I'm not an admin), but I'll repeat that this is a case of WP:SNOW and should be treated as such. The event is distasteful, but it's unquestionably newsworthy. -Markeer 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply While your personal level of awareness of a news story is undoubtedly important, I'll request that you read WP:SNOW in context. Given the number of speedy keep suggestions (with arguments) and the extremely large number of citations on the article itself, the likelihood of any responsible admin closing this debate with a deletion verdict is as close to nil as possible. You do not want to give attention to this event or this group, fine. I personally applaud your opposition to the situation as I will (again) state that I would find such an event reprehensible. But my personal opinion means no more than yours in this kind of situation. The group and this planned event have become a notable topic in news and government, prompting articles and commentary by officials. It is therefore notable by wikipedia's guidelines and best practices. Wikipedia is not censored, and it does not have any specific point of view, so the nature of this event should not (and almost certainly will not) change the outcome of this AfD nomination. -Markeer 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for you're reading suggestions! If I might make one in return, it would be WP:NOTNEWS. Simply because a subject has been discussed in newspapers for a few days does not make it notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. I noted my ignorance of the "name" of this "event" simply because I don't live within the U.S. news-cocoon. Public book-burnings (even just across the United States) on a single day for a single reason would indeed be a notable topic for an article, perhaps comparable to the Kristallnacht, for example. Thankfully, we seem to be far from such a situation, so we treat the event under normal notability criteria: nothing's happened so there's nothing to write about. We have a pastor in Florida, leading (and so paid by) a congregation of about fifty souls in Florida who says he's going to burn the Qu'ran on Saturday, just because he thinks muslims are dangerous. Several people speak out to say that his actions would be objectionable. Neither the proposed actions nor the reactions are unprecedented in any way. The subject is of Islamophobia is already treated in other Wikipedia articles, and even this mini-congregation has its own article. Surely the oweness is on people to say why this event is so obviously "significant" in the medium-to-long term as to merit special discussion, over and above any other acts of book burning or Islamophobia or any other discussion of the acts of this "church". Physchim62 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when there is absolutely huge media coverage of an event, and a huge response from governments, religious leaders, senior military it is notable for an article. If the event goes ahead this issue will not go away, there will be a response from the muslim world as they go crazy in opposition to peoples freedom to express themselves. This is like the Danish cartoon controversy, which has good article status. If that is justified, then this article is too. International coverage and the response to it has been extreme. I totally agree that this should not be notable, but the worlds media, religions and governments have decided it is and wikipedia can not ignore this. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are not really comparable since the Danish caricature affair was not a universally condemned nutjob. There were reasonably serious, fairly sane, well-established individuals of the establishment, not just in Denmark, but all around the world, who supported not merely the principle, but the act itself, and the cartoons were published in a major Danish newspaper. This is a small group of religious zealots getting up to predictably inflammatory antics that lack any kind of notable support. At least for now, separating the book burning from the article on the church makes as much as sense to me as starting a separate article on Jimmy Jump's latest World Cup pitch invasion. Peter Isotalo 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are absolutely comparable in their relevant features. What you bring up as an elleged factor to establish or disprove notability, i.e. whether the contentious act is rational or has supporters, is however wholly irrelevant. Our notability guidelines do not take into account whether something is rational or condoned, only whether it has attracted the attention of reliable sources. Apparently you are not the only editor who harbours this misconception. But it is a misconception and for the lack of innate ability to see why this is so, the remaining remedy would be to update yoursel(f)(ves) on what Wikipedia's policies have to say on this. __meco (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that this incident, unlike the Danish controversy, is just about entirely dependent on the actions of a small fringe group and could just as well be covered within the confines of the article on the group. I don't see that I'm going against any notability guidelines here since I'm not arguing about not including certain information, but rather that i should be presented in a more appropriate context.
Peter Isotalo 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that variation of your argument makes sense. Obviously the controversy is wholly centered on the issue of burning Qur'ans, not on the church and its anti-Islamic and otherwise controversial activities as such. Also, what you and a lot of others on this page completely fail to acknowledge is the fact that the article was created in part because this issue was beginning to swamp the article on the the church, a trend which by all sound estimates will become stronger as more and more people and institutions around the world are getting involved in the matter. I'm quite bemused that so many people here, including you, seem simply uanble to apprehend the logic of this. __meco (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At 33k, it seems odd to claim that an article about a small Christian church notable primarily for one particular incident can be "swamped" by information (22k so far) about that one particular event. But, really, why would you even bother discussing any of this in any detail if you've already decided that anyone who disagrees is stupid?
Peter Isotalo 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article on Islamophobia that can put such actions into context; there is no need for a separate article on one event that hasn't even taken place yet. Nor should we be offering free publicity to individuals for events that are, in themselves non-notable (book-burnings happen every day, maybe not in the U.S. but they happen all the same) Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has a very similar article on the very similar subject Piss Christ. Vulgarian Visigoth (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move/merge, the article's name is imho not a notable name/term. There is a notable news story, but at the current stage that rather belongs in wikinews. In addition parts of the story might be incorporated into other articles/under a different name. Note the problem is note of having parts of the developing incorporated into WP articles. The issue here is with promoting the term ""International burn a koran day" as if it were a well established, notable term or known regular event, which it is not. Note that most statements by politician and organization don't talk about the "International Burn a Koran Day", but simply condemning the burning of Korans.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe that the issue here is with naming the article, why do you assert that the article should be deleted? None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines would suggest that a naming dispute should be solved by deleting the subject. __meco (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the the above sentence contains an 'or and second of all imho this is not regular naming dispute as in A might be more appropriate than B, but rather of the type B is currently completely unacceptable as article name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the event is well covered in the article on the church is that this article was created less than 12 hours ago based on the coverage in the church article since the volume had grown so much that a fork was warranted per standard practice. The cleanup of that operation, which would be to reduce the coverage of the event in the Dove World article to a brief summary otherwise referring to the new article, has simply not yet been undertaken. __meco (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting huge international media coverage too. But the fact there is so much coverage is why we must have a single article on it, there is not enough room on the Dove page to detail the response. The event has not even happened yet and there are already a huge number of peoples responses to mention, after it happens and the riots that will follow its going to need more space. If you know this is getting lots of media coverage, pls back Keep. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think I know what my vote was and on what grounds I based it. As for attention, the event is organized by a certain church, which is where in my opinion the information should be, and where a redirect would lead the interested reader to. Please fight the need to comment on every vote that is different from yours. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, for now; it has not happened yet, but is already RS and V'd and certainly in the news. Now is not the time.
Comment: Are we going to jump the gun and decide before mother time does? Whatever happens later, happens; notable people have already crystal'd themselves, and the world will see how these differing but very fundamental concepts play out. With much historic precedence for such events, lets hope it is not followed by the sound of breaking glass. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable. Klassikkomies (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Overridingly large amount of coverage and reaction from notable military, political and religious figures. The reaction itself in advance of the proposed burning is notable and CRYSTAL doesn't apply to that reaction. However, perhaps a rename to something such as "Proposed burnings of Qu'rans in memory of 9/11" or .. well, my suggestion is still pretty bad, but I think changing the name of the article to reflect the specific burning, rather than the event name, might address Kmhkmh's concern. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center, or move to something less authoritative. The subject can be covered within the article about the "church", or perhaps renamed to broaden the subject and include other atrocities advocated by the group. I'd never heard of the event either. If kept, it should be moved to a less formal name. The current title indicates an established, or well-known international event. Nightw 06:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep internationally famous event Dreamspy (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. This is just a classic troll, which Wikipedia typically no longer rewards. We don't let people like this dictate the name for the article. The pastor may be note worthy enough for an article, the church may be notable enough for an article, but no matter what, this defamatory statement he wrote on the side of his broken down trailer is not worthy of an article. It's not an international event. It's a single event by a single pastor of a single church. 69.247.236.136 (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to go with the sources. I agree that this little Pastor should have been completely ignored and deserve no coverage at all, but that is not how our world works. The entire planet is getting its knickers in a twist over this, and for wikipedia to simply give it a couple of paragraphs in an article on a outreach center or pastor is not good enough. The sources (which are endless) suggest this is highly notable, and requires its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this has similarities to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and should be kept as it's clearly notible. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Keep and strong oppose to merger - this is without doubt extremely notable and deserves its own article. It shouldnt get any media attention at all and not need an article but sadly that is not how our world works. This article got over 2000 views yesterday, that is more views than some articles that are deemed notable get in a year. This will make it on to the mainpage in the news section, so it will be read by a huge number of people. There is no way this page should be deleted or merged. There is not enough room to detail this event on the outreach center page. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, especially if it gets added to the main page which is should be if this deletion request is closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will be rather disheartened if you go the main page discussion where this story has in fact been nominated. The myopic, head-in-the-sand perspective vociferously asserted by the nominator in this discussion appears to be ubiquitous on that page. I find it increasingly difficult to understand what a group of people with such challenged intellects and rational faculties possibly could contribute to Wikipedia, certainly the In The News area, or indeed how they happened to congregate there. __meco (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these people are complete and utter morons and do not deserve any attention what so ever--- it's really a shame that a high school diploma or a certificate proving youre not inbred at the very least is not required to hammer your monkey paws on a computer keyboard and create undue attention for your stupid ideas.
Lol i think once the event happens there will be enough support for its inclusion, but some of the responses there are as tedious as this AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meco, that is downright rude (and you deserve a trout slap for that personal insult), and BritishWatcher, you are not being helpful. Can we not have a civilized discussion in which people disagree in a civilized manner? You are inviting comments like that useless sentence inserted just above. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dove Worldarticle - this one time "event" should be viewed by readers in context - it is not an international effort, an American effort, or a yearly holiday event - it is the creation of a tiny church with extreme beliefs and it belongs entirely to that church and in that church's article. More to the point, the book burning is the creation of the church's attention seeking pastor who once headed the second largest church in Cologne Germany, but who now has financial problems, tax problems and a congregation of 50 members. These facts are very relevant and cannot be fully appreciated unless the book burning is discussed entirely within the church's article. Finally, there are policy reasons - do we really want to enshrine this as an international event - do we really want to possibly do anything to pointlessly enrage people who hold sincere religious beliefs - do we really want to do anything that will possibly add to this "event" which the experts, the generals in the field, say will further endanger US and NATO troops?? KeptSouth (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to see it kept, so long as I am allowed to add the adjective militant in front of Dove World Outreach Center, to match the other instance of that word later in the sentence in front of Islam. That would balance that sentence up nicely. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that would be correct as last tiem I checked, this church hasn't threatened violence to anyone or killed anybody. All they've done is threaten to burn a book which they intend to do so I don't think calling them millitant would be correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MErge no need for it to have its own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The President of the United States has also now commented in an interview on the issue. [2] Would those at present supporting merging be more prepared to support keeping if the article was renamed to describe it as a controversy. rather than just day. International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy has been suggested on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge To be honest, I am rather surprised there is any question about this at all. I am in total agreement with Bduke and others. OneHappyHusky (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While it would be nice to think that this sort of thing shouldn't warrant inclusion unfortunately it has grown wings and is now verging on a diplomatic incident with comments from Pakistan, NATO, UN, The Vatican and many more GainLine ♠ ♥ 12:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Sorry to just repeat what many others are saying, but I think merge to Dove World Outreach Center seems the obvious choice. User:AndrewRT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.192.161.28 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These people need to learn about freedom of expression. I will burn a Koran on 9/11 after wiping it with pig blood. Too bad I have no Jewish friends to piss on it first. Meishern (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. It's not like there won't be a redirect at this name, so people will still be able to find it. However, I don't think this is right name, so if it is kept, it should be Moved to 2010 Florida Koran-burning controversy or something like that (and whether it is merged or no, a couple of redirects on likely terms like that should be created, I think). Herostratus (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant as the discussion and existing dust-up over the planned event is notable in itself. --'Net (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. Allowing a Wikipedia article to have this name gives credence to the "day" which it absolutely does not deserve. There is no such day recognized internationally. I do not object to the redirect existing because it is right that the community should be able to find out about this, but it is something that is absolutely primarily associated with Dove World Outreach Center and not an international body such as the United Nations or the Red Cross or Red Crescent which traditionally nominates international days of action. I feel so strong about this that I feel inclined to cease to edit Wikipedia in future if it allows this article to stay. Perhaps others would like to join me in declaring September 11 also as International Wikipedians Strike Against the Misuse of Wikipedia Day. --Hauskalainen (talk)
  • Keep Significant coverage in the news and national & international leaders (including the Secretary-General of the UN) reacting to the event makes this worthy of an article in my eyes. Also, it's pretty much impossible to consider this non-notable by way of lack of references, because it seems well sourced. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to 2010 Florida Koran-burning controversy or sometthing similar. I don't think self-aggrandizing names should be kept for controversial gatherings where the name is not always used. gren グレン 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article about the church, per WP:NOT#NEWS without prejudice to recreation eventually if it turns out to have lasting importance. Although single fringe protests do do occasionally take on a life of their own and become notable events in their own right, there are also cases like this one where a single organization does provocative things that generate news. Most of our articles about people and organizations reflect a string of facts and events that collectively make them notable. We don't separate them out into child articles just because some of them have more than one source. If they're logically connected to the main subject they can be put in that article. Likely, whether this event comes off or not it will be news for a day then disappear from the public agenda. If that's all there is to it, we should not have an enduring article any more than we have an article about every single flag burning, or anti-war rally that ever got press. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to church article, or rename to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy as below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep One little man in Florida has politicians all over the world in a lather? Religious fanatics the world over not able to hold their tongues or their tempers? We are no longer talking about a religion here, are we? If the man were burning a bible, none of us would be here. And if he were spray-painting the bible with elephant dung, we might be bidding on it at Sotheby's. The Muslims need to grow up. Now. (talk)
  • Strong Keep I concur with many of the comments given above. (talk)
Most likely this will be kept and not deleted so it will be in an article on wikipedia, the main debate I see here is will it have its own article or be part of another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - the article name is what's getting in the way. The huge, worldwide media attention to this matter means we have to have a separate article (even if the burning gets called off or prevented in some way). However, we don't have to use the name defined by Jones, and a more meaningful one would be better. Something like 2010 Florida Koran-burning controversy as some others have suggested.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about article name and people voting to merge or delete

edit

It seems a lot of people casting their opinions to either delete this page or merge it back to the Dove World article do so based on their opposition to the current article title. I would encourage those who have acted on this way to reconsider. Changing the article's name is a much less drastic measure than what you are giving your support to, in fact there is already a discussion at Talk:International Burn a Koran Day about renaming the article where two alternatives have been presented so far:

  • International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy
  • 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy

Personally I think the second one is a good candidate for a name change for the article. Please go to the article talk page to discuss this (i.e. don't do it as follow-up to this post), and please reconsider your vote given above if it fits with the description I gave above. __meco (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second choice here is far better than my own suggestion. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support name change to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning Controversy, and recommend User:Meco be bold and enact it if no significant counter arguments before end of day today (Florida time). The newsworthiness at the moment (and I'll note "Quran Burning likely to trigger attacks" is the headline article on CNN.com as I type this) is about the controversy more than the planned event -Markeer 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you do speedy move, please leave the redirect, as an editor above has commented that there is a significant link from outside Wikipedia to the current article title. (If I'm wrong about the inbound link, of course this reasoning doesn't apply.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name is not "... Qur'an Day" but "... Koran Day". Although there is obviously a widespread opinion on the spelling of the book's title, the day's name clearly is spelt with "Koran".--FlammingoHey 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. WritersCramp (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a renaming to the 2nd option. This would remove the main problem of the current article. Almost all editors here so far agreed that the content itself due to the related media hype is notable, the issue mostly about which article is best suited for the content and that the current name is problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far

edit

This is for the attention of any Admins following this discussion. I thought it would be a good idea to tally up the positions for those wishing the article not to be deleted against those who argue that it should be merged or renames.

With a controversial topic such as this we have to be on our guard against comments from IP address and relatively new accounts which may have been created soleöy for the purpose of influencing this discussion. I think we also should be on the lookout for persons seeking to use personal feelings over and above the really important issue of Wikipedia policy. I therefore thought it wise to check also on the users' editing histories. For each editor I have given the eariest WP contribution date and marked with a * any relatively new accounts or accounts which may otherwise arouse suspicion or which are IP accounts where the earliest edit data may npt be the same user and also may be a registered commentator seeking to air their view twice.

For merge or delete (and 1 rename)

  1. 2004/11 User:Grenavitar
  2. 2004/03 User:SarekOfVulcan
  3. 2005/05 User:Physchim62
  4. 2005/05 User:Hauskalainen
  5. 2005/05 User:Metropolitan90
  6. 2005/09 User:Herostratus
  7. 2005/10 User:Peter Isotalo
  8. 2005/10 User:Bduke
  9. 2005/11 User:VirginiaBoy
  10. 2005/11 User:AndrewRT
  11. 2006/08 User:Weaponbb7
  12. 2006/12 User:OneHappyHusky
  13. 2007/01 User:Wikidemon
  14. 2007/02 User:Kmhkmh
  15. 2007/08 User:Drmies
  16. 2007/11 User:Hans Adler
  17. 2008/09 User:Knowledgekid87
  18. 2008/10 User:Night w
  19. 2009/10 User:KeptSouth
  20. 2009/11 69.247.236.136 *
  21. 2010/05 User:Userpd


For Keep

  1. 2002/16 User:Netcrusher88
  2. 2004/02 User:Capitalistroadster
  3. 2005/10 User:Markeer
  4. 2005/11 User:Joe Decker
  5. 2006/02 User:meco
  6. 2007/05 User:Ks0stm
  7. 2007/09 User:CasualObserver'48
  8. 2008/02 User:Dreamspy
  9. 2008/04 User:The_C_of_E
  10. 2008/05 User:BritishWatcher
  11. 2008/09 User:User:Klassikkomies * Important Note 2
  12. 2008/08 User:HiLo48 ***
  13. 2008/12 User:Wikireader41
  14. 2009/01 User:GainLine
  15. 2009/02 User:Amore_Mio
  16. 2009/04 User:Meishern
  17. 2009/05 User:Iqinn
  18. 2010/08 User:Vulgarian Visigoth * Important Note 1
  19. 2010/09 User:Soupy sautoy *
  20. 2010/09 220.210.177.79* Important Note 3

*** I really should have taken notice of those among my friends who keep telling me that Americans just don't get irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 The account has only has only just been created and this was the first and only WP edit

Note 2 This editor has an interesting edit history! He seems to have a penchant for editing articles on pornography and to articles with violent themes. Also to the articles such as the one on the convicted Finnish racist Seppo Lehto and the controversial Finnish anti- immigration figure Jussi Halla-aho

Note 3 The only edits relate to this matter

In summary, the count is fairly even balanced but there are potentially more "suspicious" editors in the "retain" count than in the "rename" or "delete" count. It also seems to me that the editors with the longest edit histories are mostly in favor of the article being renamed or merged. If your name is listed above and I have mis-categorized you or you wish to modify your stance, please feel free to edit the listing. Later persons adding comments may also wish to update the listing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck is this? I consider this as a personal attack. My editing history is none of your business. Klassikkomies (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: 1) Please remain civil, 2) your editing history is everyone's business. LiteralKa (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral suggestion

edit

I suggest the AFD is closed and the article moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Then when the date has passed and people have cooled down it can be moved back to mainspace when possibly a better informed AFD can start. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

edit
I'm in the 'keep' camp but am fine with renaming, but made my comments on the article talk page. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we built consensus on discussion and not voting. Truthsort (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I imply we were voting? Maybe the word "tally" and the count list makes you think that. The point is that someone has to make a decision about this and I thought it would be useful to see whether there were attempts by persons attempting to sway the discussion with either little or no edit history, or a history of controversial editing, to misrepresent the opinion of the Wikipedia community. I don't think consensus will ever be achieved. At some point someone with Admin authority is going to have step in and make a decision about this. I did the research on edit histories to help whoever that was to come to a decision about who was commenting here in which way and why that might be. Looking at edit histories and obtaining an understanding of longevity of editing picture might help to determine the serious editors from the transient ones attempting to use WP for nefarious purposes. The counting, the stars and the notes are just part of obtaining a balanced view of what is going on here --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now put the lists in edit history longevity sequence. The more experienced editors are clearly in favor of a rename. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: By the time this AfD is done, the event will have already occurred (assuming it goes forward), which (along with the media coverage surrounding the event) presumably will affect the notability of the event due to national/international reaction to the event's occurrence. Perhaps it would be better to re-examine at that time? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, if this burning does not take place this discussion will pretty much end there. - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That above tally hows there is no consensus to delete or merge the article. Also when taking into account the above point about the event taking place by the time this closes does mean we will be in a completely different situation then anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no consensus, the article is kept or relisted. That is my point. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I'm not keen on it appearing on the front page and the guy organising the event is a total nutter the event is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The US president has commented on it - as have a significant number of other reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/other comment - Overall agree that this item is noteworthy and should be kept. However, my concern is how this event will stand the test of time. Give it a month and this event will be forgotten, and along with it this article orphaned. I think this is suitable more for wikinews than a entry into Wikipedia. sohmc (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worldwide coverage, comments from Obama and other political figures.--Otterathome (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the church article. AfD is not about article titles but about content. I feel the content would best be presented as a section of the church article. Although the issue has received widespread international condemnation, the condemnation itself has been equally targeted at the church/pastor as at the action. It is still only one nutter in a small non-denominational church holding a book burning; the event is best presented in the context of the organisation that is hosting it. I also haven't heard of this specific name being given to the event, with most news reports referring to "a non-denominational church in the US that plans to burn Korans on September 11", therefore second choice would be a weak keep with enforced rename as per the 2nd rename suggestion above. Zunaid 19:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - this could be deleted as being a flash in the pan and based on past precedent such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely. Per Sohmc, it is "suitable more for wikinews than a entry into Wikipedia." Bearian (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The president of the United States and many religious, political and even a military leader have all responded to this event already, making it notable. This major controversy needs its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start debate afresh?

edit

Now that the proposed Koran-burning has been called off in the deal with the "Ground Zero Mosque" imam, should we restart the debate as the situation has now changed significantly?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD should be closed now with no consensus - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is news like this Why we have WP:CRYSTAL Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to keep pushing that, aren't you? It's a *very* notable event that has sparked international media coverage. It is notable. LiteralKa (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the episode, however it might have turned out, was clearly something that required its own article.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for Admin to come here clean up this mess as no involved editor should really do anything here at this pointWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename. Because the title now is not credible, the event is cancelled and the title leads to misguide as represents it as if it's happened. Userpd (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by that logic) the name should have been changed a while ago, because it was planned it never happened, and it may still happen. LiteralKa (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...all of which can be explained in the lead of the article without distorting the original name of the (notable) planned event. 220.210.176.165 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, we can't go changing the name because it's not entirely true. That is what the media is calling it, and that is what we should call it. LiteralKa (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits like this disturb me, as they clearly show bias. LiteralKa (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It has widespread coverage, has been commented on by government officials from the President on down. There is more than enough coverage and it's not a one event issue. Shadowjams (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the cancellation does not remove the previous RS coverage, it simply adds more. Note also that "merge" is a form of "keep" outcome, such that there is no reasonable expectation the article will be deleted at this point. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT, A REQUEST FOR ADMIN HELP - An admin needs to get on this now, this AfD has spiriled out of control, has personal attacks on it and needs to be cleaned up. I would close this as no consensus and go to talk page talk from there. - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Dove World Outreach Center. This news story doesn't need its own article, especially now the burning isn't going to take place. The article on the church is brief enough that this can be merged back into it without making it excessively long. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has been a big distraction

edit

Sadly this AFD has been a huge distraction and taken up a lot of peoples time, the article needs updating with new sources and information. Those who support the article should consider assisting thanks. There is clearly no consensus to delete, there for the article will be kept or relisted. If the article is in a good condition and upto date it will help the keep case next time round. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhu pura

edit
Sidhu pura (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 contested with no improvement to the article. It's still an unrefenced article about a non-notable neighborhood. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [Completing unfinished nom by IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:39, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Miller arrest controversy

edit
Stanley Miller arrest controversy (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 deals with a relatively minor controversial incident that occurred in 2004. Falls under WP:NOTNEWS as it offers no evidence of lasting notability or widespread interest. LordPistachio talk 22:22, 8 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 speedy delete. Bloody obvious hoax, some of the competitions attributed to this person are even made up. Courcelles 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Sofranko

edit
Doug Sofranko (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)

It seems this article was created as a hoax, I can't find any reliable sources for the subject being a top-level Taekwondo competitor. Material on subject's involvement in another hoax has recently been added to the article [3]. Cassandra 73 talk 22:08, 8 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 What is withdrawn? Clearly I pulled a Clavin here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Is… Cliff Clavin?

edit
What Is… Cliff Clavin? (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)

Only sources are the user-submitted J-Archive.com and TV.com and an unreliable trivia site. The fact that Jeopardy! has made countless references to this is immaterial if said references can't be reliably sourced. A thorough search on Gnews and Gbooks turned up no reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The psychobiology of Cliff Clavin
  2. This is Jeopardy!
  3. Television "Cheers": A Comprehensive Guide
  4. ...some of the best episodes...
  5. Jump the Shark

The nomination is therefore blatantly counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 10 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. With no RS being used (despite VernoWhitney even waiting 4 days before saying 'delete'!) None of the 'keeps' mention RS being available, or explain how it meets WP:N -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stubbs (figurine)

edit
Mr. Stubbs (figurine) (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)

Contested PROD. There is nothing in the article to demonstrate the notability of this figurine or the series of which it is a member. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roctumania

edit
Roctumania (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 does not explain notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS -Selket Talk 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selket Talk 21:12, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roctum

edit
Roctum (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)

Lacks explanation of notability. --Selket Talk 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selket Talk 21:11, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combined bearing

edit
Combined bearing (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 gives no context. I cannot figure out what type of bearing its trying to explain to even find references for notability. Wizard191 (talk) 20:26, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regan bauman

edit
Regan bauman (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)

BLP article was created today without any sources. BLP Prod was removed without comment. Google searches do not support article's claims, which even if true, probably do not establish notability. PinkBull 20:18, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meat ganoderma

edit
Meat ganoderma (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)

Well, let's start with the topic sentence:"Meat ganoderma is a unknown lifeform. It is found in somewhere from China." Two sources are cited - one in Chinese, which I can't read. The English site is a blog post that seems to refer to the Lingzhi mushroom, Ganoderma lucidum. The author has twice reverted my redirect to Lingzhi mushroom. I don't think we have sufficient reliable sources to support the extremely vague assertions in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can go to Chinese Wikipedia using English asking someone about the article. I don't think the deletion is constructive.--Player23 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think your burden, as the proponent of an article in the English Wikipedia, is to provide us with a verifiable source as to what this "lifeform" is, rather than asking us to go to another Wikipedia and investigate. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a verifiable source.--Player23 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

myxomycete complex, or a kind of slime bacteria, and maybe a kind of higher fungi which arises naturally from sticky germs compound between dead organisms.

