Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 7

< 6 January	8 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.H. vs State of Florida

edit

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

Obscure juvenile appeals case that arguably should never have been brought, was brought on the wrong grounds anyway, and features a majority opinion that contradicts itself and a dissenting opinion that appears to identify the wrong person as the victim. The only meaningful conclusion to come of this is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for photographs stored online, which is common sense to most. A textbook example of bad caselaw that fails WP:NOTABILITY. JamesL910 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The individual merits of the case have no bearing on whether this article should remain on Wikipedia, therefore assertions as to whether the suit "should never have been brought" have no weight in this discussion. Now I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that often times decisions like this are necessary when it comes to establishing precedent for future cases. However, the Notability concerns would need to be addressed before I could support keeping this article, (see WP:HEY) -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a caselaw repository, and that individual cases should be both notable and significant to warrant inclusion as an articles (as opposed to merely being references in other articles). As it is, it's not notable, the only reason I even know of this case being that it was briefly referred to in a legal commentary I read, and it appears to be relatively insignificant legally, for the reasons stated. Yes, it can be argued that this case sets a precedent, but I would argue that there are far more prominent and less ambiguous cases establishing what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Admittedly I do not know for sure if such is the case in Florida, and perhaps someone who is more familiar with the law there could confirm or deny whether this is the case. If anyone from Wikiproject Law objects to the marking of this article for deletion, I'd be happy to hear their reasoning. JamesL910 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm agreeing with you on Notability. I'm only saying that the other assertions in your nomination statement are not valid reasons for deletion. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per sourcing. Per overall quality of article. ofcourse as most "crime" articles this one also needs a few more sources and perhaps a small clena up but deletion,no.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of the merits of the actual case. This is not the sort of case that has an article on Wikipedia. Past practice has limited this to either trial cases that have generated ongoing news, or appellate cases, and even then, only of the most important. This case badly fails that test. Wikipedia is not a mirror of findlaw.com. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Berian, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:NOR. Merits maybe one sentence in Sexting. THF (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all of the above; article has serious notability issues. This case should be limited to a single citation in Expectation of privacy, if anything at all - it's certainly doubtful that it sets any meaningful precedent, owing to the level of division and confusion displayed by the court, and I could see a justification for opposing its inclusion even as a citation. -86.74.126.236 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network: Block Party

edit

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

~~Completely unsourced, this article has no sources, ciations or references. JJ98 (Talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) JJ98 (Talk) 20:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: I added few external links, and still need sources. JJ98 (Talk) 01:24, 10 January 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. Courcelles 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Block Party

edit

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

~~Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Lack of sources generally isn't a valid criterion for deletion, but after searching Google, I could find several places to purchase this comic books series but not anything actually about it. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: Agree, this article needs improvements and still need sources. JJ98 (Talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree, doesn't that still mean "delete" in this case? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. JJ98 (Talk) 23:11, 10 January 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. I commend Peridon, Whpq and Erpert for their reasonable comments in the face of anonymous, WP:ILIKEIT-style actions. AfD is about the strength of your argument, not the strength of the emotion behind it, and most commentators here have a lot of the latter and very little of the former. Taking only into account those comments where the user has provided a policy-based argument, and ignoring the rest, there is clear consensus for this article to be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Organic Lawn Management (band)

edit

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Non-notable band. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Gsearch only results in the usual suspects. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band have recently become recognised on the local circuit and have confirmed a quickly growing fanbase. User: DHJW 12:41, 8th Jan 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.136.252 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 January 2011 — 84.93.136.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I think you meant to say "keep". Anyway, please read WP:POPULARITY. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine then. Keep. Not only for the above reason, but because band has gained notability by being one of 658 shortlisted bands for Greenman Festival 2010, as well as being a band that has gained notability through its many merits, including its ties to some charities. User: DHJW 00:43, 9th Jan 2011 (GMT)
  - Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band have gained stature in and around the West Midlands, UK, and has been shortlisted for the Greenman Festival 2010. Their support of ME is documented also.Hurricane90 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Hurricane90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for the notice at the top; as if someone had joined this discussion to add a vote under the impression it would sway the outcome. I think everyone is aware of the discussion at hand and the reasons for deleting this page are unsubstantial. The band has sources to substantiate its notability and that should be that. Hurricane90 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While wishing the band success (largely because they're young and not hiphop or rappers...), I think WP:TOOSOON comes in here. If not, and good references (see WP:RS) are available - ADD THEM. As to the !vote situation - the notice means "it's not a head count, so don't bother creating accounts just to say 'Keep' with no sound reason given". This is a discussion, and I and many others who are regulars at Articles for Deletion want to get to the bottom of things. We are mostly prepared to change our minds, given evidence. The closing admin will usually ignore posts that don't contribute anything more than 'I like it' (or 'I don't like it', even...). In the mean time, if refs are currently good enough, keep up the festival playing. (Is Coleford still going? I played there once, on the fringe and quite unexpectedly...) Get the refs, and someone will probably have written the article for you. BTW - Please sign your posts with four ~ thingies. It saves the little bot some work. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's great that they have a local fanbase. What they do not have at this time is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem to be a new, up-and-coming band, and it's nice to see one that isn't building its career around rap and dance music. They have reliable sources, so what's written seems perfectly legitmate. As Peridon commented, I don't see them to be under the 'TOOSOON' category and their sources seem to check out, so add them! -- ~~User: OccipitalTiger~~, 14:11, 12 Jan 2011 (UTC) — 81.23.49.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - There is no user "Occipital Tiger", it is an IP posted comment. As for the assertion that there are reliable sources, please bring them forward. I am always open to new evidence. However simply stating they exist without providing any details don;t really support your argument for keeping the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 12 January 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 Protochronism. apparantly already been some kind of merge so only a redirect is now required Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian script

