Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 25 February 27 February >

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 no consensus. It's between a keep and a merge, but that is an editorial decision and can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Chomp

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

A non notable gesture made by a university sports fans of a particular team. Simple gesture that is not in any way notable, no indications of its notability. Canterbury Tail talk 23:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 100,000 spectators at every game at the Swamp in Gainesville, which has a population of approximately 100,000, say that the "Gator Chomp" is notable. Particularly since the Gators are no strangers to winning. Moreover, a Google search for "Gator Chomp" delivers an incredible number of hits and the expression has been used in articles in numerous newspapers and quoted unceasingly by the media.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Florida Gators. No need for an independent article, but a few, well-sourced lines in the main article would work.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Moreover, it has achieved notability/notoriety by being performed on television on "Dancing with the stars" by Erin Andrews. If there is anybody in the United States, that has attended a football game, that has not heard of the "Gator Chomp" they must have been living a sheltered existence on another planet. And ... look how many hits this article gets on a daily basis http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Gator%20Chomp (that's pretty impressive for any expression or catch-phrase).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, my planet is really nice and I like living here. No need to be rude! --Danger (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with living a sheltered existence on another planet. In fact, it is quite tempting.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk)

I Am Giant

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

Unreleased band. No independent reliable sources, failing the general notability guideline. The deal with Sony, and the touring give some assertion of notablity, but let's not stare too deep into the crystal ball, and possibly recreate if proper sourcing appears Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a combination of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. The band hasn't actually released anything yet, and like Martijn Hoekstra says above there aren't any independent reliable sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - They have received some coverage like this. It's likely they will become notable, so no prejudice to recreation when that happens. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charted (see the NZ section of this ARIA Report, #18 NZ Singles.) Coverage includes a Waikato Times Neon Sunrise/City Limits EP review, 2 September 2010, Mathews, Kevin (4 November 2010), "'We want to meet you!' ; Newbie NZ band I Am Giant eager to perform here", TODAY (Singapore), Anderson, Vicki (21 June 2010), "I AM GIANT THRILL CHRISTCHURCH FANS", The Press (Christchurch), Anderson, Vicki (19 February 2010), "I AM GIANT", The Press (Christchurch), Mcquillan, Laura (20 June 2010), "Woolright back with new band", New Zealand Press Association and rather weak pieces in "I Am Giant return to HCM City", Vietnam News Agency Bulletin, 10 November 2010, Giang, Kieu (28 October 2010), "I Am Giant heats up Hard Rock Caf?", The Saigon Times Daily, "SHELTON'S GIANT STEP", Sunday Star-Times, 7 March 2010. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both a single and an EP have charted in NZ. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE: im a kiwi and i haven't heard of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.70.227 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These guys will be hitting it rather big. Album is due to be released in July. Touring in Big Night Out with the likes of Slash and Stone Temple Pilots. I've been wanting to read about these guys for awhile. Was surprised they didn't have a wiki page. 04 March 2011
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob pascarella

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

SPA contested blpprod- the only two refs are a dead link and a letter to the editor he wrote. Nothing establishes notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bantam Apparel

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

Non notable company, no sources. DimaG (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fūma shuriken

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

Original prod was: "No significant coverage in third-party sources. Article composed of original research from primary and self-published sources, where only fans believe these items in different series are the same thing. Fails WP:N and WP:OR." Except for the "only fans believe" line, I agree with the proposal's rationale. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and some comments:

  1. The article underwent a MASSIVE deletion just before the nomination. Actually MOST of the article was deleted, including all the references (validating all of the more than a dozen examples posted and then pointing out to where get more info, that is besides googling stuff). Not that it matters much, just sayin'.
  2. The argument "only fans believe these items in different series are the same thing" is not true. While there are many English (mis)translations (like the kunai being often translated as "knife" or "throwing knives" and such), or having their own names. Fuma shuriken are actually known as (literally) "fuma/fuhma/fuuma (etc) shuriken" in various forms of entertainment even in the English versions. The whole argument is of a type like "raygun is not a raygun when it's called blaster/phaser/Pew Pew Lightning Stick of Doom and only fans believe these items in different series are the same thing" anyway) - fuma shuriken is an either literal, alternative or at least colloquial name for a fictional type of an oversized shuriken, that's all ("Giant shuriken" is not a name, it's description). Another Japanese writing is "ふうましゅりけん" which was not in the article and is about half as popular as '"風魔手裏剣" according to Google. I wish one would find out the origins of the name and who first used it.
  3. Actually I can say a big problem here is lack of critical reception section in the article (it's very possible the reception exists, but it's just not there) so yeah it lacks in notability. Also considering the subject doesn't have a Japanese Wikipedia article yet, I think the article might be simply merged with the general shuriken entry (a redirect) and/or the TV Tropes article. 212.91.5.20 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into shuriken if sourcing can be provided.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester and its relationship with the River Soar and Grand Union Canal

edit
Leicester and its relationship with the River Soar and Grand Union Canal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources; original research; orphaned for two years; poorly written with many spelling mistakes. We already have articles on both Leicester and the River Soar; no reason for this one. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Refining the scope and inclusion criteria for the list is something that can and should be discussed further on the article's talk page. It seems clear that consensus here favors keeping the article and attempting to fix it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hutus

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

Trivial list of people who happen to be Hutu without any assertion they are notable per their ethnicity. Concerns per WP:BLP have been expressed on Talk page that list could be used to identify targets in future ethnic conflict. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Comment Please, given the very emotional and tragic issues involving this group of people in the recent past, I just want to remind everyone to remain calm and civil in this discussion. Thank you very much.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a really interesting AfD and a discussion that I think needs to be had. I think that, following Wikipedia guidelines, there is a clear case for this list existing. Being Hutu is and has been a determining factor in some people's lives, particularly those involved in the Rwandan genocide, so I think that this is clearly a notable topic. However, the issue raises ethical concerns beyond notability considerations, given the role that ethnic group classification (often by outsiders such as colonial powers) played in the genocide. Participants in this discussion not familiar with what happened in Rwanda might like to take a look at this article. I would be very wary of listing or categorising people as Hutu or Tutsi on Wikipedia myself, especially if there is no evidence that they self-identify as such. Where that leaves this list, I'm not yet sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable ethnic group listing only notable individuals of that group. That membership in this ethnic group (which many of our Wikipedia articles describe as "distinct") is a significant biographical fact about someone is underscored by the civil wars in Rwanda and Burundi that were clearly divided among ethnic lines. So whether we like it or not, being Hutu or Tutsi is an indelible fact of life for many individuals, of which they themselves may be proud, fearful, or neutral, but it clearly has impact and clearly means something for better or worse. Whether we require self-identification for inclusion, at least among the living, is a matter for talk page discussion.

    But there is no consensus-supported requirement that we should only list people by ethnicity who "are notable per their ethnicity", as illustrated by any number of recent AFDs and DRVs that have kept such lists, in fact lists that are even more tenuously related to the subjects than this because they document the descendants of immigrants by that heritage. The standard across the board is instead that lists of people are not just limited to facts for which people are notable, but significant shared biographical facts, such as education, place of origin, or ethnicity.

    Prior to listing this at AFD, the nom blanked most of the entries on the list because they were unsourced. I'm not going to quibble with the removal of the living entries, or the requirement that no living people be added to this list unless they are sourced at the time. Many of these blanked entries were deceased, however, so there is not a compelling reason to remove them rather than tag them with {{fact}}, nor is there a WP:BLP-compelled reason to delete this list as a whole. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As Cordless Larry states, this AfD presents Wikipedia with a difficult question: Should we include a list which appears to meet formal criteria for inclusion (Hutu is a significant self-asserted ethnicity, and as such, a list of notable Hutus would seem to conform to existing policy), but the consequences of compiling such a list could potentially be grieviously harmful, not just for the persons listed, but also for their relatives etc. Wikipedia is not just a minor website blog, but has the potential to have a significant effect in the lives of many people - it seems to me that we need to consider the wider ethical issues, and on that basis, considering the particular circumstances of the case, and without advocating a more general revision of policy, I would therefore suggest that the article should be deleted.AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the list were limited to deceased entries and only living entries who verifiably publicly self-identified as Hutu, would that satisfy your concerns?