Comment species are inherently notable, but this would seem to be Ganoderma lucidum rather than a different species. Smartse (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several websites also use the terms "meat Ganoderma lucidum" or "Tai Sui meat Ganoderma lucidum", which also offers weak confirmation that this is a form of Lingzhi mushroom. But the right thing to do at this point is to delete the current unsourced article, and take appropriate additional action if and when sourced information is available. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most I've seen that use those terms are from forums, which most likely used a machine translation that obtained "Ganoderma lucidum" from "灵芝". If non-reliable sources aren't used for information in Wikipedia, they shouldn't be used to come to a swift judgement either. The subject in question is clearly not a mushroom. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recommendation (but not a !vote yet): The article should either be renamed to Roulingzhi or Taisui (slime formation). There is by no means any evidence that the English term "Meat ganoderma" is used at all by the scientific community. Roulingzhi would be a better article title, as it is a direct Latin transcription of "肉靈芝". To me, it seems that it is a direct transation using Google Translate: "肉" refers to meat/flesh, and "灵芝" refers to the Lingzhi mushroom, also known as the ganoderma. I will be WP:BOLD to make the move. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll officially cast my !vote as a Keep, under the strict condition that inline citations are implemented, and more sources can be found ASAP. I've done my bid copyediting spelling and grammar, and translating from the Chinese Wikipedia. There is always room for improvement along the way; if it turns out as a "delete", feel free to userfy it into my userspace, and I might look into it after I finish my Pharmacology essay (I should be studying now, thanks Wikipedia). Also, is anyone able to obtain the original official publication from Northwest University (China)? I am aware that it is extremely difficult to obtain published, peer-reviewed journals in China (everything has to make $$$ in China, and information isn't as readily available free to the public), but someone might be able to help out. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have found Chinese University journals on the Roulingzhi; WP:N and WP:V can be confirmed, as it is now confirmed that academic sources do exist. Although these sources are present, I however am unable to obtain access to the full text (they require a payment of 3 yuan per view). Refer to the following:
    • [6][7][8][9] Title: "生物和氏璧"——神奇的"肉灵芝" ("Biological He Shi Bi" - mysterious "meat lingzhi"); Author: 金得来 Jin Delai; Institution: 南京生华生物研究所涟水特种养殖场,223400 (Nanjing, China Institute of Biology, Health Lianshui); Journal: 农村新技术 (Rural Technology); Year, volume: 2007 (6); QCode: ncxjs200706022; DOI: CNKI:ISSN:1002-3542.0.2007-06-022; Abstract: "肉灵芝"是1996年在湖北神农架深山老林发现的一种粘菌复合体,属菌科生物.据<神农本草经>记载:"肉灵芝,无毒、补中、益精气、增智慧,治胸中结,久服轻身不老". ("Meat Lingzhi" is a type of glutinous germ compound (Note: term for slime mold) body discovered in a deep forest in Shennongjia, Hubei Province in 1996, that belongs to the bacterial biological family. According to Shennong Ben Cao Jing: "Meat Lingzhi, non-toxic, self-repairing, releases spores, (used to) enhance knowledge, regulate chest ??? (Note: Classical Chinese is very difficult for me to understand), prevent aging.")
    • [10][11][12][13] Title: 中药"肉灵芝" (Chinese medicine "meat lingzhi"); Author: 巨锋 Ju Feng; Journal: 知识就是力量 (Knowledge is power); Year, volume: 2008 (11); QCode: zsjsll200811010; DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZSLL.0.2008-11-010; Abstract: 2004年7月27日,陕西省韩城市农民在黄河龙门和大禹庙之间的河滩地上发现了一个特大"肉蘑菇",其高61.5厘米、宽42厘米、重量36千克. (July 27, 2004, in Hancheng, Shaanxi Province, a farmer discovered a very large "meat mushroom" on the floor of the river bank between Longmen at Yellow River and the Da Yu temple, with a height of 61.5 cm, width of 42 cm, and weight 36 kg.)
    • [14] Title: 美容护肤新概念——世纪珍品“肉灵芝” (New concept in beauty and skincare: Century treasure "Meat Lingzhi"); Institution: 莱柏尔公司 (Lai Boer company); Journal: 美与时代 (Beauty & Times); Year, volume: 2002年 01期; DOI: CNKI:SUN:MYSS.0.2002-01-013; Abstract: <正> 北京莱柏尔化妆品有限公司利用被国内外各媒体曾经广泛报道过的神来之物"肉灵芝"研制打造出一系列护肤珍品,为爱美女性提供了全新概念的化妆品。此系列产品的核心原料源自9年前在陕西周至县发现的——"不明生物体"的浸泡液和分泌液,该生物体经过国内有关专家长期研究,最后将其命名为"特大型粘菌复合体"。另据研究报告证实,该生物体是以细菌、酵母菌、霉菌孢子等微小生物为食,以纤维素、几丁质、甲壳质等 (Lai Boer Cosmetics Co., Ltd., Beijing to utilise a "Meat Lingzhi", once widely reported in domestic and international media as a lifeform of supernatural origin, to develop a series of skincare treasure, for the beauty-conscious women to provide a brand of cosmetics. The core material of this series of products was found nine years ago in Zhouzhi County - an "unknown organism" with immerse fluid and secretions, after long-term studies of domestic experts, the ultimate name granted will be "very large-scale glutinous microbe complex". According to another study, it is confirmed that the organisms are bacteria, yeast, mold spores and other tiny creatures for food, cellulose, chitin, chitin, etc.)
    • [15] Title: 神来之物“肉灵芝” (Bizarre lifeform "Meat Lingzhi"); Author: 李永增 Li Yongzeng; Journal: 瞭望 (Outlook Weekly); Year, volume: 2001年 19期; DOI: CNKI:SUN:LWZZ.0.2001-19-027; Abstract: <正> 今年4月底,一块重达80多公斤的"神秘肉团"由西安运抵北京,开始了在北京大观园公园为期三个月的公开展览,由此又揭开了一段尘封达8年之久的旧话。 1992年8月22日,陕西周至县农民杜战盟到渭河边打捞山洪卷下的浮柴时,意外地捞上来一块黑乎乎的"肉团",据杜家人介绍,这块 (At the end of April this year, a "mystery ball of flesh" weighing over 80 kilograms arrived in Beijing from Xi'an, and initiated a three-month public exhibition in Beijing Grand View Garden Park, this has reopened a section of long-laid-idle old words, of a period of 8 years. August 22, 1992, a farmer from Zhoushi county, Shaanxi Province known as Du Zhanmeng went to the edge of Weihe River float salvage wood under torrential volume, which accidentally pulled up a piece of the dark "flesh lump", according to recollection by the Du family.)

QCode is given because some Chinese journals don't use DOI. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is a Chinese puzzle. It needs to be removed.--俠刀行 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepUserfy to 李博杰/Benlisquare. The article has been much improved by the scholarship of 李博杰. There might be enough verification to support an article, but some of the Chinese sources inherently sound like nonreliable sources, when they say "lifeform of supernatural origin, to develop a series of skincare treasure, for the beauty-conscious women to provide a brand of cosmetics." and other snakeoil medical claims. I expect that there are low quality journals in China as there are in the English speaking world, where paid publication can be used to advertise the next magic elixer that someone hopes to make big money selling. I expect also that some newspapers are tabloids, making absurd claims. It would be helpful if 李博杰 would keep the statements from reliable journals apart from the section about more sensational claims from tabloids or scientific charlatans, and remove nonreliable blog references and such. Some of the publications say it is a mixture of widely varied substances, rather than a defined organism or a specific mixture. It seems likely that the various instances of this substance may be different assortments of various classes of living things. I do not wish to see bogus medical claims and pseudoscience enshrined in a Wikipedia article which can then be used to promote a "magic or supernatural beauty elixer" or magic cure for many illnesses, thus promoting pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims should be removed or identified as such. Edison (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, no psuedoscience, as that wouldn't really help the article at all. It should just stick to the main topic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those references sound reliable; none seem to be scientific journals -- even the first one seems to be a popular magazine, if this is it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One, Chinese aren't brightest at naming journals; names such as "knowledge is power" are quite common titles in China, and that should be irrelevant. Despite the really cheesy name, it is an academic journal. Second, it seems that you are quite persistent to have it merged with other article; we have pretty clearly established that it is bacteria, not a mushroom, and that it exists, regardless of everything else. Also, having room for improvement is not an excuse for deletion; WP:RS can be improved/fixed later, and we can have the article tagged at the top just like any other problematic article that requires improvement. The original nomination was because it was thought that this thing never existed. Fourth, the pseudoscience was never incorporated into the article. Mentioning what historical documents said of it is notable, and is different from modern snake-oiling as it represents historical documentation. (might I also add that there is sufficient historical documentation, and despite that most of them alledgedly referred to pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts, those concepts were the general attitudes in China back in those times.) Finally, some of the text I have only roughly translated because I didn't think that we would need to incorporate it into the article. Within the source, "lifeform of supernatural origin" refers to the slime mold's alledged properties, according to legends and the like. (if you don't consider this topic to be notable enough biologically, it would also certainly be notable in regards to Chinese traditional legends in that case, would it not?) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think this article should be deleted until we have a WP:RS establishing what it actually is. At present, we have a mess of WP:SYNTH: the organism has not even been reliably linked to the legend. And "Knowledge is Power" is NOT an academic journal, it's a "Popular science publication... to introduce young people from various circles of foreign latest technology achievements and modern scientific and technological knowledge." -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:28, 11 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 NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Twilight

edit
AfDs for this article:
Edge of Twilight (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)

Game was canceled long ago and had little media, not part of a major franchise, just another game abandoned halfway through development Piggysan (talk) 19:39, 8 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo

edit
Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo (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 alligator farm and petting zoo. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article has some good refs and does appear to be notable. The article has been around since June and has had a few editors so not just one person trumping it up. I say give it six months probation and if it doesn't improve in that time re-list for AfD. ZooPro 02:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June 2007, just to clarify how long it's been around. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow sorry my bad I didn't know it had been here that long I assumed it was a recent article, Seems very stupid odd to have an AfD after all this time. Keep now for sure considering it has been brought to WikiProject Zoo's attention, might even make it a collaboration project. ZooPro 10:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not because it is too new to delete ("Give it time...") or too old to delete ("...after all this time") as those are not meaningful reasons. It has received substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, passing GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination by nominator — It would appear to have now been adequately shown to be notable, so I withdraw the nom and recommend a "keep" closure albeit with two comments: The argument that it "seems very stupid to have an AfD after all this time" is addressed in WP:ARTICLEAGE. On the other hand, I seem to have committed the WP:JNN error, for which I apologize to the community. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, TransporterMan. I sincerly appreciate you re-visiting this AfD. Kind regards. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies TransporterMan, I did not mean that to sound like a personal attack at you. ZooPro 22:58, 9 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 NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbridge Group

edit
Woodbridge 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)

This "major" award is not. It is a fleeting honor. Also, the reference, as well as all the references, is simply a press release issued by Woodbridge Group and reprinted in trade mags that invariably reprint these sorts of things. Just because you've been put in print does not make you notable. A reprinted press release is not an author or journalist independently writing about you or your organization. This is Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill Vinithehat (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is an investment bank, but I disagree with your rationale for deleting it. Other investment banks--- specifically smaller ones--- have wikipedia pages. I think the award might be a little overstated, but if Woodbridge group actually is the most active bank in CT that definitely means something especially considering the amount of financial services firms in the state. I dont see this page doing anything worse than other pages on investment banks, it simply adds to the amount of info on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.236.142 (talk) 14:29, 11 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 NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torquay United F.C. season 1996–97

edit
Torquay United F.C. season 1996–97 (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)

Individual season currently consisting of just a list of players. The season was also played in the fourth tier of English football (and doesn't otherwise seem particularly notable), so also fails the notability requirements of WP:NSPORTS#Individual seasons. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding to this nomination the following related articles:

Herostratus (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is someone other than the nominator even allowed to add more articles to the AfD?! I suspect not...GiantSnowman 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it is a wiki. I have no opinion on the articles, but there is a template and it is apparent that people have made articles on the other seasons and intend to add more, so its not really proper to nominate just one article in the set, I don't think, absent some compelling reason. It would seem odd to end up with articles for all the seasons except 1996–97, unless someone could explain why that should be so. Herostratus (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand where you're coming from, but personally I just think that it should be up to the nominator to say what articles they feel need discussing. Depending on the outcome of this AfD, perhaps it could be a plan to nominate any articles you feel are eligible seperately...? GiantSnowman 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, this AfD was malformed or improper in that it should have either been a multiple-article nom or nothing, unless the nominator made a specific explanation of why he was not nominating the other articles. Being malformed, it needed correction. I could have instead contacted the nominator, but 1) I was willing to do it myself (teamwork!), and 2) depending on lag time and whatever, people might have started commenting before the other articles were added, which would have been confusing (some people commenting on just the one article, others commenting on the whole set, all in the same AfD). Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As probably the major contributor to the Torquay United Season pages for the past few seasons, I feel particularly strongly against the deletion of these pages. I accept that the 1996-97 page is not very well developed, but to use that as a reason to delete the other Season pages which have had a lot of work put into them is ridiculous. If you want to use the excuse that these pages are part of a group, then you may as well delete all of the season pages relating to every team, and that includes the Premiership sides, which are apparently far more important than teams in the lower leagues. Jordansongs 01:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - when was it decided (and by who) that only Premier League clubs could have season articles? You're going to be helluva busy with these nominations if that's now the case, as for example there are 45 articles in Category:Newport County A.F.C. seasons, 19 in Category:Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons, 17 in Category:Colchester United F.C. seasons, etc etc, and nearly 90 of the articles in Category:Blackpool F.C. seasons refer to second level or lower seasons. The WP:FOOTY project has always operated on the basis that teams playing national professional leagues (the top four levels in England) were OK to have such articles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what you mean, and to an extent I agree with you, but that NSPORT guideline is completely irrelevant if enough sources are provided in each season article to show that the season meets the GNG. I can see why some of these particular articles, and similar ones in the past, are nominated for deletion because they just have a list of players and other very basic information; they show no evidence of notability in a Wikipedia sense. BigDom 20:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you, I was merely questioning the part of the nomination which appeared to explicitly state that WP policy was that only top division clubs could have season articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see that it's a problem that the articles are just lists of players - at least it helps to contextualise player articles and create links to them. And there's always room for articles to grow. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's current state is largely irrelevant; the question is whether this could be expanded into a worthwhile article. Unquestionably, it could. NSPORTS states that the individual players who may well have played one or two games in this season and never again are notable. So to argue, based on NSPORTS, that entire seasons are not notable is highly questionable. If anything, it should be the other way around; players whose only claim to notability is games played this season should be merged into the article, which admittedly needs significant expansion. --WFC-- 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They don't fail WP:NSPORTS#Individual seasons which only seems to be guidelines for what might be notable, not what isn't notable. In fact these are potentially well-sourced articles (admittedly not in some cases at the moment) which makes them appear to pass that very policy. They need improvements to prose and referencing not deleteing. Brad78 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: articles need referencing and improving; there is no doubt that the sources to do this exist (perhaps a thorough WP:BEFORE check was in order here). The NSPORT guideline is outrageously US-centric when it comes to individual seasons - the GNG is the only thing that matters here. BigDom 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - completely incorrect interpretation of guidelines, the notability of these seasons is long-established! GiantSnowman 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as the above comments say, the NSPORT "guidelines" are irrelevant and apply only to American College Football, or should that be American Football in US Colleges. Many of the articles concerned need expansion and text adding, but that of itself is not and never has been grounds for deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. They can be expanded and improved but there is no deadline. The user who created the article isn't active on Wikipedia anymore, so its not really surprising that nothing substantial has been added since. I myself have created stubs like this with the intention of getting it to this standard eventually. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Articles on a sports team's season are usually going to be notable, with everything that is written on them both during a season and afterwards. In the case of English soccer teams, the "top professional leagues" clause in WP:NSPORTS should allow for some leeway since many, many teams outside the Premier League have enough coverage to justify such articles. The more I see season pages here, the more I think this part of NSPORTS may be flawed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of that clause is that (in this case) the "top professional league" referred to is the entire Football League, not just the first/premier division. I don't think it's always been the case that the FL was the only pro league - I remember reading somewhere that the Southern League Premier Division was fully pro for a while at the turn of the 20th century, and there's always the possibility of the Conference National going the same way in the future. Bettia (talk) 17:05, 10 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 speedy keep – nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Buono

edit
Cosmo Buono (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)

Contains a redlinked image, 2 of the references are unreliable and the other three are all from The New York Times website. Fails A7 as a small time artist who has only participated in a local competition. Superchrome (talk) 18:56, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

edit
Milo Yiannopoulos (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)

Subject is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Delete. Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for relist: WP:BLP article has been expanded recently — Scientizzle 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As part of the assumption of good faith I've tried to include the verifiable sources I've found. Are you the same unsigned commentor as before, by the way? If so, no need to vote again. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:43, 9 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luna\TBWA

edit
Luna\TBWA (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)

A non-notable Slovenian advertising company. No references provided. Eleassar my talk 17:56, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zabec.net

edit
Zabec.net (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)

A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 17:50, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRA University

edit
IRA University (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)

IRA University does not appear in official Pakistan university rankings. Possible hoax, certainly non-notable. See http://www.hec.gov.pk/insidehec/divisions/QALI/Others/RankingofUniversities/Pages/Default.aspx Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:46, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entropic Spacetime Theory

edit
Entropic Spacetime Theory (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)

Appears to be fringe science -- article is based on /about a single book. There are a few references to this theory on Google Scholar, but none from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I could not find any independent information on this book. (I don't think it could be merged with Entropic gravity, either, since it seems only marginally related) Danski14(talk) 17:25, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 74

edit
Qantas Flight 74 (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)

To be quite honest, the main reason I'm arguing to delete this article is because it's about an event that is wholly unremarkable. There was an unknown malfunction but there was no real emergency and the plane landed uneventfully. While there is clearly coverage of the event, the incident occurred only a week ago and Wikipedia isn't the news. At best the article is premature as it is full of speculation since authorities haven't determined what even happened. A disclosure; the article had an expired proposed deletion which I declined due to a protest of deletion on the article's talk page, and I even cleaned it up quite a bit, but I still feel it doesn't merit inclusion.-- Atama頭 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "slow news day" - Australian media report pretty much every little thing that happens to Qantas (there are some very minor incidents that I know about that the media missed). Delete, nothing to add to others' comments really. YSSYguy (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing serious here. As others have said, just because it was reported in the news doesn't mean it was notable (or will continue to be notable). -SidewinderX (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A common incident with no evidence of lasting impact. Joaquin008 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The incident involved (or was caused by the failure of) a Rolls-Royce RB211 engine, if anything it could have been noted in that article, some aero engine articles have a 'Safety record' or 'Accidents and incidents' section but the RB211 article currently does not. Even then an entry there on this incident would probably also be deleted as non-notable. If it was added now it would look quite strange after the engine had been in service for almost forty years. I was looking for something to salvage but unfortunately I don't think that there's anything that can be kept. There is a brief mention of a service bulletin on the engine, if this is a developing problem then it could be noted at the engine article, could be related to age and metal fatigue but we just don't know at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but open to re-creation if notable findings are made in the investigation and/or an AD is issued and/or the investigation finds any relationship to the outstanding AD that had not yet been applied to the subject engine. An uncontained engine failure is very much not an everyday event as suggested earlier, but at this point this incident doesn't satisfy the WP:AIRCRASH notability tests (nor the default ones) for having its own article. I do, however, think there is a possible argument for a brief inclusion on the Qantas article. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was just a minor incident and is non-notable. An incident like this would probably not even get an entry in an aircraft article, so no stand alone article. -fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain An uncontained engine failure is a) an extremely rare event and b) a serious threat to the plane (shrapnel did pierce some flaps after all, had those pieces penetrated the wings, fuel might have leaked, possibly being ignigted by the sparks from the engine). ATSB has opened incident AO-2010-066, classified 'serious'; I view this article as an easy entry point for people interested in further updates and as such valuable. Herbert.rr (talk) 08:14, 12 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 keep. On the basis of the added references from Melanie. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowlarity Communications

edit
Knowlarity Communications (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)

Advertising for non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Prod removed with no reason given. Kimchi.sg (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This organization, Knowlarity Communications, is helping the Indian government track a meal scheme served at schools for the Indian children (below poverty line) which is quite a big step in social responsibility from a corporate. More information can be found on the internet using search engines and using the key words 'Knowlarity" and "Mid Day Meal" . I could find 15 articles from various news sources.

Articles from news sources are exactly what we need to establish notability (as per WP:N) - if you'd care to find them and add them to the article, I'd certainly be happy to reconsider my opinion. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No reliable sources cited. If there are any, please add them and I will gladly change my vote to keep. EnabledDanger (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete There are 5 links given each pointing to reliable and credible sources like NDTV, AOL, Digit and Business Standard (one of the largest national dailies in the country). Knowlarity Communications is a company which is promoting eco-friendliness and green IT by starting something like e-fax in india. Also, being a startup it should be commended for also concentrating on corporate social responsibility for eg the UP govt mid day meal scheme for which it has become famous for in the country. I think it satisfies all the wiki criteria for it not to be deleted. Just to give an idea of the credibility of the sources - Indian Express has a readership of about 1.8 million people across the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.97.198 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment This article has been updated and improvised as per feedbacks given on this page from Boing! said Zebedee & EnabledDanger . Legitimate sources has been referred to . Please let me know if it suffices. Knowourba (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the sources provided demonstrate notability. They include articles (not just mentions, but actual articles ABOUT the company or its technology) from the Economic Times of India [21] and the Indian Express [22] and others. Two of the references are to the same article, and the Business Standard item looked like it might be a press release, but I think the ones I cited here are sufficient. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. References provided do seem to include reliable mainstream sources writing specifically about the company, so I think notability has been established. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are enough sources now to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:39, 15 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 keep. Edison's arguments are convincing; consensus is clear for keep. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basler Electric

edit
Basler Electric (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)

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability. Article has been tagged for this since Dec 08. Created by User:Basler Electric. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator I've been using and specifying Basler products for years - but I don't see enough independent coverage of the company to make it notable as described in in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The guideline says the company must have attracted notice, must have had some kind of impact (other than the cherished "improving stockholder value". --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about refs 5-9 above which cover the company, rather than just using their product to illustrate a book? Google scholar shows a great many research publications by the staff at Basler. Does that help? Edison (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of companies publish brochures about their own products. Self-published sources aren't WP "reliable". Just because a company prints a lot of paper doesn't make it notable. Lack of high-speed access is really crimping my ability to check out your sources. The ones I did look at seemed just to mention the company in passing; there's no analysis of the relative importance of this company in its sector. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Google scholar was generally publications other than promotional brochures and instruction manuals. Edison (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar currently shows a couple hundred hits (including patent applications and multiple citations of the same papers), compared with, oh, say, 1 1/4 million for General Electric (which doubtless includes many duplicates and patents). Do multiple Google Scholar hits qualify an organization as notable? --19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's look at the references:
  • LEARN TO MANAGE THE IMAGINATION INDUSTRY Published on July 7, 1992. I don't have a subscription, starts off talking about Basler being a company that turns commodity parts into products with high software content. Can't tell if this is notable from the accessible fragment.
  • Basler Electric to locate new factory in Charleston - Press release, of a fairly illiterate tone (public "conscription"? I thought they got rid of slavery in Charleston? ). Not notable.
  • CIRCUIT SURVIVOR Taylor company beats the odds, looks to expansion - only part of the article accessible, no visible assertions that this company is somehow notable other than by surviving a shakeout?
  • Basler Electric leaving Caraway - Press release. This one is even described as "local news" Companies close down unprofitable plants all the time, how is this notable other than locally?
  • Europe's Trouble Felt Here Finanical Analysts Cautious, Fearful - A Letraset headline ready to re-use every week. (This instance is from 1992, but you could have seen it in today's paper, couldn't you?) No mention of Basler in the visible part of the "reference".
  • Basler Electric power supplies recalled by CPSC - Cool, I didn't know Basler made any "consumer" stuff at all. And after this incident, maybe they don't. Are product recalls indication of notability? Especially of only one truckload of products...4000 wall-warts is not a huge amount of product. Two power supplies heated up and melted with no injuries. Notable?
  • Two New York Cities Install Basler UMOS - Press release. No analysis, nothing showing any unique notable attributes of this company.
All we need is a few items of the form "Basler Electric is pleased to announce the appointment of Joe Schmoe to the position of Chief Acronym Officer" to make this a complete collection. I wouldn't write an article on a company if I couldn't find better indication of notability than these. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the first reference you dismissed, they refer to a June 8 1992 Newsweek article which covered Basler. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to see the extent of coverage there. Or are you convinced a priori that any coverage of the company is "a press release?" Edison (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at WP:ORG and it says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." It also says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization". Where is the Newsweek article, then? The batch above are not enough, in my opinion, to demonstrate deep coverage or notability of the organization. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it can be found in any library. Edison (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good hunting, then. But one 18-year-old article is a slender case for notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe age of a source in no way reduces its usefulness in establishing notability. See WP:N. Notability is not temporary. The article in Newsweek is "America's Edge," by Mark Levinson, June 8, 1992, pages 40-43. In it is a section of 112 words about Basler, noting that they are moving into more of a software role, adding value to the collection of components which go into their specialized products, with considerable value added by their engineers and programmers. I found numerous articles in trade journals such as Transmission and Distribution World, April 2000 "Automation developments: two New York cities install Basler UMOS" (Utilities management operating systems). Such articles discussing new Basler products, or installations of them, may well have started as press releases, but in the end they appear as copyrighted content of the magazine, and the magazine classifies them as "news/magazine article" rather than ad or press release. I found articles in newspapers about factories opening or closing, such as the Knight Ridder /Tribune business news, March 20, 2002, "Various manufacturers in Highland, Ill., cut jobs due to economy," by Jennifer Saxton of the Belleville News-Democrat. It has a 138 word section on Basler which is clearly not a press release, since it extensively quotes the union president at the plant and says company officials had no comment. In general it is not the largest company in the world, but it does not have to be as large as General Electric to be notable. It has long been a notable supplier of utility relays, and has been a well known electrical manufacturer for many decades, and has significant coverage in several reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 23:23, 14 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Tour

edit
The Gold Tour (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 concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:14, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavement Reunion Tour

edit
Pavement Reunion Tour (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 concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:11, 8 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. The consensus is that Leslie does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time - if signficant coverage occurs in the future, it can be recreated. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Leslie

edit
Deborah Leslie (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)

failed 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
failed 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
failed 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
failed 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
not applicable 5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