edit

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

There's simply no such things as a simple Google Book Search can prove. Moreover even normal Google Search gives nothing but mirrors of WP text. There is a fringe Romanian revisionist movement called Protochronism that attempts to make Dacians the most advanced culture of antiquity, but their claims are utterly rejected by mainstream Romanian academia (see our article about the movement). Specific attempts to identify a "Dacian script" in some 19th century forgeries such as Sinaia lead plates or Rohonc Codex were dismissed by linguist and thracologist Sorin Olteanu on his personal website, and by paleographist Dan Ungureanu in the mainstream cultural magazineObservatorul Cultural.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Racconish^Tk 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Anonimu (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also, for the lack of any dispute, the opinion of the archaeologist, member of the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the main Romanian archaeology journal (SCIVA), Mircea Babes (this is just a note in a larger article exposing the pseudo-science involved in protochronism): "As long as these decipherers only feed us with hallucinating texts, while keeping for themselves the key of these alphabets and the vocabulary of the urlanguage, any serious debate, able to expose their imposture, remains impossible" (all emphasis in original; translated by myself from Observatorul Cultural).Anonimu (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Anonimu first vandalized the article and after being warned about his actions, decided to submit it for deletion. He has a very twisted interpretation of WP:FRINGE. First of all, the article starts with a very neutral sentence A so-called Dacian script..., therefore, the editor was careful not to present those controversial views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views, exactly how the Fringe theory guidelines suggest. I do not endorse the view that the script is real, however such vandalism and aggressiveness can not be accepted. I noticed his interest in the topic and I invited him constructively to join the project dealing with Dacia, where he can communicate and coordinate with great people interested in the same subject. But instead of creating he is mostly deleting and removing other peoples work without prompting any kind of conversation. His very destructive and negative attitude, activities, dubious id, Anonimu and his empty profile clearly show that his have a very hidden, revisionist agenda, some holy wars to fight and make him very suspect of sock puppetry. His request has to be viewed in this light, with the subjectivity and aggression with which he wants to impose his view.

Regarding the article, I am too skeptical of the theory, however, it is a notable, yet controversial subject, like most of Dacian history for that matter. However, there are people like Dan Romalo who spent their carrier (30 years!) researching the script and the lead plates, and even if they plates ar forgeries, they deserve respect for their efforts. Here are some pertinent articles showing the view from other side: [1], [2]. The author, Sorin Olteanu, a great linguist which I know personally since we collaborated on Wikipedia articles, and whom I respect, is in a bit of a holy war with Mr. Romalo as you can see in the link presented above as evidence. I suspect Anonimu is an extreme follower of Mr. Olteanu and unfortunately not at all objective and neutral. And the most important thing! The forgery is not proved scientifically yet! Only linguistic analysis has raised suspicion, and is the opinion of one linguist. Regardless, forgery or not, it is a notable subject, not yet elucidated. I think the readers need to know and decide, and not have the opinions on one side or another impose to them.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to pertinent English based material? What is that 'Observatorul Cultural' link? What credentials do you have for this journalist? --Codrin.B (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing "so-called" into a sentence does not indicate neutrality, in fact the Manual of Style guideline specifically discourages using words that give the implication of doubt. Words like this are not magic bullets that counterbalance POV or undue weight issues. There is a way to present controversial issues like this in an neutral manner, but this article clearly fails in that task.