      Also, do you have any comment on the possible slippery slope aspects of redacting publicly available information on the basis that someone may use it to target others for harm? This could apply in a number of different subject areas. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • A list limited to the deceased would still have the potential to be harmful to living relatives, so no, this would not satisfy my concerns. As for 'slippery slope' arguments, I have already made clear that I am not advocating a more general revision of policy here. This is an unusual case, and needs to be considered on its own merits, rather on the basis of abstractions about 'different subject areas'. In any case, Wikipedia policy regarding inclusion of information has always been more strict than a simple 'include it if it is publicly available' rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the list were limited to deceased entries and only living entries who verifiably publicly self-identified as Hutu, would that satisfy your concerns?; the list should comply to this anyway, period. Although for the deceased there should be a reasonable source of some decent reliability (not just a claim of no substance, for example). Classification lists like this can be a minefield, and it is often best not to bother. Given the shortness of the list my !vote is to merge into Hutus --Errant (chat!) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "But there is no consensus-supported requirement that we should only list people by ethnicity who "are notable per their ethnicity". WP:OVERCAT says, " "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." WP: Irrelevant Intersections for Lists states: "There must be at least one (though, if it is not a neologism, there should be more than one) article, book, or documentary specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection." This list, which claims to be of "famous Hutu people" is also an intersection. If it is more notable than Famous left-handed people it was up to the article creator to establish the connection between being notable and Hutu identity. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are undoubtably many Hutus who are notable per their ethnicity though, considering the existence of groups like Hutu power and the numerous parties involved in the genocide. I'm not saying this list necessarily should or shouldn't exist, but your point is getting somewhat off topic with all due respect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*note if cited as it presently is and that anyone added must be a notable person then I lean towards keep although personally I have issues with these lists as to should people be included if they are actually a notable rocket scientist first, but if they are clean and tidy they do appear to be useful tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After all the items were blindly deleted, which struck me as a peculiarly pointy thing to do, I started sourcing them. Perfectly easy for the ones I tried. . Given that most of the people have been very prominent and have sources like the BBC, I think the do no harm argument is absurd as applies to most of the list. And I don't think all of them are living, so whatever BLP objections there might be don't apply to them all. . And it is not an intersection, but a first order list. The concept of notability is assumed in all such lists--we never include anyone in a list like this without a Wikipedia article or obvious suitability for one. And the concept of "people" is implied in all lists of people. This is a basic descriptive list, "List of Hutu footballers" would be a second order description, that might or might not be justified. "List of Hutu footballers who played for Greece" would be third order--and that would strike me as overdivision. And finally, to to put it directly, I don't think all aspects of the OVERCAT guideline is supported by consensus, and certainly the essay on the list requirement of a source for a connection is not supported, judging by the results of recent XfDs. The rules were adopted to prevent disputes about ethnic designations, but the net effect has been just the opposite. The present AfD is a good example. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Post's and DGG's thoughtful comments above, which leaves me little else to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added the following statement to the list: "To be included in this list, the person must have a Wikipedia article showing verifiably that they are Hutu." This is similar to what's at List of African-Americans. This way, if a person is Hutu, the person won't go on this list if the editors at that person's Wikipedia article have determined that there is some reason not to describe the person as Hutu in that Wikipedia article. I suspect that there are at least some people whose Wikipedia biographies can very acceptably say that they're Hutu, especially if they died peacefully (and publicly self-identified as Hutu even after the slaughter during the 1990s).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the note is generally a good idea, though I've made some comments on it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've expanded the note and hidden it: "To be included in this list, the person must have a Wikipedia article stating and showing verifiably that they are Hutu. If a Hutu person has a Wikipedia article, the editors of that article may have reached consensus not to state that the person is Hutu, in which case inclusion on this list would be inappropriate. In addition to referencing at the person's Wikipedia article, the referencing needs to be done here as well."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I removed the note, since it does not appear to be grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines for lists.See WP:CLN which says "Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." Having or not having an article is not that important a criterion for list membership, since a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, since many articles are hoaxes or poorly referenced, and since many truly notable subjects just have not had articles written yet. A reliable referenced redlink entry in a list could spur someone to create the related article. Edison (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a reasonably encyclopedic subject of value to our readership. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on condition that the hidden note stays as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question:This language that is "hidden" should have a "visible" counterpart. These are restricting criteria for inclusion. The reader should be apprised of them. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have just inserted a visible counterpart: "according to their Wikipedia biographies".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the details are missing. The reader is perfectly capable of grasping the criteria that went into compiling this list. Additionally, it is questionable that such language should be hidden at all; I think the totality of any such language should be in plain view. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should be apprised of two factors that are restricting inclusion in this list: 1. all individuals on the list must first have articles, 2. within such articles must be found mention that the individual is of Hutu identity. The discussion is found here. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list now does that: "This is a list of famous Hutus who have Wikipedia biographies which include mention of Hutu identity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First order lists of people by ancestry or ethnic group/affiliation are standard fare on Wikipedia. That this list could be used as some sort of hit-list in an ethnic conflict certainly gives one pause, but as long as it follows WP:V, it won't include any information not available elsewhere. Many more articles than this on Wikipedia can be used to ill end in some scenario, but we do not and should not censor them for that reason. gnfnrf (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. At least one editor has described this entity as contributing to a situation "where the danger to individuals is self-evident". Either this is true, or credibly arguable, or it isn't. If it is true, there is no discussion here: the entity has to be deleted, period, and no number of "keep" votes or arguments has any bearing on that whatsoever, and the person closing this discussion should ignore all points except that one. We are not Evilpedia. If it's not true, or not credibly arguable, then it's not important whether you keep the entity or not and the other arguments may be considered. Herostratus (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not true with regard to, for example, a person who publicly self-identified as Hutu even after the slaughter during the 1990s, and subsequently died peacefully. It may be true with regard to other Hutus, and that should be taken up at such a person's BLP. If their BLP doesn't identify them as Hutu, then they won't be listed here (see the hidden note at the top of the article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
indenting my own vote  Chzz  ►  08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Delete Straight-forward WP:NOTDIR. We have categories to handle this. If this article stays, I intend to start my "List of humans".  Chzz  ►  03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. See Lists of people. And WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, wow. I had no idea we had List of English people and the like. Apparently it is a directory! (No sarcasm intended) - I did not know. My argument here is not valid, so I indented and struck it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a directory of its own contents, i.e., indexes of articles. Just not a telephone directory or whatever that might list every person or business that exists regardless of notability. You're not the first person to get confused by WP:NOTDIR. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously it should be restricted to those notable enough to merit Wikipedia articles (regardless of whether the article exists at this point) and not a directory of everyone of that ethnic/tribal group. It is not right to allow lists of notable persons from some racial/ethnic groups but not other less popular groups. It supplements a similar category, by allowing entries which do not yet have articles. It should by no means be restricted to those who are deceased, just those notable individuals who are self-identified in reliable sources as Hutu, even if some might be unhappy with members of a group which engaged in genocide. Inline sourcing should be required. Edison (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the list not-so-subtly hints at the elephant in the room doesn't help (all the refs pertain the the genocide). It seems frankly provocative, given the history behind the two ethnicities. There's a difference between being neutral and not caring as you pave the way for further ethnical division. If you're all going to keep this, at least find other refs.--Obsidi♠nSoul 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: I don't think anyone should be included in this list unless they already have an article on Wikipedia. That should be the vetting process. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is reliable sourcing. If a reliable source, such as a book from a university press or other reliable source, says "Mr. X is a Tutsi or is a Hutu" then verifiability and WP:BLP are satisfied. Countless articles exist which are poorly referenced or unreferenced and which should be deleted. Existence of an article is not determinative of eligibility for list membership; notability and referencing are more important. It is a fantasy that some Tutsi mad at Hutus can't do the same instant Google Book search, or doesn't already know someone's politics/ethnicity. It is like trying to hide what US politicians are/were Christians or Republicans or from Alabama. No ref? Then tag the entry as needing a ref, or remove it. Preferably, you would check Google Books for a ref before removing a name. Edison (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solomon Perel might beg to differ. Anyway, if you can convince the editors at a Hutu's BLP to describe that ethnicity in the Wikipedia article, even without self-identification, then you're welcome to try. And if you succeed, then the person can be listed here in this list of Hutus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue isn't reliable sourcing. The issue is the morality of compiling an ethnically-defined list in the context of a recent genocide, and continuing ethnic tensions, in circumstances where such a list could put people in danger. I find the refusal of contributors to address this issue utterly baffling. Either Wikipedia is some trivial role-playing game, in which case we are all wasting our time here, or it has the potential to effect the outside world, in which case we have a duty to consider the consequences of our actions. If people wish to argue that they cannot see the potential for such harm, they are entitled to do so, but to simply ignore the question and treat this like any normal AfD is frankly appalling AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that Tutsis have NO IDEA who are the Hutus in their country, without looking it up in Wikipedia, and that they could not do the same Google Book search that took me only an instant, to find them listed in history books and books about the conflict?? Edison (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think that we should not be exacerbating ethnic conflicts by labelling people ourselves, and thereby giving credibility to the idea that such labels define people. One would hope that history books, and books about the conflict, would treat the issue with more subtlety than a simple Tutsi/Hutu division, and demonstrate that the reality is more complex - presenting ethnicity as an unquestioned 'fact' is precisely the methodology of those who perpetrated the crimes. I have no wish to be an accomplice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ This.--Obsidi♠nSoul 05:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are absolutely NOT "labelling people ourselves." That would be original research. Any such identification does and must come from reliable sources. Your opinion or original research about the nonexistence of or complexity of Tutsi/Hutu identity does not trump reliable sources such as scholarly books published by university presses which say "X, a Tutsi, was the Prime Minister." Such sources are very easy to find in history books about the regional conflict, as surely as "Jefferson Davis was a Confederate" in relation to the American Civil War, or "Michael Noble (Roundhead) was a Roundhead in relation to the English Civil War. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
CommentWhat do you mean by "^ This.--?" Edison (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Means I agreed with AndyTheGrump.--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what he was saying anyway. Everyone seems to happily ignore the reality of the genocide just because the article fits neatly within the rules. The list all but blames Hutus for the genocide all over again. How exactly is that a minor matter to be smoothed over by wikilawyering? Take a look at the list again and tell me that isn't the first impression you get. Three people. All of them connected to the genocide.--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok since it's been pointed out to me that we apparently *should* ignore the elephant in the room. I'll contest the Keep then on grounds of NPOV. The composition of the list and the references all imply blaming. Again, if the list seriously has no underlying agenda, why is it only composed of three people with sources all directly related to the genocide?--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously changed since you last looked at it, so your comment/question is moot. But the reason why it looked like that before is because the nom blanked all of the unsourced entries, living and deceased. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Also note that if Off2riorob sees a way that this is not a BLP issue, it almost certainly is not. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking through search results, it seems like the majority of Hutus who have Wikipedia articles were accused of being complicit in the slaughter of Tutsis. So, the non-involved Hutus are going to end up here in a list that predominantly includes accused or convicted war criminals. Is that fair to the non-involved Hutus?

    If this list is kept, it might be a good idea to split up the list into people who were convicted of war crimes, and other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong on this, but IMHO I think the suggestion is more a question for the talkpage and/or the wikiproject than one for this AfD discussion. Thanks, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a talk page concern primarily, but it's also a bad idea. It will just somewhat arbitrarily divide the list based on something other than the source of the subject's notability in many instances, and if the line of demarcation is to be war crimes convictions, that also would not even be a good proxy for involvement in the genocide for those who died before they could face trial or have otherwise evaded it. Pasteur Bizimungu, for example, was president of Rwanda, and so would have merited an article for that alone, completely apart from whatever role he played in the genocide. Léon Mugesera is apparently notable only for an anti-Tutsi speech for which he was charged with inciting hatred, and for his consequential deportation from Canada, but he has yet to face trial or conviction for anything. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All interesting points but Epeefleche is right that this belongs on the article's talk page. I'm probably often guilty of making this mistake as well, but I suggest that any more comments on this are made at Talk:List of Hutus. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to delete this list than allow several famous non-criminals to be listed in a list that's mostly going to be a list of convicted criminals. I !voted above to keep, but this aspect of the situation was not discussed. I stick by my keep !vote, but it seems that people at this deletion discussion should be aware of this guilt-by-association issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be giving in to guilt-by-association? "Sorry, we can't acknowledge that anyone is Hutu, because so many of them were bad people." postdlf (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the solution is to have a separate section for the people convicted of genocide. It's being discussed at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to it being mainly criminals is an effort to include more articles about notable people who are not. For all of Africa our coverage is disgracefully weak. To a considerable extent it currently reflecta what is reported in mainstream English language news sources, but that is true for all of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Wikipedia is not a list (WP:NOT). Make it an article or delete it.

KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon—are you saying that all lists on Wikipedia should be deleted? Or just certain ones? And if only certain lists—how would you make the distinction between those for which deletion would be appropriate and those for which deletion would not be appropriate? Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - moving to delete, I attempted to edit the article and immediately encountered resistance, after this and the realization that hutu and tutu is not a clear issue and the resistance I encountered when attempting to seperate the convicted genocide subjects from uninvolved subjects, I don't think we can maintain this article n line with wikipedia policies. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An interesting case. If this were deleted on safety concerns, how would we then address the existence of Category:Hutu people ? Tarc (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed all articles from Category:Hutu people and Category:Tutsi people that didn't include sources for the ethnicity of the subject. It's rather worrying that this hadn't been done before but WP:EGRS seems to be rather laxly enforced (perhaps unsurprisingly given the number of categories it applies to). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Good point - logically that would have to be deleted too. Actually, a category is even less tenable than a list, which at least in theory could be properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and lists can also be annotated if there is need for clarity to explain inclusion or to note disagreement among sources. The ability of lists to handle this possibly contentious information, and the systematic limitations of categories to do so, was the original principle behind WP:BLPCAT: categories are blunter tools and so should be used more sparingly when it comes to facts about people that are less than concrete, in favor of lists. And then somehow recently this was diluted, and the equivalent of "and oh yeah, lists too" was added without any real rationale and without a clear sense of consequence. There have been numerous AFDs recently trying to get rid of ethnicity lists, most of which haven't been successful, some of which were successful but overturned at DRV, and most of which have shown a consensus against the supposed policy of BLPCAT as applied to lists. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I for one am not advocating any change of general policy here. As I've said, I don't think the list contravenes policy as it stands at present (or at least, it wouldn't if it was properly sourced, which it wasn't before the issue was raised). I think there are special circumstances that mean that we need to consider whether the real risks to individuals involved preclude it, even when general policy doesn't. This is essentially an editorial decision, and needs to be considered as such. We have a moral responsibility in cases like this to consider whether abstract 'encyclopaedic' considerations should be outweighed by ethical ones - as I think they should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not here to make ethical decisions based on saving the world or silly things like that. Making a list of a specific type of people is clearly within our jurisdiction, as we have other lists of the same exact type. Is putting living people on this list dangerous to their well-being? No, as their articles clearly state their ethnic relations. If you're going to make an argument of safety based on not revealing their ethnic relations, then you'd first have to remove said relations from the individual articles, which is something I doubt consensus will find in favor of. Lastly, Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and we cannot censor or remove information based on protection of said person when it is information that is publically available from a simple Google search. That's why were are reporters of outside, reliable information. We don't pick and choose what type of information to present. That's called bias. SilverserenC 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is 'within our jurisdiction'. We aren't a court of law. Now perhaps you should explain why you think 'ethical decisions' should not be made here - Wikipedia does this all the time, in regard to all sorts of issues. And yes, we do 'pick and choose' what we include. This is the normal editorial process. Frankly, if someone doesn't consider ethics of significance in their actions on Wikipedia, I doubt that he or she should be involved at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(At the present time 4 out of 14, or 29%, of the names are in the section titled "People convicted in connection with genocide".) Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. But if we actually made a substantial effort to add everyone verifiable and notable as a Hutu, this number would likely drastically change. And quite a few of those on this list who weren't necessarily convicted were certainly notable for being involved with it in one way or another, the most obvious probably being Juvénal Habyarimana.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daliel's Bookstore

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

Smells like WP:PROMO by Daliel (talk · contribs). bender235 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ingleses do Rio Vermelho

edit
Ingleses do Rio Vermelho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 author requested deletion JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal Field Theory

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

Original research with respect to the mentioned work of László Hajdú (the apparent author of this article), and lacking secondary sources and non-notability with respect to the work of Jan Rayski. -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia is the place to publish new research in the field. By far and large, it's actually quite the opposite, see Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note that this discussion isn't concerned with whether your work is good/bad science, so if it's deleted, don't think it's a rejection of your work. It might very well be true that RFT is the only theory uniting interactions, or maybe it's not, but will serve as a stepping stone to other advances in sciences. Maybe it's just something that no one will notice or bother with, or maybe it's just dead wrong. But the place for this debate is within physics journals, rather than on Wikipedia. When RFT is subject to an independant review article in a top journal, then it will be ready for Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Stephen (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gudgeon

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a purported published work by the article subject:

Mingling Among the Mongols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No indication Christopher Gudgeon exists as described in the article. A search of the name turns up many Wikipedia mirrors, official and unofficial, reposting the article but no reliable sources. The article content had grown to be increasingly more far-fetched by various anonymous editors, but has later been trimmed back to less outrageous content. Possibly of note, the creator of the article has one other visible edit on Wikipedia, an obvious hoax posted to their user page.

The book “Modern Life in Ancient Rome” that is “renowned in scholarly circles” cannot be found as an actual listing. The first two reference links in the article are either bogus or outdated; they do not list the person, and have not listed him for the more than a year that these articles have been on my watchlist. The third reference link is the same as first reference used in his travel memoir “Mingling Among the Mongols”, addressed below.

Mingling Among the Mongols is not found in any reliable online book archive or search engine that I could locate. Of the two references in the article, the first link is 404’ed and the second is not specific to, and does not mention, the book or author. Checking the 404 link with the Internet Archive displays a page which does not reference the content or book as used in the article. Also, the misspelled title and design of the book cover image is somewhat suspect.

I’ve had these two articles on my watchlist as a low-level probable hoax for a long time, but regardless of their subject’s existence, the articles fail the core policy of verifiability and should be deleted unless reliable sources are found to support the content and claims. Michael Devore (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, fails WP:N. BigDom talk 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PacMania III

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

Non-notable unofficial game. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Alagappa College of Technology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemfluence

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

The subject of the article is a student festival that does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It has been covered more than once by a reliable source, but these articles are almost entirely in the region of press releases.