Her books are difficult to find for sale, published reviews are impossible to find. The one newspaper mention of her (book launch) was not a very important or significant event. This is a vanity page for self promotion and nothing more. Vinithehat (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which book and which of the criteria? Vinithehat (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the criteria and certainly Flumphaderries etc., which would appear to be on its third print run. Not bad for a book that I suspect most anglphones would struggle to make sense of. Ben MacDui 07:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying a local paper is invalid as a reliable source, but I would expect sustained coverage over a period of time. People get articles written about them in local papers for all sorts of trivial reasons (I know I have). The third print run could mean anything depending on how many book were printed the first two times. And as for the first criteria, I would want at least some evidence from a reliable source that an individual is regarded as an important figure. The two concrete claims we have is the play she has had performed, and the actual number of books sold. However, I searched for "The Clock on the Waa" and got zero independent coverage. I'm not convinced that sales in thousands is enough for notability, but I will concede to any experts from Wikiproject books who knows more about that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mid Northern Scots as her notability doesn't seem to be enough for a stand-alone article but her books should be mentioned in that article. If she becomes more notable then the information can be de-merged. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge Merging what may be a minor author to an article about the extremely notable subject is undue weight. If she's notable, then an article is justified, but otherwise we are essentially publicising the unimportant--unless we are going to take the occasion to do a complete bibliography on the subject. I know the suggestion was meant well, but this is a standard technique of spammers, & I've been removing additions like this as I see them, which is often. The few authors mentioned in the main article should be the most important in their periods-- for example, the listing & the article on Sheena Blackhall is justified. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 13 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Nylund

edit
Rose Nylund (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)

There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is exactly the sort of information that people will seek when searching an encyclopedia. A brief google news search shows an awful lot of articles and that won't even include features like those found in TV guide and entertainment mags. The underlying premise of this nomination would elimiate most television characters Vartanza (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so convinced it suitable for an article why don't you include some. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES if you believe its notable. The WP:BURDEN on the editor to show its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AfD was originally created on 5 September but the nominator did not properly complete the nomination by placing it on the day's AfD page. Completing nomination now. Redfarmer (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for much the same reasons I argued for here. Many of the same sources also apply to Rose. Main character in one of the most influential American television series, as well as one other. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You'll have to just delete every page on wikipedia that is about a fictional character. I am certain references can be found - it's only work to do it. Vinithehat (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although Wikipedia at one time had way too many articles about non-notable fictional characters, items and places, that doesn't mean that we should purge it of all fictional items. Rose Nylund easily meets notability requirements [34]. Besides being the signature role for comedienne Betty White, the character is fairly well known even when not mentioned in connection with White [35]. Unlike other ditzy fictional characters, Rose Nylund is known for the bizarre stories that Betty White somehow managed to tell with a straight face. Mandsford 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Vartanza. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major character in long-running show, nominator appears to misunderstand sources that exist vs. sources currently in the article. No fatal problems evident, there is nothing wrong with the article that cannot be fixed by editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of !votes for keep, but no evidence of notability. Lots of ghits for a mention, or in blogs, but no critical analysis or in-depth coverage, which is what WP:GNG requires and I can't find. Please provide some actual examples of these sources that are so far only asserted to exist so I can change my mind or to convince the closing admin! Bigger digger (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has been written about in thousands of reliable sources. Where else can we find stupid stuff like this except Wikipedia? It's not like we are going to run out of shelf space! EnabledDanger (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Come on now. This is not some transforming teenage transsexual robot from a manga. Even on mentions alone she is a keeper--I submit this as evidence. That the article isn't great is beside the point. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is some duplication in the wiki article on "The Golden Girls" so if anything, that shorter profile of Rose Nyland might be trimmed and this one expanded further. hifrommike65 10 Sept. 2010
  • Comment. This is ridiculous, can someone please show one source that goes some way to establishing her notability for a separate article? I'm not concerned with how the article looks at the moment, I'm interested in finding WP:RS that lead to WP:Notability. The book search from Drmies has in-universe description, WP:MIRRORS, and sources suitable for the actor/actress' (depending on degree of PC) article. Come on, stop asserting she's notable and make me change my !vote!! Bigger digger (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good FA or GA article should, roughly, include at least three sections: fictional biographical data, casting and production information, and a reception section. Fictional biographical information on the character should be sourced from in-universe sources, including the episodes themselves. It is not unusual for sources on casting to overlap between character and actress. This source and this source discusses the casting of the character, including the fact the role was originally intended for Rue McClanahan. This article briefly discusses the character's transfer to The Golden Palace. This book mentions that White won an Emmy in 1986 for her portrayal of the character, and this article mentions that, at the time it was written, White was being nominated for her seventh emmy for the character. This is more than enough to start a reception section. This is more than enough for a good start on a quality article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having looked at some of the fictional character FAs it seems to me like notability is established by having lots of sources, none of which struck me as particularly in-depth, so I guess community consensus is to keep, but I can't find a guideline that supports that. I therefore can't really justify changing my !vote, but would like to thank you for taking the time to reply. Bigger digger (talk) 00:39, 13 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Devereaux

edit
Blanche Devereaux (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)

There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so convinced it suitable for an article why don't you include some. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES if you believe its notable. The WP:BURDEN on the editor to show its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are completely incorrect. BURDEN applies to specific facts or assertions; the assertion that no sources can be found to demonstrate notability rests upon the editor arguing for deletion, per WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There, I added a section called "significance" and a couple of references to the article. Still can't believe this was ever nominated. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 13 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Petrillo

edit
Sophia Petrillo (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)

There is a lack of sufficent third person information about the character not the the actress who plays a distinctive difference. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD was originally created on 5 September but the nominator did not properly complete the nomination by placing it on the day's AfD page. Completing nomination now. Redfarmer (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, main character on one of the most influential American television series in history, as well as two other series. A few potential book sources here. Plenty of relevant sources here about both the character and actress after you filter out some irrelevant news stories from 1949. Of interest is article pointing out that Getty's Petrillo was one of only three lead characters played by elderly actors at the time, the other two being Andy Griffith's Matlock and Angela Lansbury's Jessica Fletcher. There is also plenty of coverage of Petrillo being transferred to The Golden Palace and later Empty Nest and making a guest appearance on Blossom. Primary information on the character's traits can be sourced from the episodes themselves. Plenty of sources to expand into a nice article. Redfarmer (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually, the source states that Getty was one of three actors portraying leading elderly characters, rather than elderly actors portraying roles. Getty was younger than both Bea Arthur and Betty White. Cindamuse (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You'll have to just delete every page on wikipedia that is about a fictional character. I am certain references can be found - it's only work to do it. Vinithehat (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources supposedly exist but not one person has provided a noteworthy or worthy list to demonstrate notability. Why is nobody providing sources if the evidence is so overwhelming. The majority of fictional characters especially television have significant sources from third person sources that show their notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click on the "books" link after "Find Sources" and you'll find your list of sources, many of them reliable sources. You can see that mentioned at WP:BEFORE.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has been written about in thousands of reliable sources. Where else can we find stupid stuff like this except Wikipedia? It's not like we are going to run out of shelf space! EnabledDanger (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character on a notable television series. And no shortage of space on Wikipedia, so no reason to delete this, nor is there anything to gain by doing so. Character was notable enough to be reused on two other notable shows as mentioned, as mentioned above, one as a major character on the Golden Palace, and the other a guest appearance on a very hit show Blossom. Not just the actress, but the actual fictional character. How more notable can a fictional character be? Dream Focus 18:11, 11 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Match Racing Tour

edit
World Match Racing Tour (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)

Highly promotional article, with extreme probability of COI (a quick look indicates more than 80% of edits are by SPA accounts), almost no references, and little indication of notability. WuhWuzDat 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose aka Keep. Agree the article is highly promotional, seems like there are several editors with links to the WMRT, but the tour is clearly notable as one of the three (from memory) sailing events sanctioned as "World" competitions by the world sailing body. I have no idea what COI or SPA are? In conclusion: the article clearly needs work but its notable so should stay. Mattlore (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI = Conflict of Interest (someone involved with the subject;SPA = Single Purpose Account (one created to edit only one thing - usually tied in with COI). SPAs can be sockpuppets - accounts created by one person to give an illusion of mass support (or occasionally opposition). Peridon (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just had a look at the article - it is far more promotional now than ever with those "flash" graphics. [39] I'd be far more happy for the article to go back to looking something like that. Mattlore (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I viewed this article last month and it has certainly changed. It is one of the three World sailing events sanctioned by International Sailing Federation (I checked on their website) and I would say that definitely makes it notable. Reading through it I am not sure if it is 'highly promotional' as I guess you have to be on a team to enter the tour, but I see that it reads like an ad rather than a book in places, but that is easily rewritten. It could definitely do with more references. Images are good though, as I think they help explain the sport better.In conclusion: I agree with Mattlore the article clearly needs work but its notable and it should stay. Ivantu1(talk)17:40, 2 September 2010 (GMT)— Ivantu1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've watched this on TV in two separate countries. Of course its notable. It's the international premier league of match racing. It attracts the world's top sailors (even Ben Ainslie) and the prize money is in the millions. Just fix up any spam concerns.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 8 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 speedy delete. no indication of notability, zero search results, likely hoax Favonian (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southside Grips

edit
Southside Grips (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 by creator. Unsourced, google has never even heard of the term except here, let alone an actual WP:RS.Made up? Hoax? tedder (talk) 13:21, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Castle Public Meeting

edit
Babak Castle Public Meeting (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)

for the following reasons this article should be deleted: WP:NOTSOAPBOX , WP:NOTADVERTISING , WP:NOTLINK , WP:GNG , WP:NRVE and WP:MADEUP; The user who created the page has less than 100 edits on less than 30 articles, and seems not be enough expert. Aliwiki (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this page is listed list of Iran-related deletion discussions and most expert editors on a region, usually happen to be from that region, this is only natural. But I must say that I am very disappointed to see an administrator of all people, making bad-faith comments about other editors based on their presumed ethnicity. Also, you should note that "Babak Castle Public Meeting" and its variations generate ZERO results on Google Books or Google Scholar, you can't be seriously arguing that such a fringe event organized by a fringe group, deserves an article of its own on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually search Google Books? [43] Shii (tock) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using an alternative spelling, you found one non-academic source that mentions this event in passing. That does not satisfy the notability criteria for a separate article. Again, if this was a notable event, you'd have sources discussing it as a primary subject, as oppose to making one-line mentions in passing. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete .The article has no sources and use a point of view that is not known to many editors . The original article in Azeri ([44]) is made up by only one person , that perhaps is the one that made the article in English Wikipedia , and has no other contributors ([45]) , that shows it is only a view point of especial group , and that is notable that both articles in Azeri and English Wikipedia are made in one date (6 September) and that so called event has been not known in Persian , Azeri and English Wikipedia before that date - an event of 1990's !!-.Isn't it a sign that a motivated group is making both pages in same time for advertising?
    About the Comment , I don't think the ethnicity of editors can a concern in Wikipedia , and participation of them in this article is because the whole matter is in Iran . It is possible for any outsider to discuss about a local event in any other place of the world ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This not a notable event by Wikipedia standards. The article itself is WP:CFORK lacking any reliable references that are dedicated to the subject. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable event - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone tell us the Persian title of the article?Farhikht (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an actual Persian title, what we know is that since the end of the 1990s, unknown people with unknown sources claimed Babak Khorramdin is not a Persian hero, but a Turkish one, then they made up a rally in his historical fort. This event is held in a country that most of its governers such as its head who has the absolute power and the head of the opposition are Azeri; And in the region in whch its people suffered from Turks more than any people in the world. If you are not familiar with this subject, consider that native Americans claim Christopher Columbus is their hero and they make up an annual rally in his house in Genoa to ask their independence from United States.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to judge about the event itself and if it is publishable under Wikipedian roles , there is no problem in mentioning it , but the main reason against it is about it's validity (WP:MADEUP) and advertising tone (WP:NOTADVERTISING) .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:22, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Hanna (Character)

edit
Vincent Hanna (Character) (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)

Biography of a fictional character written entirely in an in-universe style and recapitulating information already available in the film article. Furthermore, all the references are from imdb, a nonreliable source, and it is unlikely reliable sources could be found. Simply put, there is no reason for an article about this character. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 12:45, 8 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 merge to William James Sidis. seems clear enough by now DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vendergood

edit
Vendergood (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)

It is impossible to find verifiable independent sources for an article on this subject. The subject of the article has no notability. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I have also argued on the talk page, the author of the language is a very notable person. The article DOES give a reference to a reliable source, the trouble is only that this source isn't online. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Verifiable is not the same thing as verified. I will change my vote if it turns out that the biography in question mentions Vendergood only in passing (which would pose us for the question where the information in the article comes from in that case), but at present it would rather appear that the book IS the source of all the info. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge to William James Sidis any portions that actually are supported by Wallace's biography of Sidis or any other source. I have found a passing mention of Vendergood in a description of Sidis here, and in several reviews of Wallace's biography (e.g. here), but no grammatical descriptions of the constructed language. Cnilep (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as Cnilep has noted above. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not appear to exist. Location (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thing is only, Wallace's biography is both significant and reliable as a source. Nobody here seems to have read that book, and yet it is crucial to this discussion. But let me make one educated guess: if Vendergood is even mentioned in book reviews at all, then it is pretty likely that the book goes pretty much further than just mentioning it. In other words, the whole article is probably based on the biography. That means the info is verifiable, it only takes more than just the Internet to actually do the verifying. Remember: Internet presence is by no means a requirement, especially since Vendergood is a lot older. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is not only that but also this: notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources (note that "sources" is plural), not significant coverage in a single reliable source. We all understand that the internet does not reveal every source on every topic, however, the burden of proof to show that sources exist is on those recommending keep. In order to split this from William James Sidis, I think we need much more that what have been shown above. Location (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Although the keep arguments have not been supported by multiple sources, this Afd is being relisted to allow seven more days for the keep editor(s) to provide multiple reliable sources to verify notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks and regards ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note for the record that contemporary book reviews cast into considerable doubt that Wallace's book is a reliable source itself. (I have read the book, and was appalled at its credulity about unverifiable statements about the late Sidis's life. So I looked up reviews of that book in a university library's collection of back issues of newspapers.) And if it is the sole source for the existence of the Vendergood constructed language, an off-hand mention of that in the existing biography article William James Sidis is surely enough for Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying that a reference must necessarily be scholarly. But that's just my opinion. I haven't read the book and I don't know what sources Wallace had at his disposal.
What I would like to notice is that the article on Vendergood attracts quite a lot of visitors. I know that's not an argument for keeping it at all, but I find it remarkable if you consider that it beats several constructed languages whose notability is undisputable. Being a bit of an expert in the field, I'd say that the language is of course impressive for an 8 y.o., but nothing special compared to many conlangs created by adult persons or even teenagers. It remains a bit of a strange case, but it's worth finding out what all this is really about. I'd also like to know what is behind the sentence that Vendergood has been used for encryption (by whom, for example).
I'd like to request that if the article is to be deleted/made into a redirect, the history is preserved. Either that, or please move it to my user space as User:IJzeren Jan/Vendergood and make a new redirect to the Sidis article. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 14:10, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Reaper

edit
Masked Reaper (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)