I would also caution against using personal attacks in the AfD debate. Whatever your opinions of Anonimu and his/her editorial position, that is not the subject of this debate. This discussion is only about the Dacian script article. There are other noticeboards for dealing with allegations of vandalism. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say. The user's counter-argument is just a rant full of personal attacks. Instead of focusing on finding sources for the subject (which he can't, as there isn't any except protochronism blabber), he goes on with metaphysical interpretations of my username and my userpage. Most ludicrous is his use of "sock puppet" as a pure personal attack (as I'm not being called a sock puppet of someone, I supposedly am an intrinsic sock puppet), failing (or ignoring) to grasp the very sense of the word (as a note, I'm contributin' since Sept 2005, and the accusation of "sockpuppeting" never surfaced).

The small part that is not about me being some kind of an illuminati is just some collection of fallacies: from argumentum ad misericordiam (an engineer with no formal training in history, linguistics, or paleography "spent his career" "researching" the script, so it must be important!), to the strong argumentum ad ignorantiam he makes (nobody proved the 2 or 3 supporters wrong, so they must me right, even if academia utterly fails to mention their miraculous discoveries). The user even fails to read the links he provided, as the only one which could be considered reliable, simply fails to state a claim about the nature of the script, just nothing it uses Greek and medieval Latin and Slavic letters (the author could not make such outlandish claims in a peer-reviewed journal; note that this is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal about the tablets, the rest of academia probably being under the influence of some occult organisation!). The other site is just a collection of internet text (Wikipedia included!), and the only texts to make the outrageous claim about the "Dacic scripts" are not incidentally those taken from the above author's personal website.