The article is a contested prod, and has already been deleted two years ago for the same non-notability issue. There is currently a merge proposal which is being opposed by the creator and various contributors, who are yet unfamiliar with wikipedia policy. As such, the page only stands for the promotion of the said event. Amog | Talk • contribs 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A two or three line mention in the college article is enough. There are more than a dozen departments in this college and everyone has an annual technical symposium/function.(i am an alumnus of the educational institution in question) And most of the functions dont get any sort of coverage at all. Right now there is one article in The Hindu that can be considered as indepth coverage. The rest all are event listings and trivial mentions. Thus it doesn't meet our WP:GNG criteria. A merge discussion was initiated, but has been swamped by students riled up about their department function article getting deleted. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I request the user User:Sodabottle to explain about "Indepth Coverage", which he/she mentioned. Another user has already discussed about the coverage of chemfluence during inaugration by The Hindu,The same print company has also covered its valedictory function.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/01/stories/2007030108160400.htm

  • (It is not necessary that alumnus of the institution will be knowing about the happenings in another constituent college of the same institution). I request the users who nominated this page for deletion to also consider wikipedia's fundamental principle Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I would also like to clarify the point that this article is not meant to promote the event mentioned in it. All organizations in Anna University are non-profitable and the organizers gain nothing out of promoting or conducting such activities.
Dear Anon, I am assuming good faith and i know what exactly your position is - being an organiser of a similar one in the not too distant past. Promoting something doesn't mean it is always done with a profit motive. Wanting the departmental function you are involved in to have a wikipedia article is also a sort of promotion. "Significant indepth coverage" in media for such events means detailed reporting about the event in question. The three links from the The Hindu are coverage of the inaugural function - reprints of press releases, which the press coordinator in question would be handing out. They are a good start but IMO still not enough for a separate article. (remember this is nothing personal and just my opinion about chemfluence's notability. If other wikipedian believe otherwise and they will say so. If the arguments for inclusion have more merit than the arguments for deletion, this article will be kept)--Sodabottle (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't DeleteWe would like to bring to notice that there have been 3 'valid' links conforming with the 'notability' standards of Wikipedia on Chemfluence in The Hindu

They are i)http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/19/stories/2007021915710200.htm

ii)http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/21/stories/2008022155140500.htm

iii)http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/01/stories/2007030108160400.htm Given below are a list of technical festivals of colleges in India that have a Wiki page description. THe number after hyphen denotes the number of valid links cited. Other details regarding the page are also mentioned.

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (December 2010)

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (November 2009).

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (May 2009)

  • Techniche (IIT-D)-0 This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (April 2010)
  • Cognizance (IIT Roorkee) (IIT-Roorkee)-0

This article has multiple issues (Pl visit the page to know more).

Hence, we believe that with 3 valid links, Chemfluence conforms with the standards of Wiki. Also the other articles have not recieved speedy deletion or a second nomination. Articles 6-12 in the above list are similar to Chemfluence in terms of notability. Therefore we earnestly believe Chemfluence befits Wiki guidelines

Comment: I have initiated deletion proceedings against the non-notable articles you have mentioned - Amog | Talk • contribs 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alagappa College of Technology. If this article is kept, then it will be longer than the College article itself! Anyway, that's not the reason I'm citing. The reason why I say Merge is that the festival has some sources, but only one mentions the fest in detail, while the other two just mention it in passing. It cannot be compared to other articles of the same nature. If it is believed that some of the other fests are non notable, then let the issue be raised there. IMO, only FAs or GAs should be seen as a standard of comparison. Besides, most of the article contains info about the events, etc. Wikipedia is not a directory, as mentioned in WP:NOT. TheMike •Leave me a message! 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following link is the article on Chemfluence in the tamil daily Dina Thanthi on 28/02/2011 (dd/mm/yyyy)

http://www.dailythanthi.com/thanthiepaper/firstpage.aspx?keys=13 [Page 17 of the Main City Edition] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandhiaravind (talk • contribs) 02:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Children Of Nox

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

non notable series, no reference found Melaen (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-published and definitely not notable. Deb (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chicago mayoral election, 2011. Tone 13:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Van Pelt Watkins

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate who hasn't held office, doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrizam Mohamed

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE with no reliable secondary sources findable to backup any assertions in the article. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for the reference Phil Bridger. Always better to keep where we can then delete! Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Aitai

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

I think this biography is not encyclopedic Melaen (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found she's mentioned in International_Linguistics_Olympiad, but I think it isn't enough notable for wikipedia. --Melaen (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Coombs

edit
Kurtis Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. He ran for Mayor of Paradise unsuccessfully and the unorthodox section of Mayor after the recount led him to get some national media attention. He entered the race for PC Nomination in Topsail less than one day before the vote. Other than these two event within less than a month of each other he hasn't done anything notable. Aaaccc (talk), 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know why this page was ever created. As well in this page's discussion board I brought up the point of who should have articles and I'm looking for feedback. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that we don't really need this; it's giving undue weight to one event which really doesn't need anything more than the short section that's already present in Paradise, Newfoundland and Labrador. When you get right down to it, even if a politician garners a quick flurry of media coverage over the circumstances of an election, and even if that coverage feeds on itself because the situation lends itself so readily to bad Paradise Lost puns, the politician still has to actually achieve something to have any sort of enduring notability that lasts longer than 15 minutes. Paradise ain't that big a town, so he likely wouldn't even qualify for an article if he'd won the mayoralty; Ralph Wiseman doesn't even have an article, and Coombs is hardly more notable for losing the election, regardless of the circumstances, than Wiseman is for winning it. Bearcat (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshrot

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

This one is a bit tricky. I just don't see how it passes notability guidelines. Most of the links in the main body paragraph are actually external links. Don't know if there was a conflict of interest with this page either, but it looks like a possibility. The label is not notable, none of the releases turn up many hits, and they have not done any major tours. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This one's a "hat trick". Delete per consensus, per CSD G11, and per CSD G12 as part of this article is a copyvio from this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Cyber Alert

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

No evidence found (in this article or through search) to support this software product's notability. References and links given in the article are all either: developer's own site; CNET or Amazon download links; press releases; or sites which make no mention of the product. Does not appear to have attracted any significant coverage at all. Katherine (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Erotic spanking. Tone 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking positions

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

This is effectivelly a how-to guide with no reliable sources to verify the material or establish notability. Only one section has any kind of source at all, and this is self-published sex guide printed by lulu.com. It seems unlikely there are sufficient reliable, published sources on the topic of spanking positions to justify an article on it. Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal Shabet

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

No references and not notable Japanese knotweed (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content
Dal Shabet
File:Dal Shabet in Vogue girl *.bmp
Background information
OriginSeoul, South Korea
GenresPop, dance-pop
Years active2011–present
Labels Happy Face Entertainment
MembersVicky, Serri, Ah Young, Jiyul, Gaeun, Subin
WebsiteShabet.com Official website

Dal Shabet (Korean:달샤벳) is a South Korean girl group created by E-Tribe through their label Happy Face Entertainment.

The six members of the group are: Vicky (or Kang Eun Hye, born 1988), Serri (or Park Mi Yeon, born 1990), Ah Young (born 1991), Jiyul (born 1991), Gaeun (born 1992) and Subin (born 1994).

Dal Shabet made their official debut in early January 2011.[citation needed] Their debut music video released on 3rd January 2011.[citation needed]

On January 30, 2011, Dal Shabet was on the Take 7 for the first time on Inkigayo Take 7 with "Supa Dupa Diva."[citation needed] The following day, the group was on the top 10 k-chart on KBS Music Bank.[citation needed]

  • No references is not a reason to delete an article, the questions we should ask is can we reference it, and is it notable? I've added one reference, and others seem to be available. I will leave it to others to discuss how successful a pop group needs to be to be notable and whether these young ladies meet that criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When evaluating consensus in a debate like this greater weight is given to arguments which are based on Wikipedias content policies. As in most deletion debates, the core issue is if reliable sources have discussed the topic to an extant that an article can be created without relying on original research. The consensus here, with policy based arguments given appropriate weight, is that this topic does not meet that standard. However, I wouldn't consider this a clear mandate that this content is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and it may be possible to create a broader article or list relating to puzzles in the media. If anyone would like to undertake that task I would be happy to userfy a copy of this for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring crossword puzzles