Rapper who has never charted and does not seem to be the subject of coverage in any reliable sources either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Supermarket Online

edit
The Supermarket Online (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 online office supplies company. Makes unsubstantiated claim to being the first business of its kind in the UK. Guesses at turnover by 2012. Nothing substantial on google to establish notability noq (talk) 12:23, 8 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 no consensus. Apart from the nominator (who nominated this for the previous Afd), the two 'delete's are both weak. There is no clear consensus here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Angel Escalayer

edit
AfDs for this article:
Beat Angel Escalayer (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've attempted several times in the past to find a review or other reliable source for this pornographic anime, but I always come up empty. Fails WP:NOTE. Even AnimeOnDVD, now called Mania.com, which frequently does reviews for pornographic anime, hasn't even touched this one. (search) —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahem: Mania.com review, linked to in the previous AfD. Also, there's at least one other review linked there that should be checked for reliability (I can't at the moment because I'm behind corporate nanyware). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same nominator sent this to AFD back in May, 4 months ago[46]. I don't see as how anything has changed since then. It has been reviewed at Dark Diamond, Animetric, and as I mentioned last time, The anime encyclopedia: a guide to Japanese animation since 1917 list it on Page 52. It has been released in multiple languages, and there is even a game made about it. Dream Focus 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nither Animetric or Dark Diamond are reliable sources. They fail the standards for self-published sources We've already been over this before, but you still insist that anything published on the internet is a "reliable source". Animetric has been listed at WP:ANIME/RS#Unreliable as an unreliable source for well over a year now. The coverage by The Anime Encyclopedia was just to give a very short plot summary, which isn't significant coverage. —Farix (t | c) 11:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems significant to me. We had this discussion last time. And the mania review, as mentioned in the previous AFD, as well as this one, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mere plot summary, no mater how detailed, is not significant coverage. It's extremely trivial coverage. —Farix (t | c) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mania review is not mere plot summary -- it evaluates the story and the packaging/production. It's as much a significant coverage of the subject as any other review they do -- almost as much as a typical ANN review. (Agree that Animetric doesn't make the cut as a reliable source, but I want more information about Dark Diamond before dismissing it so quickly.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This anime's review is available at Mania.com. Farix, please do a search there using the term "Escalayer". – allen四names 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm usually willing to assume Japanese-language reliable source coverage exists of anime and manga even if English reliable source coverage does not. But I'm not so sure that assumption extends to a porno that ran all of 3 episodes, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same nominator 4 months later?? What has changed?? Nothing has changed! It has been reviewed several reliable sources, is in another encyclopedia, released in multiple languages, and there a game made about it. Go figure. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several reliable sources? Where are the other reliable sources? And an entry in an "encyclopedia" that is merely a plot summary is not significant coverage. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 13 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 Speedy close - blatant hoax ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Petrovich (Peter) Bronstein

edit
M. Petrovich (Peter) Bronstein (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 content appears to be very inaccurate: a translation of the first reference listed states:
Bronstein Matthew P., 12/02/1906, the birth, harvest. city of Vinnitsa , a Jew , non-partisan, with a higher education researcher at the Leningrad Physico-Technical Institute, was convicted Feb. 18, 1938 the Military Collegium of the USSR Supreme Court for "an active part in counter-revolutionary fascist terrorist organization" under Art. 58-8 and 58-11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR to the highest degree of criminal punishment - execution, and seizure of all, he is personally owned, property. A sentence of execution Bronstein Matvey Petrovich executed Feb. 18, 1938 in Leningrad. Kudpung (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

l

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG provides a good subjective description when he mentions, "Keep as a major character, but find some way of condensing the description of the other characters." Therefore, keeping the article. In case reliable sources are not placed, there's no prejudice to another AfD soon enough. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Fitzpatrick

edit
Maddie Fitzpatrick (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)

Fixing nomination for an IP. Deletion rationale (from articles talk page) is "PROD contested with no improvement. It's totally in-universe, has no relevant secondary sources and lacks any real-world claims to notability." I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep To be honest I'm having trouble accepting that this nomination was made in good faith. It seems more a knee-jerk reaction to my removal of a {{plot}} tag that the nominator kept improperly adding to a character article that contained no plot.[47][48] Even before I could finish my explanation as to why use of the tag was inappropriate[49] the nominator had prodded the article,[50] and then, within a few minutes after I contested the prod had nominated the article for deletion. The nominator seems more interested in wholesale deletion of content,[51] rather than improving articles, even when a suggestion to that effect is made.[52] The article definitely needs work but if the nominator had looked at the article's edit history he would have seen that there have been some genuine attempts to improve it in recent months. The subject is one of the main characters in a television series and, like the other main characters, has a separate article. She has appeared in both The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck (as well as Hannah Montana) and it is easier for these characters to have individual articles than to juggle two different character articles, one for each series, since much (but not all) of the information is relevant to both series (while all of the information is relevant to each character). Unlike some of the other articles, although it has few references, (partly thanks to the nominator who removed one) the content is verifiable by numerous references to specific episodes mentioned in the article. These need to be improved but, like anything, it requires more than one person to achieve. The article averages over 400 page views per day,[53] so there's obviously interest in reading the article, which contains content that shouldn't be lost through deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. Except for a mention of the actor that plays the part, the entire article is about the plotlines of the character.
  2. I attempted to add tags that would guide future editors in improving the article, but those were summarily removed.
  3. The reference removed was for Google maps, attempting to link a fictional residential address to a real-world company. Irrelevant and misleading in the extreme.
  4. The nomination was made in good faith in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia after other good faith attempts were removed without any improvement to the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained to you on your talk page, the information in the article is not a plot, and the tag that you added was therefore inappropriate. It is meant for instances such as this, where the plot of a film, novel or TV episode is too long, not for use in biographical articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to expand on this (unfortunately I had to take a break while I went to a funeral), the biography section of the article is only 509 words, much of which is taken up by references to episodes, rather than by citing them (which would reduce the length significantly), so it's not long at all, especially given that this character has appeared in 77 episodes of three different programs. A "{{plot}}-like" template would have been inappropriate in any case. It's a long jump from saying the "plot" is too long to nominating the whole article for deletion, but that's exactly what you did after I removed the plot-tags, so I'm still having trouble accepting that this nomination was made in good faith. Wholesale deletion of content is rarely considered an improvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable not only for the show but having been discussed in trade publications and Tween-focused news programs. Where else are we going to find stupid information like this except Wikipedia. It's not like we're going to run out of shelf space. EnabledDanger (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major character, but find some way of condensing the description of the other characters. I note that plot and characters are separate elements of fiction. A description of the characters requires some mention of the plot & vice versa, but they are not the same. They are trypoically discussed in close relation to each other, so the Wikipedia method of separate articles is a little artificial, and, in my opinion, not the most helpful arrangement. But it has proved to be the only method that prevents the information from disappearing here. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 15 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ake S. Dahlgren

edit
Ake S. Dahlgren (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 evidence that he is indeed the father of nutricosmetics, nor that he is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines including WP:ACADEMIC. Online reference given doesn't mention him, making this essentially an unsourced biography. Can find no cites for him in Google Scholar, and no significant coverage on him online in WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Nanodance (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. After turning up the phrase "Professor Ake Dahlgren the renowned Swedish-Swiss scientist and expert on gerontology and his son Dr Atti-La Dahlgren" in a product description, I found some other mentions without the "S,", in particular this, which although from the New Straits Times appears to be an advertising article. Nothing that reliably establishes notability; the son has a wider trail of publications, though that could be recentism in search results/computer records of papers. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:Notability and obvious SEO attempt. EnabledDanger (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this may be a re-creation of a previously deleted article. Looking at the contributions of User:Mediascience, who created it on 31 August 2010, I found Imedeen, which was created by User:Medialog on 6 May 2009. User:Medialog shows no edits since 12 June 2009 but their talk page shows a speedy deletion nomination of Ake Dahlgren on 4 June 2009; here is the log entry showing it was deleted. The redirect currently there was created by User:Tomas e on 1 September 2010. If they are substantially the same, then maybe this should be wrapped up fast. Otherwise, Imedeen should be linked, and probably added to this AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of any significance in Google scholar by or about him (there may be nothing at all, it's hard to tell because there are several other Ake Dahlgrens). To me this seems like commercial cosmetics spamcruft masquerading as academics. Clear fail of WP:PROF and WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually don't think it's an outright hoax, but probably a non-notable inventor or engineer who got his credentials exaggerated into being a professor who founded a new field, nutricosmetics, to make some sort of cosmetics/health product commercial sound better. Probably that article should receive closer scrutiny as well. Tomas e (talk) 14:51, 13 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 NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlloMap Molecular Expression Testing

edit
AlloMap Molecular Expression Testing (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)

Specialised medical test. No evidence of its notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added another reference. As a whole, the referencing should be improved, but as it stands, it is good enough to justify this article. The article also needs extensive clean-up to reduce to technical jargon. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Adequate evidence of important use in its niche; the NEJM article is sufficient for notability, along with the others a& a few more to be found in PubMed--even though the NEJM study was financed by the company owning the product. More generally, a product that is accepted by the NIH as a diagnostic test should be considered notable enough for an article. But the present article is outrageously promotional: the key to that is the excessive use of the product name, which is really remarkable: the author managed to get the name into 20 of the 26 sentences in the article. I have noticed that articles written like this frequently get nominated for deletion & sometimes deleted even though they might have some notability --this sort of writing is counterproductive here. If kept, I'll do the necessary rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 13 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 Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lane (journalist)

edit
Tim Lane (journalist) (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)

Broken source links, 1 editorial mention, google reveals nothing substantial DavidBetzer (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Has commentated on AFL Grand Finals for Network Ten, international cricket for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and BBC. Tim Lane + AFL gives 35000 google hits. Surely "substantial" enough? Jevansen (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – basically per Jevansen. Notable and surely passes WP:GNG, which is what I think this AfD was based on. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric Hearing

edit
Lyric Hearing (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. Non-notable product from a non-notable company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InSound Medical. I think we need a product notability guideline that is more prescriptive than that at WP:PRODUCT. Products are something that are regularly added to WP. If we have a guideline or policy we can easily get rid of product SPAM articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots strategy

edit
New England Patriots strategy (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)

Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team or strategy in general is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, ideals, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk17 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Very well done, thickly sourced article about one of the leading teams in America's de facto national sport. Length of piece makes merger with New England Patriots impractical. Massive number of in-links established for page, this is not an orphan article by any stretch of the imagination. Just as we have plot summaries for television shows, articles deconstructing sports team strategy should be of great interest to fan communities. This is one of the best articles in the last month to be subjected to the indignity of running the AfD gauntlet, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 8 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. Will userify on request Courcelles 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Lions strategy

edit
Detroit Lions strategy (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)

Fan cruft. No reason to have an article on what is almost certainly a non-notable scheme of professional sports. A simple blurb or paragraph in the main article of the team is enough, not an entire article dedicated to perceived intentions, and OR/POV plays. Jmlk17 05:44, 8 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. NW (Talk) 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole naming controversies

edit
Black hole naming controversies (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)