Simply put, except Codrin.B civility, there's nothing to discuss here. A "Dacian script" is not only not mentioned in any scholarly work, but the mere dispute about its existence is absent from academia.Anonimu (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's keep the discussion to the article itself, and save the personal attacks and rebuttals of personal attacks for WP:ANI -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish^Tk 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [or redirect/merge to protochronism per below (merge only if material reliably sourced)] no sources cited, no sources discernable from Google News/Books/Scholar. No evidence that the Dacian language had a written form. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protochronism. The subject itself is of course fringe, but it is an important part of Romanian protochronism.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have also other merge options: Dacian language already mentioned by Hrafn, Sinaia lead plates, Rohonc Codex, Proto-Romanian, and maybe others. I think the real concern is not the existence of sources but the relation between all these different articles. Racconish^Tk 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the merge, since I think the article can have a stand-alone pertinent analysis of any Dacian script claims, past, current or future. It is currently trying to review two such theories, independent of each other. The previous version was also pointing to the Greek and Latin inscriptions. But if it has to be merged, I vote for the Dacian language option since it is way a way more neutral action. Merging it with Protochronism is a radical move, and not a neutral point of view, and is just one point of view. On top of it, the people who researched Sinaia lead plates and Rohonc Codex are not just Romanian nationalists, as the currently radically modified version of the article states. They are from many nations. And if the protochronists believe these are not forgeries, or at least have the courage to keep an open mind, I wonder how should we classify the people who attack these writings/scripts with so much hate and aggressiveness, not worthy of intellectuals. Maybe Agressive Protochronism Haters? Anyone wants to take as stub at this article, for neutrality and objectiveness sake, to balance things out? But hey, be careful to not bring original research to the table :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any salvageable information here can technically go anywhere, but Dacian language seems to me the most plausible redirect target. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or Origin of the Romanians? The article on Dacian language currently says:"Whether Dacian in fact forms the substratum of Proto-Romanian is disputed (see Origin of the Romanians)" and does not refer to protochronism.Racconish^Tk 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would have to say both Condrinb and Anonimu have been a little aggressive on this topic, which is notable due to it's coverage in sources (which are not too fringe as far as I can tell). Refining the article needs to be resolved on a talk page, not on a deletion discussion, Sadads (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the sources that cover it.Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those on the Rohonc Codex and the Sinaia lead plates to start with. Is this really the issue here?Racconish^Tk 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of these is written in the Greek script, the other (likely a hoax) is obviously from an entirely different historical period. Neither is relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article on Sinaia lead plates says: "They also include text written in some unknown scripts that do not resemble any known written alphabet". The issue is not if these are hoaxes or not, as they are notable enough, but where best to address them.Racconish^Tk 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as entirely unsourced. The only sources I can see in the article are those about inscriptions that are uncontroversially in other scripts (i.e. Greek), or from other historical periods, and therefore irrelevant to the topic of the article. The actual topic, of an alleged separate ancient (pre-Roman) script, appears to be so fringe that no literature seems to have been found either proposing or even just refuting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~, obvious hoax article. If this is "an important part of Romanian protochronism", lets see some decent references to back up the claim. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reduced the article to what is actually referenced. It boils down to two fringe claims concerning 18th to 19th century Romantic hoaxes. This can well be merged (as a single-line paragraph) into Protochronism. --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw you did major edits on Dacian script although is under a dispute and deletion requestion. While I welcome your participation, can you please explain why you removed the relevant See also, and External links section, as well as Dacia-stub, Dacia topics, Category Dacia and Dacian languages? Controversial or not, it is connected to the Dacia topic.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." (Or, as I prefer to phrase it -- 'cite it or lose it'.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would further point out that this policy states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" -- which you violated with this edit which restored material without citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't seem to get the point. Why remove See also and External links which bring more information about the disputed topic. Why remove Category:Dacia if it belongs there? Why remove it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia when is a Mid importance topic for that project?! Hoax, controversy or not, it belongs to the topic Dacia. I don't endorse the idea that is real, I am very skeptical too, but I can't tolerate vandalism and deletionism at this level, especially when the article is under review and scrutiny. Let the reviewers see the article propose for deletion HOW IT WAS, let them voice the concerns on the talk page and here, then delete, merge, modify, whatever, but stop radically modifying NOW! Cause people don't know what is proposed for deletion or merger anymore! Codrin.B (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because an article has been proposed for deletion, it doesn't mean it can't be edited. BTW, Codrinb, the way you have phrased this [3] is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against canvassing. You may inform a project of a relevant AfD but you mustn't suggest how project members ought to vote.--Folantin (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Edit is one thing, major restructuring is another or re-writing it for a diametrically opposed, non-neutral point of view is another. Removing most relevant links and explanatory sections of the content is not editing. The complete removal of the article by user Anonimu is also editing? Canvasing you are saying? I am all alone, while other probably work in groups. Look at this change by User:Dbachmann, removing the article (disputed or not), from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia which marked it previously as mid importance. Is this neutrality, respect and I should assume good faith?--Codrin.B (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Protochronism. I'm not seeing any reliable evidence this concept is any more than a tendentious hoax - if that. --Folantin (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a look around the Net. The top result in Romanian for "scrierea dacă" (Dacian script) is an interview with Sorin Olteanu (the linguist mentioned above) who roundly dismissses the whole idea: "scrierea dacă este pură invenţie" ("the Dacian script is pure fabrication"). Really not much else. Some stuff about the Sinaia lead plates and that's about it. Enăchiuc and Peţan, mentioned in the article, seem to be associated with Dacia Magazin (check out its website for some Dacomanic fun), the organ of the "Dacia International Revival Society" whose editor is Napoleon Săvescu. According to his own Wikipedia article: "His most famous theory says that the Romanians are not the descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close to Latin." Dipping into the magazine confirms this genuinely appears to be his belief (see the "Open Letter to the Youth of Romania" in the first issue, where he claims the Dacians are the ancestors of all the Latin peoples). --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Napoleon Savescu's magazine published the work of Enăchiuc and Peţan, doesn't make them protochonists. While I am very suspicious by some of Mr. Savescu's claims, his theory about the Dacian-Latin connection is a theory that has merit. There is no clear explanation of why Dacians ended up Latinized in such a short period, while other populations in the area didn't. Good theory, bad theory, it is clearly notable, since his haters write more about it then the proponents. I am again making an appeal to objectivity, neutrality and an open mind. And I am not talking about making WP a democracy. Obviously it's impossible. But no more Inquisition please, we are in 2011. No burning of black cats. There are many theories about the Dacian language. And I welcome you all to this collaboration proposed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia--Codrin.B (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about? This is clearly little more than fringe nationalist fantasy. So far there is no evidence it is even notable fringe nationalist fantasy (and I've searched in both English and Romanian). You've been asked time and time again to come up with evidence from reliable sources to back the article, but you have failed to do so. --Folantin (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Sǎvescu seems to be just an even more extreme proponent of the ideas of the old Romanian nationalist historian Nicolae Densuşianu, whose book Prehistoric Dacia (1913) has been described as a "fantasy novel" and was a major influence on protochronism. Although Densuşianu attributed the lack of surviving inscriptions in Dacian to the "fact" that Latin and Dacian were dialects of the same language! (See Lucian Boia History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness p.97). --Folantin (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Protochronism. There's no Dacian script other than in hoaxes.

As for the Sinaia plates, Aurora Peţan is also one of the authors with a protochronist agenda and Dan Romalo is not even a scholar, so what are we talking about?