edit
List of films featuring crossword puzzles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Title says it all. WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information. If this isn't a case of such an indiscriminate list, what is? Also attracting WP:NFC violations, as the creator is apparently trying to illustrate every entry in the list with a non-free screenshot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jahorwitz (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Jahorwitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • keep The goal of Wikipedia is to collect information, not to bow to those who would like there to be nothing here at all. This article is new, contains useful information and should be given a chance to grow. There are literally tens of thousands of articles similar to this on Wikipedia and I find it very sad that there are so many deletionists on Wikipedia (I don't know that any commenters are deletionists-- I just hate the attitude of delete-by-default). I've previously suggested that perhaps a broader name might be appropriate (e.g., Crosswords in the media). I'm not sure if I think that's a good idea or not at this time. For those people who would argue against this page, I would particularly like to know how you can justify any one of the pages listed by jahorwitz if you think this page should be deleted. Is Unsimulated sex in film ok just because it's more titillating? It's certainly no more notable. What about List of post-1960s films in black-and-white? My goodness, how is that better than List of post-2010 films in 2D? List of live-action puppet films and List of stop-motion films have existed for 4 and 5 years, respectively, and I consider them to be far more trivial than this page, which gets at the interesection between two completely unrelated art forms. List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" has existed for 7 years with well over 1500 edits and if you want to talk about an indiscriminate list, that one tops this one any day. But I won't suggest it should be deleted because I think Wikipedia is better with this information. Can anybody produce an argument as to why this page should be deleted that can explain why List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" should continue to exist? And, no, the fact that it's been around for 7 years is irrelevant. I fully expect the deletionists to win because generally they have 100x the time on their hands than people like I do, but it really does hurt Wikipedia. I also cite WP:DEMOLISH, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:DEADLINE, AND WP:CHANCE RoyLeban (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. We can come up with a multitude of topics, especially loosely associating elements into truly indiscriminate territory. You propose a prose article, and I would be for that, but I am not seeing any coverage about crossword puzzles being featured in films. Topics like unsimulated sex and post-1960s B&W films have been discussed significantly, so lists of these kinds of films may be pertinent. Here, we do not have any indication that this kind of list is meaningful. This topic is not in the truly superficial territory (such as list of films featuring use of pencils), but we should be able to verify this kind of topic to determine if it is meaningful. Films that feature drugs, ghosts, or May-November romances will have coverage. This topic could qualify more than use of pencils, but there's nothing out there to indicate the contextual relationship that would warrant this list. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I'd like to see a list of films featuring acrostic puzzles as well. – Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep? Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reasoning posted by RoyLeban, Gnat, and Myles, among others. – Athaenara ✉ 02:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crossword puzzles differ from "dark blue coffee mugs" in that every puzzle is different and they (the good ones anyway) are created by people who consider it an art. I would like to see this page evolve into a discussion of puzzles in films, not simply a list.----Angela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.130.26 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — 173.79.130.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Such an expansion would only be possible if it could be sourced. So far, all of the list is sourced merely to the movies themselves, or accounts that mention the crossword puzzle merely in passing while recounting a plot. The author has also apparently been trying to trace the newspapers shown in the films to real-world issues of newspapers featuring those specific crosswords, and is citing the newspaper issues. While this is faintly amusing, it is obviously "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with many of the points above. Crossword puzzles are unique creations, like movies, no two are alike. The intersection of the two is quite intriguing, especially as they find their way increasingly more central to plots. In addition, while the 'delete' voters above may consider them less notable than Godzilla or gay bathhouses, I'm not sure that the multitude of Crossword solvers would agree. --Gnat (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a regular crossword puzzle solver, I can say that it's not a question of whether crosswords are more or less notable than Godzilla or gay bathhouses. It's a matter of whether a crossword merely appearing in a film is significant or notable enough to bother listing such appearances together. The Godzilla list is easy because it's a major character, and characters are a rather substantive part of films. I'm not going to defend the gay bathhouse list beyond saying that depicting one necessarily involves a bit more investment of a film's time and narrative, while a crossword puzzle may be nothing more than a prop in a single scene that may or may not even get referred to in the dialogue. I don't think it's a stretch to say that settings > props in most circumstances. But again, these are apples and oranges, and this list needs to stand on its own two feet. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely. Please don't delete these lists just because a few people of apparently limited imagination find them "inconsequential." As a professional writer who has used Wikipedia lists so many times in recent years, I can tell you that lists, even of oddball and seemingly trivial topics, can be pure gold to writers and researchers. There are puzzle historians, screenwriters, editors and others who could use this particular list to good advantage. I've been paid for articles that would not have been written had I not found wonderful material on lists such as these. I can understand that their value is poorly understood by bean counters and literalists, but the lists are unheralded gems; you never know who's goind to find something useful in any given compilation. That even a few people found it worthwhile to contribute to this one means there's interest in this material. In Wikipedia you can also find "Lists of songs featuring Andalusian cadences," " Lists of songs about recovering or former alcoholics," and "Lists of songs by reality television contestants." I suppose those would all sound laughable and dumb to the anal deletionists, but I would vote to keep all of them in. They're what make Wikipedia ten thousand times richer and more useful than any print encyclopedia. Myles (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate. Listing any film that merely "features" a crossword puzzle is complete trivia, as the inclusion threshold is too low (or absent entirely) for it to be meaningful information, either about the films or about crosswords. It's too easy for it to be just a prop, incidental to or even in the background of a scene, just to give a character something to do when they're waiting, drinking the morning coffee, or to show that they are urbane. I don't see any reasons to keep above that aren't textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "arguments". It's possible that this could be salvaged if it were refactored into List of films about crossword puzzles, but I don't see any more than two on the list that might qualify, one of which is a documentary that is already in the "see also" section of crossword. If it can be shown there are more, then maybe. postdlf (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with RoyLeban's comment, above. -QuipRosen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiprosen (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Quiprosen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I agree that listing all movies with a crossword is not necessary, but a movie which includes a crossword as more than just a prop is absolutely notable. As the post below quoting all the lists of movies indicates, there are several pages already similar to this one. Deleting this would be complete hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.65.47 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — 99.90.65.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate/trivial/unencyclopedic cross-categorization per postdlf. If it were films about crossword puzzles, then a list might be warranted, but "featuring" is just indiscriminate as a criterion, as crossword puzzles are usually just props/trivial elements of a movie, and not notable features, unlike most examples given per Jahorwitz's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe crosswords found in media other than print would be categorically interesting, but it should be relocated under the general heading for crossword puzzles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.104.190.56 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — 98.104.190.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate. Having a crossword puzzle featured in a film is not a notable topic. You are not going to find topics on the subject and as such fails WP:SALAT as too narrow. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia articles are not... lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". While the article title talks about films that "feature" crossword puzzles, the vast majority of the films on the list do not feature them (except for Wordplay, which is pretty much about them). The puzzles are elements in these films, certainly, but they do not drive the film at all. Thus, the topics are only "loosely associated". I researched for any significance of crossword puzzles used in films, but there is nothing. The relationship between the two is entirely superficial. The most relevant topic I found is puzzle film, which would be a better topic to create and cover on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films featuring crossword puzzles very often have nothing to do with crossword puzzles in its plot, theme or motifs. More often than not, it is merely a prop that carries no significance at all. Amusing as it may seem, it is not worth a list of its own on Wikipedia. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary Comment To me this is the deciding factor: It seems to me that people interested in the topic of crossword puzzles think this page should be kept. People who are not interested in crossword puzzles think this page should be deleted. Your personal interest should have no bearing on whether or not information is on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia were restricted to stuff that I personally was interested in, 99% of the content would be deleted, including 21 of the 24 similar pages listed above. I am well aware that we don't keep things on Wikipedia because other stuff exists, but it doesn't seem that anyone can make an argument for keeping those other pages which doesn't also apply here, or make an argument for deleting this page which does not also apply to all those other pages. If we delete this page, why are we keeping them? Just because they're older? For example, look at List of films featuring extraterrestrials - it's even more indiscriminate, with no information at all about the movies, yet it's been on Wikipedia for 5 years. RoyLeban (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're certainly right in saying that it is not about personal interest. However, the reason I, and quite a few others voted Delete, was not because of personal interest but rather because this particular subject has apparently not generated any significant coverage. I think that Erik's comment above sums it up nicely. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do crossword puzzles every day, yet think this list should be deleted. It's not about liking or not liking crosswords. As for why other lists are bad comparisons, see my reply to Gnat above. If we had a List of films featuring word jumbles survive an AFD, however, you might have a point, but otherwise, there's simply no comparison. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like this list, but it has no business being on Wikipedia. Crossword puzzles in films is too narrow of a topic to merit enough discussion and sources for a worthwhile list. Tavix |  Talk  01:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So it's pretty clear nobody's interested in actually addressing an important issue I raised. How can you argue against this page and for a page like List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" or List of films with overtures or List of tsunami films or List of films featuring extraterrestrials or most of the rest? I do not see a single argument that has been made that could not be equally well applied to most of those other pages. Is everyone voting delete ready to vote delete on those pages too? And, either way, does anybody have an objection to including all those pages, plus maybe a hundred others, in this same discussion so there can be a real discussion about this topic? If we must protect Wikipedia at all costs from the oh-so-dangerous list of movies with crosswords, it seems we should have thousands of people weighing in, not tens. RoyLeban (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are wrong if you claim that nobody has addressed the differences between the present case and (some of) the others. Read the arguments again: they were mostly about whether or not the feature in question was likely to be a central, crucial element of the work. (Crosswords hardly ever are; extraterrestials and tsunamis almost always are.) I'm not saying that problems similar to those in the present case might not also apply in some other articles that are still around, but here's the second important point you need to accept: it is general practice on AFD discussions that these kinds of comparisons should simply be ignored, because it would otherwise lead to intractable debates spinning out of control, blocking decision making on each local case. That's what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about. We are here only to decide about the present article, in relation to general policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's wrong with that debate? I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Usually it's used as an excuse to remove something which is just like lots of other things. The four I just cited are completely indiscriminate. The List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" is particularly egregious since it's filled with original research. Why is there no page for List of films that most frequently use the word "shit"? The way to build a great encyclopedia is to figure out how content fits, not jump to delete first. RoyLeban (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you honestly believe another list fails to meet inclusion criteria, then nominate it for deletion. If you think another list could be made, then make it. But unless you can point to one substantially similar to this (not just another list of [SOMETHING] in films, but something akin to crossword puzzles) the comparisons don't help this discussion at all, and you haven't said a single thing that actually supports this list. If no other film lists had yet been created, what would you say here about why this one should be kept rather than deleted, based on accepted community standards? postdlf (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I honestly believe that multiple other lists cited above are significantly less appropriate for Wikipedia than this list. However, I also believe that the the notability test is fairly bogus and that many other rules are applied arbitrarily as a way to exclude content that people are not personally interested in, yet there's endless detail on "popular" topics like sports. I think there is much valuable information that is not on Wikipedia because people reject it arbitrarily. While this comment may not apply to anybody in this discussion, I often see a "delete first, ask questions later" mentality. I frequently go to Wikipedia expecting to find information and it's not there. I've found pages that were deleted as not notable when it was something I wanted information about! I could find the AfD but not the content as it had been lost to the sands of time. So, no, I'm not interested in movies with cursing (not even movies about cursing!), I think it's a waste of time, and I think it's way less interesting and notable than this topic, but obviously somebody thinks it's interesting, so I'm not going to nominate it for deletion. And, to pick another one at random, at one point, almost every movie had an overture. In the silent days, the piano player played music before the movie started. So how can you justify that one? But, clearly, somebody's interested, so I'm nominating that one either. I know this topic is interesting. I know that, in the crossword constructor community, this topic has come up many, many times over the years. Yes, it's a small community, but I bet it's bigger than the tsunami buff community. And Wikipedia is the perfect spot to collect this information. RoyLeban (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate. Only a very small number of these films appear to even have crosswords as central points; most probably use them for effect or as a prop. (Many of the items on the list do not really have adequate sourcing to tell.) I agree with Erik and Jay, above. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment how do you decide what counts as featuring a crossword. If it is a significant part of the plot it makes sense but if you mean that the crossword is referred to, or worse still shown as on the paper. May be a more general starting point is needed such as games and puzzles in films with strict criteria.Tetron76 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a trivial intersection, though the list needs a LOT of work. Specifically dropping down to those movies where crossword puzzles play a major role and and 1-3 sentence description of how the movie features crosswords. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • PROPOSAL: Ignoring the lengthy discussions, it seems that there are a fair number of people on both sides, close to evenly split (I have not counted). As I've said, I think this topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Some delete votes seem concerned about the topic but more seem to be concerned about the list itself. I would prefer that this list be allowed to grow and flourish, but I recognize that the deletionists usually seem to win (they seem to have more time on their hands and I've already used more time on this than I have available). Therefore, I propose the following:
    • Rename the page Puzzles in popular media and give it a chance, per Wikipedia policy
    • Organize the page by media type, then puzzle types, so there would be a major category for Films and, if necessary, a minor category for crosswords.
    • Clearly, WordPlay and All About Steve belong in the Films section. I have not given thought to which other films might belong there.
    • Crosswords have played significant roles in a number of TV shows, though the only one I can think of off the top of my head is a Simpsons episode.
    • There are plenty of puzzle-related novels which could be discussed in the Books section. There are perhaps half a dozen current authors producing such books.
    • Move the remainder of the list to the Talk page for now to see if it can be made more encyclopedic or if another home could be found for it (for example, perhaps xwordinfo, which could then be referenced).
    • Add links to the page from Puzzle, Crossword, etc. so it is more likely to be found and added to.
RoyLeban (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Data Method

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

Non-notable term. Among the external links the only published source is this book, which doesn't establish notability on its own. Created by ScottWAmbler (talk), the same name as the author of the book. "Agile Data" is a vague, umbrella term, and I couldn't find any obvious references to establish notability. Pnm (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A cursory review of the article reveals virtually zero information that would be useful in a merge, a redirect is likely not useful because the title is not plausible as a search term, and the consensus below is clearly that the Transformers Animated version of Bumblebee does not require his own article. lifebaka++ 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblebee (Transformers Animated)

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

I decided that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion because myself and User talk:Mathewignash have debated adnauseum the notability of such articles to a standstill. But there is a lack of sufficient third person sources to justify a spin off Bumblebee article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Although editors should be aware of Wikipedia's systemic bias against Transformers, this particular article should be deleted. There is no evidence of independent notability for this version of the character, and the majority of the article is composed of un-encyclopaedic levels of detail. (It would rarely be appropriate to detail the plot of every episode a character has appeared in, or exhaustively list all of their appearances, and certainly not for a character sub-version with so minor an impact on the public consciousness.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, if someone wants to keep it it should be on wikis related to transformers, Sadads (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Speedy Close - This nomination was done in bad faith in order for the nominator to bypass normal channels and get his way with a merger proposal. The nominator of this article already has a proposed merger of this article goingand now he attempts to propose a deletion in order to FORCE the outcome in his merger. He did not propose this deletion because he legitimately wants the article deleted, but to get his way. If he wants more opinions for the proposed merger, then he should ask for those and get it through properly. Mathewignash (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one made the assetion that the article was unencyclopedic. The article was nominated because the nominator claimed it lacked sufficient reliable third party sources to stand alone, but since he seems to WANT a merger, then he didn't nominate FOR DELETION in good faith. If you want an article merged, you propose a MERGER not a DELETION.Mathewignash (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't want the article merged. I don't think it contains any encyclopaedic content; it's entirely made up of trivia or inappropriately fine detail, and doesn't cover a notable incarnation of the character. If you're worried about the bad faith of the nominator, save us all the trouble of a procedural close and immediate renomination by pretending I'm the nominator, and deal with my arguments. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Doctor Who is much of an example to be citing when it comes to arguing about the excesses of Transformers articles on Wikipedia. There are seperate articles for the doctor, his vehicles, his sonic screwdriver, and every episode and book in the series. If we used it as an example we would need an article about Bumblebee's laser pistol and his helicopter backpack, as well as one for every episode of the Transformers TV series and one for every Transformers book. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Az Zawiyah

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

There was some fighting around the city, but no google news sources use the term "Battle of Az Zawiyah". There wasn't a notable "battle" there. In fact, none of the five sources given in the article mention Az Zawiyah. Maybe sources will cover the fighting here in more detail when more information becomes available, but right now this is jumping the gun. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep, or possibly merge into the main 2011 Libyan uprising article. -- 92.4.54.146 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I should add it should be renamed ""to Battle of az-Zawiya" for MoS purposes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is effectively a non-delete closure. Time will show whether the event merits a separate article and/or whether it should be renamed or merged. Tone 13:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Misurata

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

Sure there was some fighting around the city, specifically at the airport, but no google news sources use the term "Battle of Misurata" or "Battle for Misurata". In fact, only one of the four sources given in the article mention Misurata. Anything here belongs in 2011 Libyan uprising or Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep, or possibly merge into the main 2011 Libyan uprising article. -- 92.4.54.146 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Just rename it to the Skirmish of Misurata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowik (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Samurai Jack. Tone 13:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samurai Jack characters

edit
List of Samurai Jack characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also is a duplicate of a section of Samurai Jack. —teb728 t c 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Chartered Liverpool player of the month

edit
Standard Chartered Liverpool player of the month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N. This is a newly-established internal award of Liverpool FC which has had little or no external coverage. Player of the month or year awards for a whole league or country receive wide coverage, not for individual clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appirio