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 1. I am neutral. Courcelles 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. As idiotic as these cases are, they have drawn a ridiculous amount of media attention. This makes at least the 2008 Dallas incident marginally notable, despite of WP:NOTNEWS.TimothyRias (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial and pointless article and WP:SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic, although trivial and a bit silly, has gotten some coverage. It would be out of place to merge to Black hole, which is about the scientific facts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation. The article as-written seems to have been part of a trolling campaign, as the name in English isn't significantly controversial. I'm told that genuine controversy existed in French-speaking and Russian-speaking communities, due to similarities with pre-existing slang terms, so any encyclopedic article on the subject would likely focus on those. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a case for editing, not deletion. Also, your "trolling" statement is an AGF violation. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only 1 person is listed as having thought along the lines of "black hole" being used in a racist manner. The rest of the Article is not about the words "black hole" but rather a bad pronunciation/mis-hearing of the term, or a rehash of past events. It may have Citations, but its not notable as a controversy. If it was a notable controversy, more than 1 person would be talking about it, and it would still be an issue/topic of discussion. The uproar may assist in making Him notable, but the uproar caused was not itself a notable controversy. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Delete - Is there some term for a word that picks up un-wanted connotations?? If so, merge there. Otherwise, I think it's silly to claim there is a "controversy" about the use of the term based on 2 (rather trivial) incidents. The whole premise of the article is based on these isolated incidents, and seems to almost border on original research Danski14(talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not original research; it's well-sourced. If you feel there should be more sources, by all means add them. Again, a case for editing, not deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep Ok, I've decided to change my vote, based on the fact there is some media coverage on this. I'm skeptical about notability, but since it is well referenced, I'll argue for a keep. However, I'd like to see the article changed somewhat. In particular, the phrase "some critics have argued that the term itself is racially offensive" which appears in the lead should be documented or removed. (Who is actually making such a claim?) As mentioned above, we are only told of one person (John Wiley Price) who made such a claim, but is there anyone else actually arguing the term is inherently racially offensive? That is why I said it appears to be original research, because it seems to be arguing for that POV. Note also I changed the wording slightly in the lead, from "the term itself is not without controversy." to "the usage of the term is not without controversy". I think that is a much more level-headed way of putting it. It should not be construed that the term is inherently racially controversial, (indeed, at least one individual argues it is, but this is of debate as shown in [56]).. What has proven controversial, though, is the way it is used.(in particular, outside of physics) Danski14(talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: on further reflection, if this article is kept it may be worth considering moving it to "Black hole usage controversies". Danski14(talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something has Citations does not make it WP:Notable. I would go so far as to say "There is no controversy!" The sources do not address the subject directly in detail, they are only reporting 1 mans view. A controversy does not exist until Others are talking about it. How can there be a Controversy if nobody is talking about it? "on the fact there is some media coverage on this" is a loooong way from "...significant independent coverage or recognition..." (from WP:NRVE). The concept that this is a racial slur is a flash-in-the-pan bit of news. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ( a flash-in-the-pan bit of news)? A simple google search on black hole and racism gives several pages of hits referring to the 2008 Dallas incident published at various dates spread through the period 2008 till now. In particular the blog and news posts around the Hallmark incident tend to refer back to this incident. This is sufficient to make the 2008 Dallas incident notable. (Not very, but it just hops the bar for WP:N.) TimothyRias (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First lets get a proper search. "black hole" racism -Hallmark -blog -Behar (Yeah Behar from The View thinks "Black Friday" is racist and your search pulls them in also. hmmm...Black Friday naming controversies, ummm no, that is just another non-notable view of another singular person.) Now from whats left lets look for one that talks Directly about the subject, not just rehash reporting what 1 mans view was in 2008, or mocking the entire train of thought. I cannot find any. If there is no "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention" (WP:N), how can there be a Notable Controversy? I removed Hallmark from the search because a bad audio recording by a greeting card company that is always referenced by "That's how they hear it..." has nothing to do with the term Black Hole being considered racist. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability (at least for the 2008 Dallas incident) IS established by the fact that the reports of the Hallmark incident refer back to the 2008 Dallas incident. This means that the media still remember the incident two years after the fact, and find it notable enough the bring up. This bumps this incident over the WP bar for notability, which is not that high to begin with. (You might also want to read up on WP:CIVIL.) TimothyRias (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reports of the Hallmark incident do not refer back to the 2008 Dallas incident, they make no mention of anything but the Hallmark/NAACP disagreement, leastaways not the ones on this Article. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Just having press coverage does not, in and of itself, establish notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: most of the examples presented are unsourced and thus per policy should be deleted, the remainder appear to be disconnected incidents which do not indicate naming controversies. Furthermore the article title as is suggests that the designation of individual examples of black holes are controversial, rather than the term "black hole" itself. Icalanise (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a case for editing and renaming, not deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a fixed article would look nothing like this article and be called something else, what exactly is the point in not deleting the present article? The whole purpose of "delete without prejudice" is to avoid having a bad version of an article around while people think about making a good version. If a policy-compliant article is ready now, rather than some time in the distant future, then create it in user-space and discuss replacement of the bad version with it on the article's talk page. The possibility of a future, good version of the article existing, is not a valid argument for keeping a non-good version. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A fixed article wouldn't "look nothing like" this article. Large parts of the article as it currently stands are sourced, and there is nothing wrong with them, nor is there any reason why they should be deleted. As far as the unsourced bits go, all one would have to do is add sources (and we're just waiting for a French or Russian speaker to come along and find some for us); a fairly minor edit to be sure. No sweeping changes are necessary, nor is a total rewrite; just a few tweaks. So again, not a reason for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Icalanise and Exit2Dos. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a poorly assembled article on two different subjects: One, "black hole" as seen by a few people in a few cases to be racially offensive. The other, the origin of the name, and equivalents in other languages. The second part obviously belongs in Black hole. The first part could conceivably make an article if it were properly done, and if some more examples could be found, and if--perhaps--its even discussed somewhere. There have been similar but better known examples: the misperception of the word "denigrate" comes to mind. I regret that the author did not take advantage of the comments at the Deletion Review to fix up the article. I'll be glad to userify is someone wants to work up the topic--and certainly under a more sensible title. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Dallas county incident [57], as it is described, is a trivial incident picked up by some news media outlets. I had a difficlut time finding this outside of blogs, and in the actual news media. This incident does not serve to illustrate that there is a signifigant or notable controversy surrounding the scientific phrase "black holes". There was one article which refered to a single anti-semite remark, and in the context of notability, this is certainly trivial - especially given the very sparse news coverage of this remark [58]. Overall these remarks are not even discussed anywhere - there are no follow up stories, with commentary from noteworthy persons, that I could find. Hence there is no controversy. The same appears to be true with the hallmark card. There was the critique from the LA NAACP and nothing noteworthy after that. I see this as WP:NOTNEWS and boderline WP:SYN. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that it has received enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 15 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 The result was keep, per withdrawal by nominator and no other arguments for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Edmonton Oilers general managers

edit
List of Edmonton Oilers general managers (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)
List of Atlanta Thrashers general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Boston Bruins general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Buffalo Sabres general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Calgary Flames general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Carolina Hurricanes general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Chicago Blackhawks general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Colorado Avalanche general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Columbus Blue Jackets general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dallas Stars general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Detroit Red Wings general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Florida Panthers general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Los Angeles Kings general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Minnesota Wild general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Montreal Canadiens general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nashville Predators general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of New Jersey Devils general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of New York Islanders general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of New York Rangers general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ottawa Senators general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Philadelphia Flyers general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Phoenix Coyotes general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Pittsburgh Penguins general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Quebec Nordiques general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of San Jose Sharks general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of St. Louis Blues general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tampa Bay Lightning general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Toronto Maple Leafs general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Vancouver Canucks general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Washington Capitals general managers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unnecessary. Information easily merged into the main team articles Edmonton Oilers. No reason for separate articles. Jmlk17 05:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: It's become pretty obvious I should have thought this one out, and gone to bed and slept on it before the nomination. I apologize for the listing(s), but leave it to another admin to close it, probably per WP:SNOW. We all make mistakes though, but I do regret the list. Jmlk17 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The main articles in many cases are long enough and the over abundance of lists detracts from their quality. These lists are part of as well defined structure of child articles for all NHL teams. I don't buy that they are "unnecessary" simply because you say so. Resolute 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per summary style. This should be split out to their own pages, most team pages are too long as is and will only be further split in the future. This is going backwards to the intended work flow. Merging them into the team pages makes both the team pages and the lists less useful by making the team pages harder to navigate because they are larger and for the lists because now you have to search through another page to get the same information you could get directly before. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as those are lists of very notable people. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep all - General Managers are the effective "bosses" of sports franchises, in charge of player personnel and coaching staffing decisions. These are well ordered lists for a major professional sport and this strikes me as an extremely ill-conceived challenge. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above statements.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I don't think anyone should get their back up over this AfD. Read these lists, people! I recently looked at all of the articles for categorization and agree that most are bare bones. They should be written up to a better standard. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaney2k the difference is that AFD is not for cleanup. Its for deleting things that are non-notable and the like. Its also not for merges which is technically what the nominator is suggesting. I obviously agree they should be cleaned up, but that is not a delete reason. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wrong. I worked to get a tiny list table (10 lines) article deleted as it was a simple 'fork' of another article. You can argue that these GM list articles are 'forks'. The best way to support these articles is to improve them via editing, not simply say they should not be deleted. Is there any prospect of this? Yes. That's why I said 'weak keep.' The content as it stands today does not justify keeping them. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Summary style actually encourages splits to happen. Forks are not really the same thing. I wouldn't consider these forks as they are a subject in their own right. Forks are generally another article split off about the same general topic. To quote A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. from WP:Content forking. General managers are a seperate and distinct topic from the team itself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a really weak argument and a real stretching of the facts. These are the general managers of the teams, right? They are part of the staff. Eek, you make me want - to change my !vote to delete. ;-) The consensus is to keep, let it be. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously they are related they are whats called a sub-topic, however a content fork is generally two topics about the same thing. A good example would be an article about the Edmonton Oilers Franchise and the Edmonton Oilers Team. Two different things, but for the most part almost identical topics where information is being replicated and redundant. Summary style on the other hand just makes a brief summary of part of the information and links to a more detailed page on the subtopic. Anyways I was just pointing out how this isn't a fork. This would be a content fork if we tried to keep the full list on both pages, that is the difference. I don't disagree they need to be cleaned up however. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All: I note that the nom hasn't proferred a single valid policy ground for deletion. "Unnecessary" and "no reason" are personal opinions, and the ease - or lack thereof - of merger is likewise not a valid reason to delete an article. At such time as the nom gives us a reason under deletion policy to delete, I'll be happy to help gauge whether the reason applies to these articles. Until such time, I think a Speedy Keep's the only appropriate action to take.  Ravenswing  18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid nom that has literally no argument. "It's unnecessary" "no reason" Being an admin gives you no excuse to flash WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on an AFD rationale and expect us to eat it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)
  • Keep No valid reason to delete them has been given here. GM's are the heads of their franchises, which is an accepted position for a list. Even if they are of poor quality, which many are, doesn't mean they have to be deleted. Finally, there is no deadline; Wikipedia is a work in progress and just because the articles are bad now doesn't mean someone will eventually get around to cleaning them up. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:40, 8 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 keep. Secret account 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees minor league players

edit
New York Yankees minor league players (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)

More unnecessary fan cruft. An ever-changing list of players that is just as easily had on their respective team pages as needed. A partial list of random players throughout an entire professional baseball organization isn't needed. Jmlk17 05:10, 8 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 keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox minor league players

edit
Boston Red Sox minor league players (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)

Unnecessary fan cruft. An ever-changing list of players that is just as easily had on their respective team pages as needed. A partial list of random players throughout an entire professional baseball organization isn't needed. Jmlk17 05:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. These pages are being maintained by the baseball project and are intended to provide summaries of the more notable prospects within each major league organization. The respective team pages are way too long to contain this information. Spanneraol (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These articles are (mostly) well sourced, well maintained by the project, and provide information about top prospects who are not presently deserving of their own pages, a subject of great importance to baseball fans. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spanneraol and Muboshgu. Resolute 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the baseball projects way of avoiding the issue of having too many stubs about lesser professional players. Seems useful to me, even if I would rather they be seperate articles. Definitely should not be included on the team pages as the team pages have no room for such information. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Analogous to the way we treat elementary schools, biographical content of minor league players should be relegated to broad pages like this. Whereas individually these players are not "notable" in Wikipedia terms, collectively they are. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is trivial, almost ridiculously so. They have no coverage or mention in reliable sources...hell, not even the example given in #7 at WP:MLB/N passes article muster. What this appears to be is an end-around to get Wikipedia coverage for non-notable athletes. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you suggesting that sports related papers/websites that cover minor league baseball are not reliable? Do you have some evidence that such sites have less than accurate reporting? We aren't arguing that these players are worthy of independent articles, but as a collective they are notable as has been established by consensus. Your opinion seems to be in the minority here. Spanneraol (talk) 20:06, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Thipse

edit
Abhay Thipse (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)

BLP about person only known for one event - thus should be mentioned in article about the event only (aka Best Bakery) Dondegroovily (talk) 04:51, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of New Island

edit
Commonwealth of New Island (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 fictional place. All references are from the official website. Borderline spam. PROD contested (simply removed without comment) by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article only has a single website as its reference (link). This article would qualify for speedy deletion.--Lester 05:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a fan page!!!--Gimelthedog (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just why do its fans need to see something on Wikipedia? To give yourselves some sort of credibility? Sorry, this isn't the place. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is fiction because it is a Fictional Country!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelthedog (talk • contribs)
But it's not presented as such. And it's not even notable fiction. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:55, 12 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 merge to List of Tampa Bay Rays managers. seems to be general agreement on this DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Rays managers and ownership

edit
Tampa Bay Rays managers and ownership (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 need for a separate page for the information included. Delete and/or merge is necessary. Jmlk17 04:27, 8 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 merge to Ariadne Oliver. how much to merge wil depend on whether there are sources for the opinion in this article; if unsourced, a plain redirect would be right. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Hjerson

edit
Sven Hjerson (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)