Codrin, there's nothing to explain about Dacians (or Celts or anyone else) learning Latin or Greek in few generations. Was it hard for South Americans to learn Spanish or Portuguese? How hard was for you to learn English? How hard is for Romanians to learn Italian or Spanish when they go to work there? And how do they speak Romanian when they come back in the country? Daizus (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. But I am just not convinced of the certitude with which some of you guys call them hoaxes. What reliable references you bring to the table? Sorin Olteanu's site in Romanian, that's it? He is a great linguist, but on a holy war with Romalo, so very subjective. I love Olteanu's work and cite it in many articles but how much exposure he has to international reviewers? You guys have to face it, there is not enough scrutiny and exposure internationally, just a holy war in some Romanian circles. Neither sides have enough reliable sources to properly pass WP:IRS without forcing it. To your other point, how come the Germans, Greeks, Illyrians (Albanians?!), Israelites, Egyptians, some of the Persians, did not get Latinized?! Or even the Slavs who some say were already in the Balkans at that time. When people spend the time to link Dacian with Baltic, even Slavic and even Bactian, why is it the end of the world if someone links it to Latin, a more likely candidate then the others. It is just food for thought and not endorsing anything. And about Romanians learning Italian or Spanish, they all speak Romance language, so be careful, not be appear protochronistic, linking Latin to Latin :-)) --Codrin.B (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daizus, I will continue the debate just for the sake of keeping an open mind, and invite everyone to think outside the box. No other reason. Your answer is very detailed and pertinent, but look below for my observations --Codrin.B (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's the other way around. There are no reliable sources arguing for their authenticity. One should not create content about blue-skinned seven-eyed dwarves with green pointed hats. Probably no scholar refutes their existence, and so what?

I don't think the article talks about dwarves. Let's not exaggerate. And it sounds like the chicken and egg problem to me. You prove it, no you prove it. Childish. Let's just keep both sides available for the reader to review and decide. Most people won't believe in seven-eyed dwarves articles, so no need to help them by removing information. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it talks about dwarves! I don't have to prove anything, I'm not arguing anything about Dacian language or alphabets. There are no two sides here - there is not a single reliable source arguing about the authenticity of these scripts. As pointed to you already, "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. There are reliable sources saying there are hoaxes. But I don't see the point in mentioning or quoting such sources because of 1.

Just give one please. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Preda, "De la tracomanie la dacomanie", Academica (2004), 44-45.

3. If you can't understand linguistic arguments, it doesn't mean there's some sort of religious background behind them. The Sinaia script is a mixture of Greek with Cyrillic and other exotic characters. Once deciphered, the language shows words borrowed from Bulgarian (*reko = "river" < reka) or French (sekorio, edo = "help"). That is evidence enough for any intelligent reader.

I didn't say I don't understand linguistics nor that I am an expert. I know the criticism about having letters and words from the future, although I don't think is impossible to have people in the past who used some symbols that were attributed to later people. It had Greek letters? That could easily be explained by the known Greek influence on Geto-Dacians. When you say Bulgarian, you mean Bulgar Turkic or modern Bulgarian, since there are Dacian and Thracian words in the modern one (which has mostly Indo-European roots so other connections are possible). And sekorio is French for sure? And if is, we can't have words that are written the same in other languages? But my point was, linguistics alone cannot dismiss a set of physical tablets. There are other scientific means to assess their origin and age. And if you can't, just keep them and wait for other discoveries, technologies and let people know about them in interim. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you imagine linguistics is a sort of "anything goes", then clearly you don't understand it. Are the Cyrillic letters to be explained by a Christian Slavic influence on Dacians? All words change in time! If the so-called Dacian words look almost identical with modern words (and words from this language like viro, strato, filo are also used in Esperanto), then it's not about common PIE roots, it's about a modern invented language (like Esperanto). What is the PIE root inherited both in French (secour) and Dacian (sekorio)? And yes, linguistics alone can denounce such fakes. A "Mayan" tablet written in a English-Spanish mixture is a fake!

4. In the Roman Empire there were two official languages - Latin and Greek. Germania or Persia were never conquered by Romans. Moreover there were Germanic kingdoms and a Sassanid Persia. Albanian language was heavily influenced by Latin, it survived in a relatively small territory, and most of the Balkans were actually Romanized (for Illyria, see also about the Dalmatian language). But the point missed here is that romanization is one thing, the survival of a Romance idiom is another. As I argued on a talk page, we have evidence of Dacian soldiers in Egypt writing letters to each other in Greek. Do you think the other Dacians were bad learners?