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

Article was created by employee of article subject, which is not allowed by WP policies. See WP:SOAPBOX WP:COI Phearson (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination rationale is incorrect; COI editing is discouraged, but most definitely not against policy. The majority of the article is neutral and merely factual, and anything else ("Appirio has helped over 180 leading enterprises" is about as bad as it gets) can be cleaned up. I am finding independent references to the company (eg ZDnet [9] and InfoWorld [10]) to indicate notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a particularly tough stance regarding editors editing on behalf of their employers. See WP:PEW. The editor in question cannot possibly be impartial when creating this article. For example, I recently called out AkankshaG for creating puff articles for Ciplex (See AfD) and Vector Marketing, and the articles were deleted and/or reverted with some prolific meat-puppeting in unrelated articles. Now, I'm not opposed to having the article included into Wikipedia, provided that it is cleaned up and edited by editors not associated with the company. Being that I am not particularly familiar with this company, and not knowing other editors with knowledge of the subject, I opted for deletion. I was also hoping people would take notice and edit, before the general public reads the article. Phearson (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – First of all, I applaud your stance on WP:PEW; however, I don't necessarily see this as an example. Assumming good faith, I see this as an attempt by Spartovi to add an article about the company he/she works at. Alright, call me simple, but I have no proof of anything else. As you are aware, the standard for inclusion into Wikipedia notability based on reliable sources. Not if the article was created by a WP:COI. I removed CSD you originally placed on the article since the reasoning was invalid for a CSD. I also see your reasoning for opening a AfD as invalid. The article appears to have valid reliable sources that support notability. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with ttonyb. Yes, if an article was created by a WP:COI, then it should have all the biased and promotional content removed, but that, in itself, does not necessarily justify deletion. It does, in this case, pass WP:ORG with significant enough coverage by reliable, secondary sources. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ttonyb1 makes it quite obvious that this article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realize I am sailing against the stream here, but the conflict of interest is pretty obvious in the prose, which makes this unambiguous advertising: a Cloud Computing company that offers technology and professional services to help enterprise companies accelerate their adoption of public cloud applications and platforms. Moreover, assuming the references found by User:Ttonyb1 are the best there are, one is based on an announcement of survey results about "cloud computing"[11]; the other reports on a promise made by the business that its services will save them money.[12] And having read both those stories and the article itself, I still have only the faintest inkling of what this business makes or does. And nothing about it suggests that this business has had a significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the sort that leads to long term historical notability. Indeed, the article itself reminds us of one of the reasons why this kind of business is often quite ephemeral and needs more than this has to support a separate article: The lack of a centralized, in-house computing datacenter means that Appirio can largely operate as a virtual company, with access to business systems requiring only a computer an an internet connection. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've waited for a while to avoid inappropriately posting or influencing in this AfD discussion. I am the original creator of the Appirio article. I am a simply an Appirio employee, not a business owner. I have no other reason for wanting to add this article other than I believe it adds value and that the company has reached a maturity standpoint (5 years, 200 employees, notability, significant contribution to it's market) to warrant it's addition here. This is the first article I've added. Ttonyb1 above has it correct, and while I understand the need for paranoia about business articles such as this, you can research my background from my user page if you want to verify who I am. If you return to the earliest versions of the article, there are a few examples of prose that can be construed as being written in a non-neutral manner. I've done my best to edit any such lines to fit within standards, as have other editors. And the feedback and changes are most appreciated. The challenge of writing an article, about a business, that's neutral and referenced, yet still explains what the company does without seeming promotional, is trying. I have since updated the introductory line to address this: Appirio Inc. is a Cloud Computing company that offers technology and professional services to help enterprise companies adopt public cloud applications and platforms. This involves, but is not exlusive to, implementing, building and managing Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) technologies using Salesforce.com, Google Apps, Workday and Amazon.com for mid-size and large companies. And do note, it is impossible to describe a business without claiming it's advertising. The article I used to model the Appirio article on was this article on Eloqua - the similarities are evident - and I picked that article due to the fact that it was concise, descriptive, and accepted. I'll definitely admit that what Appirio does is complex and can be confusing, but it's by no means trivial. Explaining that in a way that meets the scrutiny the article has faced has been challenging, but I intend on working on it, and soliciting assistance from the community in doing so. For now, the article is covered neutrally and independently verifiable through reliable sources. I would like to also note that Amazon.com is a virtual company and clearly not ephemeral, that should have no bearing on notability. Thank you. Spartovi (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is sufficient WP:CORP through non-trivial WP:RS coverage. The tone & language is a bit marketese, but the article can be edited & improved in my view. Midlakewinter (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And a rescue barnstar. WP:CSB at its finest. :) The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Una Jaula no tiene secretos

edit
Una Jaula no tiene secretos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NF, with the only source cited the IMD, and other searches returning similarly trivial coverage. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -stars Alberto Olmedo, a very notable Argentine comedian. His films are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the date, there is not a lot online. The movie is mentioned in various books, but I can't tell from the snippets how much they say about it. Still, the movie starred various well-known actors, still gets shown on TV now and then, and seems to have won an award. It is reasonable to assume notability: the critics would have discussed the movie at the time. Another argument, perhaps not great, is that a search on the title in both the :en and :es Wikipedias gives more than 10 hits. That many mentions in other articles suggests to me that an article on the movie would be of interest to readers. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. I can certainly see why it could be kept with the new references which have been added since I nominated it. Since it is quite an old film, as you say, it was hard for me to locate much on the net. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I would give it the benefit of doubt. A 1962 Argentine light comedy about a group of people stuck in an elevator does not seem the most important of encyclopedia topics. But some readers may be interested, it does not take up much space, there is no harm in it that I can see, and some of the actors did have big careers. Presumably notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah older Argentine films have very poor coverage on the Internet. I'm sure gradually more info will become available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Got Expelled

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISIRI 13139

edit
ISIRI 13139 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article pertains to a law in Iran, which does not appear to be very notable, as it is a law regarding towed machinery. Phearson (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a standard used for importing goods (tractors) to Iran. All tractors must pass such standards in order to be imported. It is very important indeed. BTW, It is also compulsory for all tractor factories in Iran to consider it in their products. Therefore it is very important to provide a reference for those who are searching such standards and guide them to the appropriate sources. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see how a law about towed machinery in Iran would be encyclopedically notable. It is not Wikipedia's job to provide references for companies importing tractors to Iran, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Surely these companies can look up the laws on the cited EU law sites or some other sites about law in Iran? JIP | Talk 14:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether they "deserve" their own article or not. The point of Wikipedia isn't do have as many articles as possible, it's to be an encyclopedia. If each entry has only one or two sentences, it may very likely be easier for readers and researchers to have all the information in one list.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikk Reintam

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL says: 1. Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. - Meistriliiga is the highest level of football in Estonia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That means international football. Not the top level of a national league. --Jimbo[online] 14:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Fate

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

Since the CSD tag has been repeatedly removed by several users (or socks) I'll bring it to AFD. This band does not appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fynn Hudson-Prentice

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

Not yet notable junior cricketer, almost certainly an autobio, Prod removed by article creator without explanation. The-Pope (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The sources keep piling on. While the "delete" side has refuted many of them, enough remain to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pibgorn (webcomic)

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

PROD contested with the WP:POPULARITY-invoking comment "Widely followed cartoon." Unfortunately, this comic does not appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of organization, here are third-party reliable sources people have found:

  • Comic Riffs (WaPo blog), about the decision to disable comments. Seven sentences, three of them quotes from the comic's publisher.
  • Comic Riffs again, noting that that day's strip was very gory. Three sentences.
  • St. Petersburg Times, a review of a play by the same author. One word.
  • Innsmouth Free Press, significant coverage.
It's hard to believe this is serious. Strong keep. Until McEldowney got rid of the comments section, it was getting hundreds of comments a day, far more than any other comic on gocomics.com and has several books published. Carlo (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a WP:POPULARITY argument, which is explicitly listed as a non-criterion. McEldowney's books are self-published (being wealthy enough to print up a vanity book for yourself and your friends is also not a notability criterion). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few: [13] [14] [15] Carlo (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Omigod you're actually linking an internet comment section as grounds for notability. This is hilarious. The press release is obviously also not a good source for notability, and as for Comic Riffs, it's a daily comics blog that's been around since 2008, and in this two-and-a-half-year stretch of daily posting, they've devoted one post to - not even the comic itself - but to the disabling of comments. This is not a strong argument. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - I linked to "Comic Riffs," which is a well-known Washington Post blog ABOUT comics which HAS a comment section, and I was linking to the post, not the comment section. Don't you know the difference? I think it's fairly obvious that you are not TRYING to make a determination, but HAVE made one, since when someone points out notability, your immediate response it to explain why that one doesn't count. This is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Carlo (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, maybe your first link, which doesn't mention Pibgorn except in the comment section, was just a mistake. What did you actually mean to link?
I've already asked you to be civil and assume good faith. I encourage you to read the pages I've just linked. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the comments in "comic-riffs" aren't reliable, the blog certainly is. In any case I'm certain you could manage to make your point a bit more civilly. You don't need to ridicule. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [16] and [17] are certainly coverage by a reliable source. [18] is a brief mention. [19] is a blog, but may be reliable in this context (expert in the field, etc.). There are quite a few other references to the comic in the washingtonpost blog also. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the WaPo coverage is incredibly trivial. It certainly doesn't satisfy the requirements at WP:GNG. (And the St. Petersburg link is even worse. "We're going to talk about a totally different thing created by the same person" does not constitute coverage! You'd have to go to RS Noticeboard for the blog, but I doubt it'd pass.) Compare, say, Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) - I'm still not sure it's notable, but at least it has real articles about it like this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll disagree. One is the entire article (6 short paragraphs) which is certainly _not_ a trivial mention. The other form comic rifts ranks this comic but uses only 74 words to describe it. I'd say beyond trivial, but certainly not in-depth. The blog post is solid, and the SPT article is, as noted, in passing. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 6-paragraph one is better than any of the other sources people have linked, but as I said to Cfortunato, it's one post in a daily blog that's been running for years, and it's not even really about the comic. I disagree about the other one; I think two sentences to say "this one strip is really gory today" is trivial. The blog post is certainly "solid" in terms of the depth of coverage, but it's the reliability (why do we care about someone's personal blog?) that I'm questioning. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"6 short paragraphs" is not significant coverage. Also, I'm not sure which 6 paragraphs are being described here. Is it this "Comic Riffs" blog post, which only has 5 paragraphs? 8 sentences (4 copied from another site) spread out over 5 paragraphs is no where close to significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the confusion is stemming from the fact that you have linked 2 blog posts. One is from the WaPo (the one talking about how comments were disabled) and is a reliable source, though I don't think the coverage is significant. One is from "Webcomic Overlook," which would probably not pass reliable source muster although it discusses the comic in more detail. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct Roscelese that an 8 sentence blog post is insignificant and does not provide the depth of coverage we would require to write an encyclopedia article. It also, being a single source, does not provide us with multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked to two different Comic Riffs articles, one of which has significant coverage (in my opinion) one of which ranks the comic but gives only minimal context. In addition there is another blog that is on the topic of web comics that may or may not be a RS but certainly has significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to constantly repeat yourself. Yes, you completely wasted everyone's time by providing a link to an unreliable source like the Webcomic Overlook. This is a waste of time because, as the nominator explained at the very top of this AfD, we are looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You also completely wasted everyone's time by linking to a Comic Riffs blog post with only 3 sentences on this topic, a blog post that you describe as "minimal coverage." This is a waste of time because, again, we are looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You also wasted everyone's time by linking to another Comics Riffs blog post that is a trivial 8-sentence blog post. Again, this is a waste of time because we are looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You've then claimed you somehow believe this 8-sentence blog post represents the type of detailed, in depth coverage we're looking for so that we can write encyclopedia articles, but you have made no attempt to explain why you might think such a thing. Instead you are just continuing to waste everyone's time with the same links to either unreliable or insignificant coverage. Stop wasting our time. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, attack much? I find that the 5 paragraphs provide significant coverage. You don't. We got it. Also note the _other_ RS that is in much greater depth (see below). In my opinion we have 2 reliable sources that provide significant coverage, 1 RS entry that provides a ranking (which helps with WP:N), and 1 questionably RS which provides in-depth coverage. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to repeat yourself. You are still wasting everyone's time and have made no attempt to explain why you might think this 8-sentence blog post provides significant, detailed, in-depth coverage sufficient to base an encyclopedia article on. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IFP is a good source, but it's still only one source, which doesn't cut it. Problems with the other "sources" have already been mentioned. Can you help find more? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[22]] was listed above with no comments... Hobit (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Innsmouth Free Press looks like an amateur fan blog run on Word Press, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See [23], "We don’t pay for movie or book reviews ... We don’t pay for articles, interviews or essays ... Powered by WordPress." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where the amateur status or software used to run the site makes it a non-reliable source? That they don't pay? Are you seriously questioning the reliability their work? On what basis? It's not a WP:SPS They have an editorial staff, regular columnists and the like. Certainly looks like a RS. Is there some element to their work you find likely to be non-reliable? Hobit (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Innsmouth Free Press appears to be a reliable source (unless we find out that the writer of the article has a connection to the comic, which from a cursory search doesn't appear to be the case). A lot of FSF publishers are very small and don't have money. But in my opinion, it really is the only source we have. I don't think the other sources (I listed them above) provide enough coverage to pass GNG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Hobit, of course. Per WP:RS: "Anyone can create a website ... self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs ... are largely not acceptable... Blog in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists ..." This looks pretty clearly to be a self-published group blog of nonprofessionals. It is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since it is a review, it is largely opinion, and we definitely do not want to give undue weight to the opinions of amateur bloggers per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Thanks for asking, Starblueheather (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheous

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

The speedy deletion notice was removed without comment and there are a number of single-purpose accounts active here. Although a working fetish photographer, this artist does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. His main claim to notability is participation in the annual CONTACT photography festival in Toronto which is pay-to-play. He also seems to run a "renegade" event during Toronto's annual Nuit Blanche festival which would mean that he wasn't officially part of the festival. Note that the reference for the Nuit Blanche festival actually goes to a promotional item for CONTACT. There are no independent sources that would indicate any notability beyond working as a photographer and educator. freshacconci talktalk 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP at one level; utterly vapid at another. His earlier years spent on a farm contributed to his well received hands-on approach to teaching and his unique troubleshooting skills in rope bondage and other BDSM skill sets. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 runs ODI cricket partnerships by Sri Lanka

edit
100 runs ODI cricket partnerships by Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnecessary list on a minor statistical milestone. 100 run partnerships are achieved by a team in most ODIs that are played.