Fictional character. Non notable on his own. DimaG (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 04:05, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midget House

edit
Midget House (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 made up or at least something new enough that it's not notable. PROD for such reasons was removed, only one source added, some unreliable blog. No significant coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:57, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Baratta

edit
Jamie Baratta (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 individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:46, 8 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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC) delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna 3CD Collector's Set

edit
Rihanna 3CD Collector's Set (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 certainly isn't notable. The infobox contains an image not a cover. The boxset duplicates information i.e. the content's section tells you the names of the albums included which are also given in the track listing section which just recreates information from the individual album pages. There's just one chart. Per WP:NALBUMS there's nothing remarkabley special about this release and it has little/no independent coverage. This info could easily be merged to her discography and artist page with a simple sentances: "On December 15, 2010, Def Jam records released a 3-CD boxset containing Rihanna's three albums, Music of the Sun, A Girl Like Me and Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded Edition as well as room for her fourth album Rated R. It reached number 80 in the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart." -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a repackaging of her first 3 records with nothing significant to seperate it from her actual records. If we included every Elvis/Beatles repackaging, their wikipedia page would be endless. I don't think it's even worth including on Rihanna's page. Dankim1180 (talk) 18:43, 8 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 redirect to Teairra Marí. Although an editor does give the keep vote, the reasons are not sufficient to prove notability. Consensus seems clearly for redirecting this article (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 11:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely Yours (EP)

edit
Sincerely Yours (EP) (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)

Redirect to Teairra_Marí. There's no way that this is notable. It has no other coverage accept for one source from Rap-Up and other than information about it's tracklisting there is never going to be enough information to warrant an independent article.-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well because I didn't understand why an article would be brought to AfD just for a redirect; when I think an article needs to be redirected, I just automatically redirect it, I've never brought it to AfD; but I see the nominator tried to redirect before and it was contested, so I see now. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, its silly and tragic that things have to be done like this but articles like this typically don't fair well to be simply redirected because there are some fans out there obsessed with every single release from an artist to have its own page. This is always a last resort. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:48, 11 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Crossed (Quantum Leap)

edit
Star Crossed (Quantum Leap) (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)
Play It Again, Seymour (Quantum Leap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Identity (Quantum Leap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
How the Tess Was Won (Quantum Leap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete - as with this recent AFD ending in deletion for several other episodes, these lack independent reliable sources that establish notability. They all fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:29, 8 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 keep. Clear consensus that she meets notability criteria. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Catherall

edit
Joanne Catherall (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. Catherall is just a backing vocalist and not a very good one at that, has never done lead vocals unlike Sulley who has her own single, article is just a rehash of The Human League which covers her sufficiently Laestrygonian3 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: How good or bad she sings is irrelevant. However, the article is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources, citing a TV interview from 1995 (15 years ago!), which we have no means of verifying. None of the reference sources are specifically about her, and at best her mention is merely incidental. If she was notable, there would be many more articles available. Fails WP:BAND.--Lester 06:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's clearly notable. Duplication with the Human League article can and should be trimmed. How good she is at singing is irrelevant. Sufficient coverage of Catherall exists - see Google Books, plus news items, e.g. Chester Chronicle, Knutsford Guardian, Daily Mail. Including details of all the members in The Human League would make it too long, and including only this one would unbalance it.--Michig (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's a member of The Human League, not just a backing singer hired by the band, and coverage exists going back 30 years, much of it from the early 80s and not available online. A merge to The Human League of the relevant, sourceable content is the very least that should happen.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Carousel kings (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)

Not notable per WP:BAND. Evil saltine (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Evil saltine. After searching, I found no major articles about them.--Lester 06:17, 8 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 no consensus. Fundamental disagreement, and neither side is likely to persuade the other. Delete camp points to the spare sourcing. Keep camp reflects that there is sourcing, and point to its milestone status. As always, further discussions on merging or redirecting my continue on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

edit
One Hundred (Aqua Teen Hunger Force) (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)

Discuss - per a series of recent AFDs resulting in either a merge or delete outcome for other ATHF episode articles I redirected several seemingly non-notable ATHF articles to the list article. I'm not quite sure what technologically happened but following a series of actions by another editor and me we wound up with the article back at its present title. The other editor asserts that the IGN review satisfies notability requirements. However, a series of recent AFDs for episodes of The Boondocks seen here and here seem to establish some measure of consensus that a single such review (in those instances, reviews by the AV Club) is insufficient to establish notability. Since it is unlikely that agreement will be achieved through any other process (I don't intend to change my mind and I doubt the other editor does either) I bring it here. I searched for reliable sources that were about the episode and found nothing. I believe deletion is appropriate and that the unlikelihood of this exact search string makes redirection unnecessary but I also recognize that consensus for redirection is much more likely than for deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually read it and then check the links in the reference section. Dream Focus 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioning something that happened in another AFD, doesn't make any sense here. The exact same thing ends differently, based on whoever is around at the time to notice and participate in the AFD. And the recent AFD about episodes for this series, nominated only those without references, not this one. The references in the article now prove its notable. Dream Focus 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing previous similar AFDs is certainly reasonable as it aids editors in understanding how similar articles were treated in the recent past. The article does not have "references". It has a single reference, cited twice, and several similar articles with a single similar reference each were recently deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A thoughtful editor cares how similar articles were treated in the very recent past because we operate on a consensus model that develops consensus through discussion. If consensus has emerged or is emerging that a single review on an entertainment blog does not constitute the sort of reliable sourcing that establishes notability then it is appropriate to mention that. Mentioning this possible consensus does not constitute "mindlessly mimicking" and describing it as such is uncivil. I don't know why you feel the need to be so unpleasant. I don't think I've said or done anything to you to warrant a borderline personal attack. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes a single reference is enough, sometimes it isn't, depending on the personal opinions of whoever randomly happens to appear to state their opinion. Just as you can link to AFDs where the small number of people that randomly showed up said one thing, I could link to others where an equally small number of random people showed up and said the exact opposite. The opinions of others should not affect your judgment. Think for yourself. Is this episode notable or not? Dream Focus 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think for myself, thank you, but I also take into consideration that the opinions of others also have value. Apparently you do not as you dismiss their participation to our collective as simply showing up at random. WP:GNG states that subjects should have coverage in reliable sources, plural. I believe I've made it quite clear that I do not believe this episode to be independently notable, as the only source that covers it in significant detail is a review on a blog. Should other sources be developed then the article can always be undeleted and the new sources incorporated. We write articles based on reliable sources. We don't write articles in the hope that one day someone will develop sources for them. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first impression. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just any TV listing... it's TV Guide, the premier TV listing for the North American continent. Think how this show was selected to be one of the six "hot listed" out of the several hundreds (or thousands) of shows displayed on that day throughout the whole continent. —CodeHydro 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still remains a paragraph that could appear in any TV listing in any newspaper and serves as a "this exists" notice rather than significant coverage. We have no information as to the editorial process that goes into selecting the shows that TV Guide considers "hot" on a particular day. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines are suggestions, not law as policy is. No one ever voted for those things, nor did the Wikipedia Foundation, which are the only authorities for Wikipedia, make any rulings about them. They currently say something totally different than what they use to, as people have argued and bullied and schemed to change them to what they wanted them to be, and then used them as justifications to eliminate articles they don't like. Dream Focus 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that you are so dismissive of the time and hard work that have gone into crafting our guidelines and that you are so unwilling to assume the good faith of your fellow editors, accusing them of bullying and scheming and reducing their opinions to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm assuming that you would not be happy if your opinions were dismissed as the equally simplistic WP:ILIKEIT so you should probably avoid treating others the same way. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a milestone episode of Adult Swim's longest running series. This is also the first time an Adult Swim original series made it to 100 episodes. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is getting a little ridiculous. The arguments for retaining this article seem to consist of But it's the one hundredth episode of Aqua Teen. Frankly, I think the show's funny, but that doesn't mean that multiple independent sources have given it significant secondary coverage per WP:GNG. Even in the article itself, a cited reference shows that the episode wasn't even the most-watched episode of the night on Adult Swim. — Chromancer talk/cont 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE - notability is not inherented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:42, 14 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Sykes

edit
Annette Sykes (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)

Promotional article for an individual whose notability does not rise above the local level. Article is completely unreferenced and was created by a single purpose account. A quick google search and google news search doesn't turn up any reliable, secondary sources which cover this individual in a significant way. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) SnottyWong communicate 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of it may just be badly written, but a lot more needs to be done to establish notability. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Keep since I'm seeing a lot of references to her as a lawyer in Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal and 2007 terror raids coverage and work is happening on the article Stuartyeates (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches for her name on two local news papers reveal pages of hits across multiple issues [60] [61] There's lots of good stuff there related to the terrorism raids, treaty issues, her work for her iwi, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While she may have a notable cause, none of the news articles are about her. She only gains a mention half way down or below in those stories. That fails WP:BIO.--Lester 06:22, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists active before age 20

edit
List of scientists active before age 20 (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 list/article is incredibly poorly defined. It is very subjective (to be read wp:OR) what qualifies a person to get an entry here. The related article List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age is at least verifiable to a certain degree because publication date is easy to check, as opposed to when the person did the experiment. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 1 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) 00:04, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CubeCart

edit
CubeCart (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)

There are no reliable secondary sources and the article is written like an advertisement. The article was tagged with the {{notability}} template back in April 2007[62], and the article hasn't improved. d'oh! talk 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails to demonstrate notability. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not an expert in the area but I do know that this is one of the main competitors to OsCommerce. It is a well established software (the article itself has been created some good 4 years ago) and it is notable. It does feature countless hits on google talking specifically about the software. HOWEVER, the article still needs urgent improvement AND third party sources but in no ways ought to be deleted due to its poor quality alone. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main competitor != notable. OsCommerce has a lot of competitors, and making an article on all of them is not a good idea, because outside their websites, fan website and maybe a few books and articles on how to use them, there is no reliable sources to build an article on. Remember primary sources and original research is not allowed, unless there is reliable sources to back them up. Also I am not saying they shouldn't be mention, there is tons of room on Electronic commerce or Shopping cart software to include them. d'oh! talk 01:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with what you said and your points are very much valid. They reinforce my position of keeping the article. The whole problem with establishing notability for PHP software is that there are no reliable publication that reviews them. I am sure you agree that OsCommerce is notable. Even still, if you look at the OsCommerce article, absolutely no reference is third party. In theory it should be tagged. But it isn't. Why? There is no way to come up with a "PHP Software Review Magazine" which would have a very very limited audience. In fact, that was the reason why the Software Notability Guidelines failed. As far as competition, shopping carts alone create at least 343 competitors for OsCommerce. I absolutely agree with you that creating an article on all of them wouldn't be a good idea. If you look at the Comparison of shopping cart software there are only a handful being even mentioned under PHP, not 344. Moreover, out of these, only 7 have articles which I'd say is a reasonable number. I am no expert, however. I just use PHP software. I think we need an expert in the subject to really establish the notability. My position however still remains the same. That as an user of PHP software, I happen to believe that CubeCart is notable, well established and that its article still need improvement. -- Loukinho (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is unfair PHP software doesn't get a chance because their are no reliable publication for them, but the whole point of requiring reliable publication is to void having articles filled with primary sources and original research. There is no way to build a good article without reliable publication. Also OsCommerce is not notable either, for the same reasons as CubeCart and I will be tagging it. I still believe mentioning CubeCart at one of the many articles about eCommerce is the best option. d'oh! talk 03:18, 3 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) 00:03, 8 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 keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DXMC

edit
DXMC (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)

Unreferenced, does not appear to be a notable or important radio station. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 1 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, 8 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 keep. Notability is disputed, but the sense of the participants here is that the subject squeaks by the notability guideline. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Bowers

edit
Kent Bowers (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)

Criminal who fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for criminals. Notability rests on one event and thus not suitable candidate for an article. Claritas § 16:58, 1 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, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article creator). Not sure if it's worth commenting as the creator, but I would argue that the fact that he is the last person executed by Belize makes him notable for "something beyond the crime itself", which is #1 in WP:PERP. Although technically possible, it is highly unlikely that Belize will ever execute someone again, so Bowers will likely be the last. He is mentioned in numerous sources as the most recent person executed by Belize. If Belize were executing people frequently I would agree with Armbrust (above), but that doesn't seem to be the case nor does it seem likely to become the case. It's been 25 years with no executions there, and lately Belize has been beginning to make some moves towards abolishing capital punishment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Good Ol’factory. Last execution in Belize should be notable--it's a once-in-twenty-five years event Vrivers (talk) 11:01, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Larocque

edit
Johnny Larocque (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 actor/artist with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I couldn't find anything beyond press releases and social media sites. TNXMan 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was still logged in a couple of times when I made an edit, and I did not realize maintenance tags shouldn't be removed (some say DO NOT REMOVE, some don't) I assumed since I added references, it could go. I also didn't realize facebook couldn't be used as a ref, but have since removed it. Apologies. I've been discussing with Cindamuse, why my article is not notable, when this Rob Janoff article is. I would like to fix my article rather than have it deleted. Any help would be greatly appreciated. JohnnyBender (talk) 07:17, 2 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, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LexAble

edit
LexAble (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 am unable to find secondary sources that confer notability for this company. Angryapathy (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The notability of LexAble's work has been recognised by the British Dyslexia Association, in the form of their Young Acheiver's Award, 2010. The British Dyslexia Association is the principal dyslexia charity in the UK, influencing government policy on dyslexia, both nationally and internationally. I've added this as a reference in the LexAble article. Note: I am a director of this company. Neil.cottrell (talk) 16:51, 2 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, 8 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 no consensus. The original nomination's premise was rebutted, and there is no consensus that the article should be deleted. A merge or redirect could be appropriate, but that is a matter left to the normal editting process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ga-ga

edit
Ga-ga (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)

Clear-cut case of WP:MADEUP. –Chase (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems interesting but unless proof from significant sources can be provided about its worthiness of inclusion on Wikipedia it should not remain as a Wikipedia entry.--Brave Dragon 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:02, 2 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, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_8&oldid=1234119430"