I didn't say they conquered all Germania or Persia, but clearly portions. What about Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, Noricum, Assyria, Panonia, Mauretania, Syria, Iudea and a myriad of other Roman provinces where Romans stayed longer then Dacia? None of them Latinized, so different from each other, in such varied geographical locations. Why not? They were not smart enough? Or Trajan had private teachers for every Dacian but he didn't like the Cappadocians? Well maybe Asia Minor and Africa were more under a Greek influence. Really? Then why are the Jewish not speaking Greek? And why did Free Dacians (I know, contested, all Dacians disappeared instantaneously in 106 AD, kidnapped by aliens, let's delete this one too) get latinized when both free and occupied Germans did not? These are questions that open minded people should ask themselves without being protochronists or caring about some crazy theories from Mr. Savescu. But to not allow people to even wonder why not, is terrible and sad. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The provinces of Germania, Noricum, Pannonia, Mauretenia were Latinized (to different degrees). Assyria was province for few years! Syria and Judeea were Hellenized (to different degrees). The "Free" Dacians were never Latinized, but those who were colonized / migrated in the Empire. This line of argumentation is anachronistic, you're looking at the languages spoken today. Many Jews from Israel settled there in modern times, how is that relevant for the ancient history of their language in that territory? Let's not mistake open-mindedness for ignorance ;) Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. It's highly unlikely Dacian was Latin or closely related to it. Dacian is sometimes linked to Albanian or Baltic languages because there are some similarities.

Highly unlikely because?!... --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Latin is a centum language and Dacian a satəm language? Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Romanians working in Germany learn German, those working in Canada learn either English or French, and so on. There's no "Latin to Latin" link here. Daizus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you didn't realize I was joking there. Not need to explain. :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very lack of references for some "artefacts" known for more than 100 years should be enough proof for their irrelevance (even more, considering the extent to which some Romanian historian patriotically "bended" sources to fit the official theory - see the way some of them decided that any individual with a Christian name mentioned in mediaeval Dobruja must necessarily be a Romanian). As for the your belief that the population couldn't learn Latin in the short time of Roman rule, you don't have to resort to pseudo-science such as protochronism, there's a respectable theory that says (part of) the ancestors of Romanians came from the Roman Balkans (I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, but at least if you support it you aren't unanimously qualified as a quack by the academia - no matter what Romanian schoolbooks may want students to believe).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that all descendants of the Migration Period in Balkans are very happy that Romanians like you exist.. I wonder what do you think about your own origin. Or I better not. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue with the personal attacks I'll have to request admin intervention. BTW, since all the decipherements of the "Dacian script" reveal a language that is farther from Romanian than is classical Latin, doesn't that suggest that Romanians are after all descendants of Roman colonists?Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been around for five years, I frankly don't understand the sudden rush to judgement. Certainly the evidence from around 100 AD is the Dacians were using a Latin script--indeed, they have left their mark on the Latin alphabet form. As for earlier...

For example, in "The Golden Age of Transylvania", by "Maurus Jokai" (Mór Jókai), translated into English, we find the following (set in the 1600's):

CHAPTER IX

THE PRINCE AND HIS MINISTER

A Few years had passed since Apafi rose to his princely rank. We are in the period when, in consequence of the sudden death of Nicholas Zrinyi the party of Hungarian malcontents had lost their standing and most of them had gone to Transylvania, which country was rejoicing in Home rule, owing to the rivalry of the German and Turkish monarchs.

. . .

At this moment Teleki entered the Prince's apartment with an important air, took some writing from a silk envelope, opened it and placed it in Apafi's hand. The Prince appeared to read it with care and knit his brow as he did so. Suddenly he called out, "They certainly are Dacian letters!" "What!" said Teleki, astounded, with wide open eyes. He could not comprehend how the Prince had found Dacian writing in the letter handed him. "Yes, I am positive. I remember reading, perhaps in Dio Cassius, that the Romans had medals struck with a Dacian inscription and on the obverse the picture of a headless man. Here it is."