Article was created two years ago and hasn't been updated once, or had a single reference included. Jevansen (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feltham brothers

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

Don't understand the point of this article. Sets of brothers playing in the VFL/AFL is very common. Also, despite the claim in the intro, only one of them actually played in the VFL (Paul). The others seem to have had fairly unremarkable careers in semi-professional leagues. Only one reference, which merely states that Paul Feltham was coach of the Brisbane Bears. Jevansen (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) – creation by a de facto banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Mug Pie

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

unremarkable recipe. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List Of United States and Mexican States By Population

edit
List Of United States and Mexican States By Population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary intersection of lists, already covered by lists of US states and Mexican states. I can find no indication that this is a common occurrence in WP:RS. Contested PROD, removed by creator (who has created a number of questionable lists lately) Ravendrop 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would like to keep this article because it shows the population between the United States and Mexico states from being the highest population and their population change according to the Population Census taken in 2010 in both countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Rojas (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This is very well executed, interesting, and I like it, since I live in the United States and enjoyed comparing states I know to the closest Mexican State (which most Americans, including I, aren't familiar with)-- Virginia to Veracruz, Maryland to Puebla (both 5.77 million), Minnesota to Guanajuato, Alabama to Chiapas (both nearly 4.8 million), Kentucky to Michoacan (4.3 million) etc.; I'll probably save it on my own hard drive. However, it can't be kept as a Wikipedia article, simply because anything can be compared to anything-- American states to Mexican states, German states to Colombian provinces, Canadian provinces to Russian oblasts, etc. I like the format of the sortable table and the symbols of each state, and if Wikipedia were exclusively an American service, then it would be appropriate as a way to educate us about the rest of the world from our own American perspective. You can see the problems, though, if the door were opened to comparing one nation's states to those of another, even two nations that border each other. Mandsford 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well this can be shown to compare the population in states from different countries and show there different population changes in a 10 years or wath-ever so i dont know why would they delete it. User:Alexis Rojas 12.02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, that's what it does, but why do that? The population of Mexico is 1/3 that of the U.S., it has 2/3 the number of states, and about 1/5 of the area...so other than them neighboring each other, why would their states be in any way meaningfully analogous to each other? Is this comparison something that any reliable sources have made, and can you explain how we could allow this comparison, without allowing 40,000 such comparisons, as noted below? postdlf (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An encyclopedia is for simple facts and information. If we mix and match there is no end. There are about 200 nations. It would take 40,000 articles to compare each to each one time. Then there are many ways to compare: Mexican food to Chinese food, Russian forestry to Canadian forestry, South African music to Indonesian music and so on. I don't see why WP should compare the population of US and Mexican states. What is so special about that? Wolfview (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No specific justification was provided why this list is any special. Why not compare cities in every adjacent countries? Belgium and Holland? Israel and Egypt? Pointless. --Muhandes (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, I can see where WP:NOT#STATS might apply here. Still, the larger problem is in establishing the notability of the subject, and that's generally not possible in comparison articles-- in other words, no real way to say that a comparison of the states of any given "nation x and nation y" is more notable than any other. There is always room for improvement on other existing articles by using sortable tables, which only became feasible in the last couple of years. Hopefully, there will be a renaming of List of Mexican states by area which can be sorted by population and other factors. And, I would add, there is a need to upgrade one of the U.S. states articles to that level. We have a List of U.S. states and territories by population and a List of U.S. states and territories by area, but no table that lists both. Oddly enough, the one article that you would think would list both area and population, List of U.S. states by population density, has neither, which is kind of dense. Finally, we actually have lists of all of the world's first tier subnational divisions, but all of them are of such size that they are difficult to use. My feeling is that, although this article itself shouldn't be kept, you have some great skills in sorting data concisely, and that I encourage you to use those to improve existing pages. Mandsford 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: I don't have a problem with the article in most part, but For consistencey purposes, Canadian provinces should also be include to emcompass the entire North American continent. Just the U.S. and Mexico being covered is awkward. --Moreau36--Discuss 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Wilkey

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

Non notable young player from a semi-pro league. Only ref on page indicates that he only played in the reserves. No longer at the club, probably delisted. Jevansen (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process Plus LLC

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

Engineering firm with some local recognition, but I don't think it meets WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. This is also so promotional in tone that it causes cavities: a Full-Service Engineering and Design firm... Process Plus adopted the tagline “Our Process Revolves Around You”™ in 2007.... a multi-disciplined, full-service engineering and design firm, delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project.... When you have an "Accomplishments" section that includes lines like Ranked One of the Largest Engineering and Architecture firms in the tri-state by the Cincinnati Business Courier (NB: "Tri-state" here means the corners of Kentucky and Indiana that are included in the Greater Cincinnati conurbation) it becomes pretty obvious that all of this stuff was inserted by a COI editor or PR professional who has made a superficial study of the Wikipedia notability guideline. But nothing here indicates that this business's achievements amount to anything that will be remembered as significant by future students of history, culture, or technology; as such, it's not an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What engineering expertise do you cite to say Process Plus is not "a multi-disciplined, full-service engineering and design firm, delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project". A google search shows that not all engineering firms are full service, meaning they only focus on one phase of engineering, like feasibility, or construction. Even more engineering firms are not mult-disciplined, which means they only focus on one deliverable for clients, like automation, civil engineering, architecture etc. Most focus on one, or two, not multiple. How else would a person say they service more than two industries? If you lived near the tri-state area and owned a business it would be a noteable accomplishment if it were listed as one of the top 25 largest engineering firms in the area. I would also assume that people that attend the University of Cincinnati, which is one of the best design, engineering and architecture universities in the nation, would find it worth being in an encyclopedia, especially if they do not understand what engineering firms do. I personally think people reviewing an article or nominating it for deletion should do some research on the topic they are discussing before they call it PR.--Gijoe216 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)— Gijoe216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a promotional bent to it and should be cleaned up, but not deleted. The article has relevance for engineers in the Cincinnati area so is significant to those people. We should likewise not delete articles for Jacobs Engineering, Belcan, Fluor, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenophonXiradakis (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — XenophonXiradakis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per A3. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was hot in 2010

edit
What was hot in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic BurtAlert (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what specifically to classify this as, but this article is obviously not appropriate for an encyclopedia. BurtAlert (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No actual sources have been presented. However, it does seem very likely that they exist, there are no arguments for deletion other than the nominator, and this discussion is already pretty long, so there is little to be gained in relisting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peru Elementary School District 124

edit
Peru Elementary School District 124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most references are self-referential and other rererences are either trivial mentions. Notability questionable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, ambiguity is possible, but all of the school districts have distinct names. That ambiguity could be easily resolved by creating a disambiguation page with a generic title like "Peru schools (disambiguation)" and hatnotes pointing to it from all of the other articles. I perceive that the title was one reason this article was proposed for deletion -- the number in the title "Peru Elementary School District 124" may make the district sound fairly inconsequential to readers who don't know that Illinois public school districts are all officially designated by a number. I guess I will go create that disambiguation page right now... --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of this article, I might be biased, but I think to even suggest that this article be deleted is beyond ridiculous. This school district is one of the oldest in Illinois -- beyond that, it's new building (Parkside) has been used as a model for several new school buildings currently under construction in Illinois. If a school district that's served tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of citizens is not relevant for inclusion into Wikipedia, I'm not sure what is. Chicago2011 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you could include that part about Parkside being used as a model school, with some sources, that may be what pushes it over the top for WP:ORG or WP:GNG and saves it, especially if there are some kind of journal coverage outside of Peru about why the buildings are being used as models. Serving tens of thousands of people is not in itself notable; any local Wal-Mart Supercenter has probably done the same, and even gotten coverage in the local papers, and it doesn't get its own article. As I mentioned above, though, a school district around since 1840, with all those students, probably has enough evidence of WP:GNG or WP:ORG to stay, if someone is willing to show it. --Closeapple (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to me that this article attracted the nominator's attention because of the article creator's involvement with the article Vector Marketing. This is an unfortunate accusation of guilt by association. There is no reason to think that this school district has any relationship with multilevel marketing, and there is nothing about this article that should have caused it to be singled out for deletion from amongst the 200+ articles in Category:School districts in Illinois or the couple of thousand articles in Category:School districts in the United States. Indeed, in terms of content quality and sourcing, the article (which now cites at least three different third-party sources) is among the better school district articles I've seen in my sampling of those categories.
    Don't think I'm encouraging deletion of other school-district articles (and note that my comments above are about the notability of school districts, in general). An established common outcome for articles about nonnotable public elementary schools is to merge and redirect the article to the school district article -- that would become awfully hard to do if there were a mass-deletion of school district articles! --Orlady (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swipes Lovin Wipes

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

Non-notable manufacturing company. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Frederickson & Company

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

No clear indication that this company meets notability requirements. Depth of coverage in reliable sources seems lacking. The claim of being "featured" in multiple media is not supported. Article created by a SPA account with lilely COI. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Science Fiction Association

edit
Bay Area Science Fiction Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google book and news searches on the title bring up zero results. Only claim to notability in the article is a few notable members which does not necessarily transfer to the organization itself. RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am a member of this club (and a former President of it). I've updated a bunch of the references of the article to the organization's own web site so that the complaint that it's unsourced (which was justified) can be removed. As far as references from other sites go, I found more than you might expect. The club's current Hugo Award Recommendations are references from SF AwardsWatch at http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=2980. The Hugo-Award winning magazine Emerald City references the club many times, including for instance http://www.emcit.com/emcit074.shtml#Shadow reporting on author Tad Williams' appearance there a few years ago. While the club is no LASFS or NESFA, it is certainly a legitimate fan organization with influence on the SF fan community. Would it make RadioFan happier if the article listed some of the mentions of the club in the article itself? Kevin Standlee (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references provided in the article are all primary sources, the club's website, which does not help establish notability unfortauntely. Wikipedia's notability guidelines insist on significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources where the club has been the subject of the article. Passing mentions in the press, such as announcements of events or articles which are primarily about an author and mention the club on briefly also dont help establish notability. As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. I left some additional information about this on your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not the President of BASFA. I am a former president of the club, which you would know if you actually read what I wrote. I conclude from your lack of attention that your primary reason for citing the entry for deletion is because you personally aren't familiar with the organization, which has been in existence for more than fifteen years. Kevin Standlee (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You want more citations of the organization's existence from other publications. Well, File 770, which has won the Hugo Award several times (as has its editor) -- although I'm expecting you probably don't think the Hugo Award is notable either, even though it's probably the most important award in the field of science fiction and fantasy -- has reported on BASFA's meetings and activities several times. Would citations to F770 articles mentioning BASFA prove to you that the group actually exists? Kevin Standlee (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The Hugo Award is certainly notable and anyone who wins it is probably notable as well. But we aren't discussing the notability of that award, we are discussing the notability of this club. I dont think anyone doubts that the club exists but as I mentioned on your talk page, existence does not prove notability. It is the notability of the club that is being discussed here. If you've not read WP:ORG yet, you should. That is the litmus that is being used here.--RadioFan (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepWhile I am yet to find any solid reliable sources for this organisation that would make it pass WP:ORG, a good look around its GHits seems to indicate that the organisation does have some notability, especially as a lobbying organisation for awards such as the Hugos. This organisation certainly does appear to produce an award recommendation list that does have some influence. I appreciate that influence does not always mean notable, but in this case believe that it does have some bearing on the overall general notability. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google hits are not a good indication of notability. Solid reliable sources are.--RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having seen a few of these discussions escalate as it appears to now be doing, I'd recommend that both Kastandlee and RadioFan take a breath and a break. RadioFan: while I appreciate what you are doing, where you are coming from, and what you are trying to achieve, you should take into account that you are dealing with a fairly new editor who has passion and drive, and wikipedia needs this in its contributors. I also believe that WP:COI is a harsh accusation to level in this occurence, and instead of stating that an editor has this you may have been better off statinng that the editor "may" have this, to AGF. My reading of WP:COI is that it relates primarily to commercial interests and is a little over the top in this case. Kastandlee: I know where you're coming from too. What is considered notable in Wikipedia is a little confusing compared too how things work in the real world. However, it is their rules and it's best to play by them. Similarly, what makes up a reliable source can be frustrating -- the circular argument that just because a source is notable enough to have a wikipedia entry doesn't make it reliable does my head in sometimes. Has there been any write-ups of the BASFA in somewhere like Locus, or local SF press? These would go a long way to demonstrating notability. Has the club fanzine been nominated for/won any awards? These should also help. If you can go through whatever records you have and add links for these references to this AfD that would be more helpful that getting into a disagreement with RadioFan. Your passion and drive to make wikipedia better is appreciated, and don't be disheartened by this initial setback. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I appreciate what you are trying to do and welcome help for new editors, no accusation has been made of COI. Your interpretation of WP:COI is also a bit too narrow. The opening sentence of that guideline mentions individuals, companies and groups. COI warnings left on user pages such as was left on this editors page are filled with cautionary language and is careful not to accuse. It's advice, and good advice, to avoid editing as maintaining a neutral point of view is difficult when you are close to a subject. Everyone stepping back and seeing things with a bit more context would be advisable as well. Deleting this article isn't a judgement on this organization, it just is what it is.--RadioFan (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RadioFan:"While I appreciate what you are trying to do and welcome help for new editors, no accusation has been made of COI.", meet RadioFan:"As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest." You two should get acquainted. 128.205.230.94 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if the only thing that establishes notability is coverage by the dead-tree newspaper that also makes their content available for free on the web, you might as well delete the article now. (And lots of others.) But here are a bunch of references that I know of. However, none of them are in dead-tree ink-and-paper newspapers, so they probably don't meet "notability." SF AwardsWatch has reported on the club's Hugo Award Recommendation nights at http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=2980 and http://www.sfawardswatch.com/?p=1557. The club's minutes are published in every issue of SF/SF: http://efanzines.com/SFSF/index.htm. A few of the mentions in the Hugo-Award-winning _Emerald City_ are http://www.emcit.com/emcit013.shtml#Home and http://www.emcit.com/emcit067.shtml and http://www.emcit.com/emcit072.shtml and http://www.emcit.com/emcit074.shtml#Shadow -- non-casual mention here, as the club hosted a proto-convention for Tad Williams. (EmCit mentioned BASFA a lot; I can find more references if necessary.) Hugo Award winner Frank Wu discusses artwork he's done for BASFA: http://www.frankwu.com/fan1.html. Passing mentions in File 770: http://file770.com/?p=17 http://file770.com/?tag=basfa and Locus: http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Weblogs/Epublications04.html. (Both F770 and Locus are Hugo Award winning magazines in the field, and while I've had articles published in both of them, I don't think I can be credibly considered to be a controlling figure for either of them, which I mention to try and short-circuit any further conflict-of-interest accusations.) Hugo Award-nominated writer John Hertz mentions the club's occasional practice of meeting in places other than the San Francisco Bay Area: http://johnhertz.sciencefictionleague.org/jh-2008-hana1-isaw.htm -- and as I recall, that last was originally published ink-on-paper before being put online, but it's not a newspaper. I suspect, however, that none of these are sufficiently notable for RadioFan or anyone who isn't actually part of the community of SF/F fandom. I do have to admit that we've never received any coverage of which I'm aware in the San Jose Mercury News or on television or on radio. If that's the only way to be considered notable, you'd better delete about half of Wikipedia right now. Kevin Standlee (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Kastandlee As I understand it, dead tree publications are fine for demonstrating notability. If you can provide details of the publication, date and page that should suffice -- enough information so that anyone who wishes may locate this source. Has the BASFA been mentioned in any genre publications such as encyclopaedias, articles by folks such as John Clute, Gardner Dozois, more than a passing mention in Ansible or similar? These would all help. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to RadioFan This diff [1] where you say "As president of the club, you should avoid editing the article as you have a conflict of interest" could give the impression that you are accusing Kastandlee of having a conflict of interest. If Kastandlee was editing the article to present a particular POV I would share a similar concern, but when I read over the article I am impressed by how NPOV it is. WP:COI says that editors like Kastandlee "should" avoid editing pages such as these, it doesn't say that such practice is expressly forbidden. I'm not seeing any POV pushing here. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. Kevin Standlee (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:COI says those with a conflict of interest should avoid editing, I recommended the same. No accusation of POV issues was made. You give the impression that I made a false accusation which is just as serious if not more than editing with POV. See it goes both ways. Let's just stick to the article please.--RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm quite certain BASFA exists, thank you. It may not be the largest such group (that's LASFS, I expect), but it's a functional organization notable within science fiction fandom. To be sure, the current article could use a wider selection of citations. Wyvern (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still now clear how this subject meets notability guidelines. We've established that it exists, but thats not notability. I appreciate that there are a number of editors that like the organization but that also doesn't help here. If the organization is notable, certainly there are reliable sources that can be cited. The club's website isn't enough.--RadioFan (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, RadioFan, you've well established that you don't think it's notable and that you've nothing better to do. I am content that you and I should disagree over the notability of BASFA, but I do not see any need to delete the work of others because of it; a poor reference list is cause for improvement, not deletion. Wyvern (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's notability guidelines disagree: "there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability." --RadioFan (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One particular user seems to have an axe to grind against this one entry. There seems to be no other support for deletion. 128.205.230.94 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all continue to assume good faith here, folks. There are real issues with this article and while I too believe the subject of the article to be notable it certainly could use a bit better sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep and Comment' No, actually there is no evidence of good faith here, and demonstrable evidence of a Vendetta. As of 04:22 02/27 there have been more than a dozen 3rd party mentions of the club provided, however RadioFan continues to insist thirteen hours later than nothing other than the club website exists. I have clicked each link provided and verified that each page does indeed contain a reference to the site. I do not see a good faith discussion here, rather it would appear that facts are irrelevant to the case. If you want to return this to a good faith discussion, then I would suggest that you remove RadioFan's persistent denials and answer to the multitude of 3rd party references provided. 99.92.91.191 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While not relevant to the AfD at hand, I think that the above is a little over the top. Please keep the discussion civil. FWIW, I think we all can assume that RadioFan is acting in good faith -- while s/he has nominated several sf fan-related articles for deletion I am happy to believe that this is because s/he does not believe that they are of a standard s/he believes that wikipedia entries should be held up to. That said, my own feeling is that RadioFan's bar is higher than my own, and many others who believe the page should be kept. I'd strongly suggest that the best approach is to spend more time retrieving as many reliable and relevant sources for BASFA, and no effort trying to antagonise RadioFan. At the end of the debate, RadioFan is not the one who will decide whether the page is kept or deleted. An uninvolved admin will make the call, so I'd strongly suggest spending time getting all of the sources you can. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Continued insistence on the non-existence of information which has been repeatedly provided is not a method of demonstrating good faith. Instead it demonstrates that no amount of reasonable input is going to sway this person's opinion. Given that RadioFan has been show to be actively seeking out and marking each and every SciFi club for deletion, the two of these together demonstrate the explicit attack generated by this person. jorhett (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to briefly mention this comment left on LiveJournal: http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/2917411.html?thread=55908899#t55908899. It does appear that, during discussion of Ottawa Science Fiction Society, several other entries on SF clubs were brought up, two of which user RadioFan has now started AfD talks on. I am pointing this out only to explain why some feel there is a lack of good faith, not to judge any actions on any "side" of the issue. Clockster (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment This article most certainly needs work, but BASFA appears to be notable. The problem seems to be that a few notable items (such as the Hugo recommendation list) are not included in the article, let alone sources for them. If no one minds and if I get a chance after editing another article I'm working on, I will try to help clean up the article myself. I'm a neutral editor, which I mention only because conflict of interest issues have already been brought up. Clockster (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to note that I have added more sources and a little more information to the BASFA page tonight, and I believe that, if it didn't meet notability or source guidelines before, it does now. I of course welcome other editing, discussion, and/or information, as I am not an expert on BASFA or notability in the least. Clockster (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but needs better sourcing. Kevin, you know me, so believe me when I say that you're missing the distinction we make here between mere mentions (even in notable and reliable sources), and substantial coverage of an organization. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But if nothing from the SF fan community counts for any variety of reasons, then I guess it's going to die, because I'll have to admit that there has never been any "mundane" dead-tree newspaper or television/radio coverage of the club. Everything that ever mentions the club at any level is from the SF fandom community, and as far as I can tell, everything there has been dismissed as non-notable. By that standard, in my opinion, vast swaths of SF fan activity doesn't exist, while relatively minor things are "notable" because they caught the attention of a newspaper or television reporter. Kevin Standlee (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over the last several days the citations section has improved considerably. While it seems nothing would convince RadioFan, I for one find it much better than it was only a few days ago. Wyvern (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply to Kevin - has there never been a fanhistorical article about BASFA in some notable fanzine like Mimosa or Science Fiction Chronicle or Locus? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply to Orangemike Perhaps you might explain why the Locus references documented above are insufficient? These continued questions which have been repeatedly answered is exactly why we know this to be a witch hunt, and not an actual search for information. It would appear we're wasting our time, and I'm certainly going to stop wasting my money supporting Wikipedia. I can easily conclude that nothing of note refers to it as well, as long as I ignore all the evidence. jorhett (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jorhett A couple of points you may want to consider. 1) in case you're not sure, OrangeMike (like many others posting here) is trying to help you. (It certainly looks that way to me, if you're not trying to help, OM, please accept my apology.) Many of us here would not like to see this article deleted, but to seal the deal we need good, solid references. Articles by notable people that cover BASFA in some detail, a solid history in a notable fanzine, notable events that BASFA has had a recognised role in or organised. Anything and everything you can find. Which brings me to 2) which is that the one Locus reference I can find in this discussion is just not up to scratch. It's a link to the BASFA website. That's all it is. If it had some sort of article, paragraph or statement attached to it we could work with it. But just a link isn't enough, unfortunately. If it was something mentioned in the News section, that would be great. I hope this helps. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm admittedly not un-biased (I helped form the club back in 1991), I do have to wonder about the Notability requirements for organizations.
    Several past and present members of the club have been "notable" for their activities or actions (called "fanac" within the science fiction community). Several Hugo winning authors and artists, fanzine writers and editors, costumers and convention organizers have been members of the club, both before and after their own "notability". In fact the club started as a place where folks could gather to socialize instead of only seeing each other at convention planning meetings and "work" parties. Many of the key club members (past and even present) have been instrumental in the organizing and operations of the 1993 World SF Convention in San Francisco and the 2002 World Science FIction Convention in San Jose, as well as helping staff many other Worldcons, WesterCons and other regional SF conventions.
    The club, per se, didn't directly sponsor these events (they each had 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations), but BASFA was where they relaxed, where discussions and planning details were done and where bids where launched. While the club may not have been in the spotlight, the people who make up the club have done considerable "notable" (even famous) things relating to the field of science fiction and SF Fandom. BASFA may be most "notable" for it's members, but is that enough?? Would a group of famous writers or artists be notable because of its' members, even if there were few newspaper articles or no books about it? -- Kf6spf (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply to Kf6spf - the basic rules for a group are found at WP:CLUB. You have to remember that Notability is not contagious!. The store that sold Tucker his Beam's Choice did not share in his status as fannish legend; the machine on which the first edition of The Enchanted Duplicator was printed did not thus acquire a spark of stefnal glory. Unless a venue is written about as its own independent topic (such as the Algonquin roundtable), the notability of the members and habitues thereof is irrelevant; "associational items" are for the collector, or the auctioneer looking to pump up his yield. Many frat chapters, sewing circles, book clubs, lodges, union locals, drinking clubs, college and school societies, etc. have had one or two or twenty or one hundered notable members, without ever thus becoming notable in their own rights. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note of thanks to the editors who are trying to get this discussion back on track. I've stayed out of the discussion for a bit because of this. The focus here needs to be on whether or not this article can meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion not on me or what anyone thinks my agenda may be. I assure you that I have nothing against this club or science fiction in general. If the concerns above are addressed and the consensus is that the article should be kept, that's great. I'm not the boogie man, I'm not out to get you, your club, or your chosen interest and neither is Wikipedia. I didn't make the rules nor can I delete this article. That can only happen after a complete discussion and only if the consensus is that it should be deleted based on established guidelines that are referenced above and the should deletion be necessary, it's done by an uninvolved 3rd party. Once all of this is done, I encourage each editor here who has expressed some concerns with Wikipedia's processes, here or anywhere else (I've read a lot of nasty things written about me and Wikipedia in general recently as a result of this and related AFDs), to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and share your point of view. If anyone feels that Wikipedia's inclusion standards or definition of reliable source are too rigid or behind the times, that's the place you can affect the most change.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article as a whole may need improvement, but it represents an important portion of the history of Fandom. I think that this is an overreach of Wiki "Notability." (Ceronomus)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Sands Communications

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

This appears in no way to be a notable company of any sort and has been created by a user who may have a conflict of interest in creating articles on corporations (Chicago2011 (talk · contribs) has contributed COI-like edits to Vector Marketing, an article with a history of COI-related activity). Most of the references in the article are self-referential to the company website anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Ryulong's assessment. Also, this IS a PR firm after all, and the article makes it hard to edit as it would need to be totally rewritten in order to make it encyclopedic. So far, all I see is a summery of an brochure. Phearson (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryulong has decided to label all of my articles for deletion, even articles that are completely pertinent. The fact that the article is a public relations firm means nothing with respect to its notability. Nor does the fact that I contributed FACTUAL, UNBIASED content to an article with a history of biased content. Is improving the tone of content not an overarching goal of this encyclopedia project? Chicago2011 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google search results tell me that this company is good at its business of online publicity, because I get oodles of ghits, but I don't find evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG in those ghits. A relatively new company, fairly local in its scope, in the business of marketing -- nothing unusual. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Her performing career fails WP:PORNBIO, while her directing career fails WP:CREATIVE. Also, please write in English. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Vespoli

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no other assertion of or evidence supporting notability. Claimed award from nn magazine fails the "well-known"/"significant" standard. Prod removed with suggestion subject may meet WP:CREATIVE, but I don't think a superlative in a single nn trade magazine comes close to meeting that standard. No reliably sourced biogrsphical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In 2007 Director of the Year at the Adam Film World Guide Awards--Johnsmith877 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A directing award should not be analysed under WP:PORNBIO, which applies performance criterias, but under WP:CREATIVE. She satisfies criteria 1 for me with her award. Just because Adam Film World does not have an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it is non-notable. They are a reputable pornography reviewer since the 70s, the oldest in America. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to list. Adam Film World has at least some notability. Ohio University Telecommunications professor Joseph W. Slade's Pornography and sexual representation: a reference guide says in part "Extremely valuable are the reports, reviews, and gossip of Adam Film World and Adult Video Guide, the oldest American monthly devoted to explicit cinema and generally more reliable than similar magazines, though the information on actors and actresses should be approached with caution." How far that one opinion, with its qualified way of phrasing it, goes regarding AFW's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" I couldn't say, nor do I know for sure what kind of notability the award might have, but it doesn't appear to have much. Vespoli does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per the GNG, nor does she appear to have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" per BASIC. There is only one hit on Google Books for her that's not one of those odd Wikipedia books, a snippet revealing a passing mention in a Polish publication of some kind. There's only one hit on Google News Archive, a website that routinely reviews adult DVDs, in this case a Hustler DVD in which she appeared. A pretty clear case of why interpreting PORNBIO or CREATIVE out of context gives a bad indication of notability, and why interpreting those out of context to mean that the subject MUST have an article rather than an indication that they (still taken out of context) "are generally notable if they meet [it]" and that "meeting [it] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis in original). If the awards are notable enough, and there are reliable sources for them, then Vespoli is more appropriately included as an entry on a list of those awards, than warranting an article herself. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no RS evidence of notability; alternatively merge to list, per Шизомби. --JN466 02:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable porn bio. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Нет Шизомби вы не правы,у неё есть одна номинация и ,как минимум одна награда,что подтверждается ссылками AVN.Причём награда за "режиссуру".--Johnsmith877 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnsmith877, while PORNBIO does include "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award." and "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years," meeting one or both of those does not give the article an automatic pass. That guideline states "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Further, she fails to meet the WP:BASIC criteria of that guideline, and she fails to meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG. PORNBIO is pretty questionable, and it is questionable how well-known the various AVN and AFG awards really are. With no significant coverage of her, with the degree of reliability of the sources being questionable, there's no reason to have an article on her. Do AVN or XBIZ or AFG have a high reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? BLP requires being more particular about the quality of sources, and it's not clear to what extent they'd be reliable even for deceased people. A case could possibly be made for a list of AVN Best New Starlet Award winners and nominees. However, I don't think there's an especially strong case for that, given that it's unlikely there are many third-party sources about that, and likewise few if any sources that have that as their subject. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again trying to apply PORNBIO to her directing award is wrong. CREATIVE applies to directors and only requires that she is regarded as important by her peers. Further, the reliability of AFG is irrelevant in determining whether it is a notable reviewer/award giver. After all, the National Enquirer is not reliable yet it is notable. XBIZ and AVN, the two main trade journals for the pornography industry. One of the signs that they are considered reliable is because mainstream reliable sources regularly cite them when discussing the pornography industry. WP:USEBYOTHERS [25][26] On that basis she has coverage by reliable sources and satisfies BASIC for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Morbidthoughts's comments accurately indicate, an essential question here is whether Vespoli is notable as a porn director; her performing career clearly falls below the notability standard. Despite what was originally written in the article, and repeated here, she did not win a "Director Of The Year" award, but was named "Directrix Of The Year" -- a sort of consolation price, not representing overall achievement (AFG gives a "Best Director" award for that). None of Vespoli's directing projects have been nominated (directly or by association) for an AVN award, a curious matter given how profligately AVN hands out award nominations. Does the "Best Directrix" award meet the ANYBIO standard of "well-known/significant"? I don't think anyone has made even a skimpy case to that effect; my local weekly newspaper, with a circulation several multiples that of AFG, gives out "Best" awards every year, in categories ranging from "Best Band" to "Best Bookstore (Used)" to "Best Restaurant (Mongolian)" to "Best Adult Entertainment Club", "Best Stripper," and "Best Bathroom" (in a restaurant with a liquor license), and none of those winners will ever be declared notable based on those awards. Morbidthoughts suggests that the AFG award nevertheless meets criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE, which reads "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I just don't see a single claim by a low-profile magazine as doing that (and certainly doesn't establish peer reputation), especially given the general lack of recognition her directorial work (totaling only 9 projects has otherwise received). I don't otherwise see any coverage satisfying the GNG; castlists in porn trade journals just aren't viewed as meeting GNG standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts, applying CREATIVE rather than PORNBIO is a bit of s stretch. She's more of a performer than a director. Are you contending that she's been "regarded as an important figure" by directors generally? I doubt if Scorsese's ever heard of her. An adult director regarded as an important figure by adult directors? AVN's awards are quite unlike the Oscars: they're decided by AVN's staff, not by peers. If she were really regarded as important, one would find more than just the fact of an award. When I wrote above about the reliability of the publications, I was not referring to the awards. One might suppose that they know who they gave their own awards to, although in the adult industry, that is not always the case. XRCO doesn't have records of who they gave awards to between 1982 and 1992, for example. AVN doesn't bother keeping a lot of its old records online. I was referring to the biographical information about Vespoli, which I should have written to make that clear. I'm not sure if mainstream media would cite them for that. I am not sure merely citing someone gives them a " reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Reliable sources writing about compulsive liars or people with delusions may cite them in the course of writing about those people. Does that render those people reliable sources generally? BASIC says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AVN or AFG itself as the source for its award would not be independent of the subject. XBIZ may not be intellectually independent. As I wrote, they're questionable for non-BLPs as it is; for BLPs they're really questionable. BASIC also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of Vespoli is trivial and of no depth. I agree with most of what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote here, except AFG used to have some degree of notability at least for Slade, and it seemed to me that Directrix of the Year probably meant Female Director of the Year, not a directorial consolation prize. But XBIZ didn't cite to the publication (probably were just publishing a press release) or provide any detail about any of the awards, or who decides them, or an awards ceremony, etc. so we don't know for sure, I suppose. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret peers in CREATIVE to be the adult industry in general. The companies, staff, and performers hold the awards in esteem even if they are deemed inconsequential to the mainstream. The comparison of AVN and XBIZ to liars and delusional people that reliable sources write about is not proper because reliable sources cite to AVN and XBIZ often about the pornography industry in general, even when the article is not about AVN or XBIZ. As an irrelevant aside there are records of past XRCO shows and winners in the form of VHS videos like the AVN Awards but they are now out of print. When Jim Holliday, its founder died, the paper records disappeared with him. The members that eventually took over running the awards built its current website after his death. Whether AVN bothers to keep its print records online is irrelevant as to its reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I interpret peers in CREATIVE to be the adult industry in general." The adult industry in general isn't involved in voting on the AVN awards though, only AVN is. "The companies, staff, and performers hold the awards in esteem" Maybe, though there's not great evidence of that. Certainly there are people who attend the awards show. But movie magazines unrelated to the Oscars will report all the winners, as will publications that aren't specific to film. Adult magazines unrelated to AVN don't. I suspect the awards weren't mentioned on Vespoli's site, but it's down and apparently unarchived beyond the front page. I wonder if AVN made Max Hardcore give back the trophy he is reported to have stolen in Consider the Lobster [27]. AVN and XBIZ remain questionable sources that are not "often" cited, and not about all aspects of the business. Perhaps the nature of my analogy used examples too extreme; the point was just that citing someone doesn't go beyond what they're being cited for, and isn't an analysis of their reliability. "When Jim Holliday, its founder died, the paper records disappeared with him." Exactly. What does that say, do you think? Would a new president of AMPAS result in the Margaret Herrick Library vanishing? "winners in the form of VHS videos like the AVN Awards but they are now out of print." The AVN Awards started in 1984. It seems they started releasing videos of the awards ceremony in 1991. The videos are, as you note, out of print. The 2010 awards show has yet to be released. The videos and DVDs don't contain the whole awards show, leaving out a great many of the categories, because the show is so long, I suppose. As Angela Summers is said to have joked at the 1993 AVN Awards (when there were fewer awards than at present!), "AVN has more categories than Ron Jeremy has back hair..." (David Jennings. Skinflicks: The Inside Story of the X-Rated Video Industry. Bloomington, IN: 1st Books Library, 2000. p. 319. Perhaps not an RS though.). The website has the past nominees for 2010 and none earlier. You're quite right that has nothing much to do with reliability. The issue is notability. They don't seem to think their past nominees or awards shows are notable, or that anybody else would either. I personally think they're wrong; that they should have all that available, because some people would be interested (myself included). But on the whole, not so many. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Шизомби,1.Есть номинация,подкреплённая ссылкой.(AVN)2.Есть награда подкрёплённая ссылкой.(Xbiz)

3.Это факты.Всё остальное,как то,что эти ссылки вас не устраивают,есть ваше личное предвзятое отношение к данной статье.Да-да я подчёркиваю именно ваше отношение,хоть вы и хотите думать,что вы относитесь непредвзято...в общем мне ваш подход импонирует,но это не научный эксперимент и не исследование - это просто статья в wiki.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete. If data needs to be retrieved for merge it can be done. The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Oncology, Lyell McEwin Hospital

edit
Medical Oncology, Lyell McEwin Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be merged into Lyell McEwin Hospital; no evidence that the oncology unit is independently notable, and the title is not a plausible redirect. Feezo (Talk) 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunscreen controversy

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

There is a lot of discussion on the talk page that this article is a POV content fork. What should happen to this article is a complicated question. The main article (Sunscreen) does address this topic, so some might argue for redirect or even outright delete. A merge would be difficult. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would You Rather (game)

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability, no reliable sources found. Included an external link as reference, but that did not in fact reference the party/conversation game in the article and had no actual relevance to the content (I removed the link). bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but expand. I personally know this game is a part of modern youth culture (it's even used on TMZ often.) It refers to either choosing between two activities or doing the dirty with one of two people. I say this article needs links and expansion, but it is a good article topic. I say keep on those conditions. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Behzat Ç. Bir Ankara Polisiyesi

edit
Behzat Ç. Bir Ankara Polisiyesi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability. Also, the prose of this article is confusing to say the least. I'm going to try and clean it up but. [Edit: I cleaned up the prose a bit, it's apparent that the article consists of a character list, a mostly redlinked infobox, and a see also. No assertion of notability.] c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Northstar Session

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

Aside from a guest appearance on a TV show, no reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a band. Prod removed with no rationale, though I assume it's because a band member has performed in another band. (note the name Dave Basaraba isn't actually an article, it's piped to another band) tedder (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2010-2011 Queensland floods#Deaths. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rice

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

A very sad and brave death but the subject is not notable independently from the overall flood event Mattinbgn (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Hofmann

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

Company operating in a very specialised field of very little interest to the general public. No evidence of notability. Sources cited appear to be PR generated announcements rather than external news indicating notability. Privately held import/export entity.

(I may have violated some Byzantine wikipedia rule/law/policy/thingy regarding a second PROD which I thought was nicer than an Afd. In any case, I still think this is a typical spam-cruft "my organization is so cool it needs a wikipedia article." Quartermaster (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The objector is ignorant of the manufacturing process. Anything that spins -- whether tiny or gigantic, commercial or military -- requires balancing. American Hofmann is one of the top balancing businesses in the world with a global marketplace for nearly every industry. American Hofmann balancers touch the components that generate your electricity, the turbochargers that drive your fast cars, and the airplanes that transport you and your defense. Customers of note include GE, Pratt & Whitney, the US military, Rolls-Royce, etc. located in the USA, China, Vietnam, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, and nearly every developed country in the world. The company s also noteworthy because it's the only major American Balancing company whose products are designed and built in the USA. It's major competitor (Schenck) presents an American face, but its actual balancing machines are built in China.

Please give me a little time and I will re-write the article to meet Wikipedia stands. (I would have logged in, but for some reason my login isn't working.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.71.3 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Cliffjumper. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffjumper (other incarnations)

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

I decided like Bumblebee (Transformers Animated) that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion. There is a lack of sufficient third person sources to justify a spin off Cliffjumper article. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yet another strongarm attempt for the editor to force his will on articles without going through proper channels. He proposes a merger, then when he doesn't get a fast enough result he proposes a deletion in order to get his merger outcome. As far as I'm concened it's a dirty trick unworthy of support. Proposing a deletion in order to force merger means that the nomination was done in bad faith. Mathewignash (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Perhaps this just really needs to be said) It's not like you yourself haven't resorted to some form of trickery to get what you want. Here, you argued that Fuzor Silverbolt was reaaaally similar to the Aerialbot Silverbolt and that the two should be merged. Yet here, you argue that Beast wars Megatron should not be merged with the original Megatron. You're Silverbolt argument was riddled with errors. (only one Silverbolt was built on earth, and that was in the comic, so describin that as "in the second season of their series", isn't that accurate. Plus, Aerialbot Silverbolt had quite a bit of red, and Fuzor Silverbolt was no longer silver during Beast Machines. Also, see my comment on the "team flyers" thing.) Errors that someone like you seriously shouldn't make, considering how knowledgeable you sounded with you're earlier argument about Beast Wars Megatron. NotARealWord (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NFICT. The various merger proposals in Transformers articles appear to not change over time because the handful of editors who edit/visit those pages are usually the fans who make them into these sprawling fictional plot articles in the first place, and usually don't vote for merge. AfD's are the only way to attract attention of the larger Wikipedia editing population.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge , but only if done properly, preserving information. It's this problem of preserving information that holds up merges. Sometimes it does go right, but more typically it ends up reduced to a single line. Not that extensive plot information has to be repeated for every character in a merge, but there's a reasonable intermediate DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The talk page of this article records a series of attempts to rename the procedure as Articles for Discussion. It has been approved two successive times, but nobody has done the work of implementing it. A current discussion on the matter seems to be leaning strongly towards rejecting it. See there for my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfight (Transformers)

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

An unsourced and non notable Transformers characters without reliable third person sources to assert nobility. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bay_Area_Science_Fiction_Association&diff=prev&oldid=416106228
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_February_26&oldid=1142638531"