Now, obviously, this is a historical novel, these are not transcribed conversations. But, certainly, that the Dacians had their own writing system pre-dating use of the Latin alphabet has long had a hold on popular culture and would seem to me worthy of more than a redirect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not in an article about this novel? Daizus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's easy enough to dig up more references to its popularity among amateur historians, etc. (i.e., more popular culture). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical fiction used to establish the notability of a concept unknown to academia? Are you really sure you want to keep such arguments in an AfD archive?!? The idea has no popularity outside protochronist circles, the same that support the idea first brought forward by Napoleon Savescu that "Pelasgians" (i.e. Dacians) colonized Japan and Central America (sic!!!).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peters had a very sensible and interesting point. Very neutral and informative. Why do you have to go to such extremes with your examples and your language to attack people? Unknown to academia? Whatever your academia is (certain, hand picked PhDs in linguistics and history, no other intelligent self educated people will count here for you I assume), is obviously screaming out loud against the unknown concept, some through your own voices. Why are you here, deleting the article if it is unknown? Because you, a great academician and beholder of the absolute truth and authority know about it, since is very notable and annoying to some people who spent their carriers around some theories and are very angered when others suggest a radically different one. It would mean that their academic lives were wasted if they admit another theory. And that's unacceptable. So let's be the Inquisition to shut up anyone who would threaten our research and vested interest. Make sure our books sell, and theirs don't, cause they are protochronists and we are great and cool. Very sensible intellectuals. And of course such ideas from Mr. Savescu are going way to far. Central America, come on! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ancient Dacians created a civilization created a culture extending form the Atlantic to the Pacific (across Eurasia) is a basic tenet of protochronism, not an extreme example. Academia as in peer-reviewed journals, as in WP:Reliable sources, as opposed to self-published quacks. "intelligent self educated people" have no value to Wikipedia or scientific research, unless their "intuitions" are certified by academia... I'm sure even you wouldn't agree a mechanical engineer performed a heart bypass on you just because he has spent ten years studying the dog's heart. Wikipedia has a basic guideline about WP:Notability that says that if a subject is unknown, then it has no place on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to refer to it as a "concept." BTW, I've been having a bit of trouble finding pictures of the "Dacian triptych" which has a dozen or so lines of Dacian writing on it. (Those I believe would have already been in Latin script.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the "Dacian triptych" is the one from Alburnus Maior. In Latin. Daizus (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, I rather suspect that the reference to Dio Cassius's Roman history is accurate. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Racconish^Tk 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now sourced and neutral. Though short, not short enough to be reduced to one line mention in Protochronism, with which it does not ~~completely~~ overlap. There is nothing on Dacian alphabet in Protochronism. BTW, I would prefer "Dacian alphabet" to "Dacian script". ~~As for other possible merges, The sheer fact we hesitate where to shows they not necessary.~~Racconish^Tk 12:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Protochronism. I started including the material in Protochronism. Should the article be kept, I would withdraw these additions. Racconish^Tk 17:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as it stands now, the article just says the "script" is a protochronist fantasy, and given it's short length, it can easily be included as a separate section in the Protochronism section. Protochronism has hundreds of fantastic theories and conspiracies that make the Da Vinci Code an almost reasonable story. I don't think is reasonable to create an article for each one of them. We should just create a section in the Protochronism article, and if these guys keep shelling Wikipedia with their fantasies, create an article Protochronist theories that reunites them all. It's not about deletionists vs inclusionists, it's about Wikipedia's scientific credibility... just check Google, all sources talking about a "Dacian script" are WP mirrors. Nowadays WP (with Google's help) is creating popular culture, so we should assume responsibility for it. If for more than 100 years scholars decided that a theory doesn't deserve more than a phrase or two in hundred-pages books (as opposed to notable pseudo-science theories, such as flat earth, geocentrism or the phlogiston) , why should WP create a dedicated topic about this theory?Anonimu (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys rewrote this article several times to say Protochronism 50 times in it, against my attempt to freeze the work on it and get third party, neutral opinion cause no one is objective here. And now you are saying, let's merge it to Protochronism since all it does it talks about it. Somebody, shoot me now!! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure how this article is now "neutral". It doesn't mention the opinion of Sorin Olteanu of the Vasile Parvân Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest that "Dacian script" is "pure fabrication" and there's not even anything to discuss [4]:"There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the "Dacian alphabet" is a nationalist fabrication. It can be merged into Protochronism without any kind of loss. The continued existence of the article serves only as a trollbait, inviting further attempts to suggest or imply that the notion has any kind of credibility, and that its status as a fabrication is "only an opinion". --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think... Protochronism superficially looks like a suitable destination for Dacian script, but that article has its own inherent problem, if it is to collect other proposed protochronisms: it risks providing undue WP:SYNTH. I instead propose that both are kept, and that the link to Dacian script is included in a See also section of Protochronism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about something that doesn't exist. Nobody has even come forth with any evidence that "Dacian script" is even a notable nationalist fantasy. --Folantin (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no SYNTH problem. Archaeologist Mircea Babes, grade 1 researched at the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the most important Romanian archaeology journal, includes the idea of a "Dacian script" as just another protochronist fantasy. See his view on the dispute, or better said the reasons why the script is not even a notable dispute, in my first !vote.Anonimu (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FRINGE, an article on an notable false theory is perfectly acceptable. Racconish^Tk 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence this is a notable fringe theory worthy of its own article then? --Folantin (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You actually contributed some...Racconish^Tk 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I contributed Olteanu's opinion that there was so little substance to the idea there was not even anything to discuss. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what he said. I did read your source.Racconish^Tk 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So where did he say it was notable? He said: "There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone doubted the artice was a troll magnet, I think recent events drive home the point. No, Racconish, this is not notable. All we have seen is that the notion exists. It gets two (2) hits on google books. "Dacian alphabet" does, that is. "Dacian script" gets zero. Any notable fringe theory will get at least a couple of hundred. The picture of the vase you insist on transcluding has never been mentioned in the context, all that can be said about it is that perhaps some Dacian attempted to imitate the Greek alphabet without actually being literate. Can we please call it a day, redirect the title, and mention this thing at Protochronism. Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already changed my vote to 'keep or merge' and agreed with you and on the fact 'alphabet' is more accurate than 'script'. I just think we have enough quality sources on this wrong theory to call it a notable wrong theory.Racconish^Tk 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure we need a separate article for the "Dacian script" inanity, nor am I sure if the amount of coverage (negative coverage, obviously) this ludicrous theory has had don't warrant a separate article. In practical terms, if the article really is (only) a permanent focus of users who try to push some phantasmagoria, then it is best to redirect somehow, and maybe to delete "Dacian script", and maybe to salt. Yes, the Protochronism article is imperfect - it dates back to a day when wikipedia standards were themselves less perfect -, but it does clearly reflect scholarly consensus. In any case, a discussion about that is flooding the logical debate here. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Dacian script#Merge proposal with Protochronism so far shows 6 editors supporting the merge, 1 against. Racconish^Tk 08:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we counting the votes here or on the talk page? Also, with the exception of you, Racconish, who came in good faith to save the article and then were almost pushed to change your vote, and with the exception of Daizus who had a very sensible and respectful position which I admire, the other 4 votes come from individuals who acted with incredible aggressivity and hatred. They engaged in edit wars, canvassing, personal attacks. They are deleting WikiProject Dacia left and right, removing content, removing categories how they see fit. They obviously have a very dubious agenda, not worthy of Wikipedia, and they have the balls to accuse me of canvassing. How can someone count their votes when they acted with so much bias, hate and immaturity? --Codrin.B (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision to keep or delete should be largely independent from whether or not the reports of a dacian script are true or a historical invention. Wikipedia rightfully has many of pages on real-world hoaxes, misinterpretations, confected nationalist myths, and superseded theories. I'm not ready to make a judgement on whether or not the archaeological findings are really a script, but if multiple sources have devoted substantial attention to this subject then it's notable - regardless of whether those sources accepted or rejected the theory. This is certainly a challenging editing environment (and I'm baffled that anybody might think so many different warning templates are needed at the top of a stub) but an article should report what reliable sources say. If somebody happened to finds an eminent archaeologist or linguist debunking the theory at length, that would just make the subject even more notable - a reason to keep the article (and fix it), rather than delete it. On the other hand, a convincing artefact that nobody's bothered to report on would mean the subject is less notable. Forget about pro and anti; we should judge it on the number and depth of the sources that specifically discuss Dacian script. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we've already established that no substantial scholarly attention has been paid to this issue. Go to Google Books. "Dacian script" gets zero results. "Dacian alphabet" gets 2 results. --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle - that there's a lack of sources - but a simplistic search of google books is not guaranteed to reveal all sources, given that most work on that area will be in other languages than English, and in different formats. I've spent a couple of hours browsing through a bunch of historic articles & reviews in various journals which make no mention of any native script. A lot of the region's history has been written in German, but I'm not confident in German. A (scornful) review in the Journal of Roman Studies suggests that Pârvan wrote a couple of books which ought to touch on the subject; I haven't yet found a way to get full text of these books in any of the archives that I can access. This says "The Dacian state ... has several highly distinctive features, including the absence of cities and the rejection of literacy". bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I've already looked for Romanian sources online. This appears to be the province of protochronists and fringe amateur historians like Sǎvescu. As for German, "dakische Schrift" (or "dacische Schrift") gets zero results in Google Books as does "dakische Alphabet".Folantin (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick follow-up, I've been looking for French and Italian sources (searching "écriture dace", "écriture dacique", "alphabet dace", "scrittura daca", "alfabeto daco" etc.) and the results are effectively non-existent. This indicates this is definitely not a notable concept. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to the reasons I outlined above (and I agree with Folantin). bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Protochronism - the arguments above seem fairly clear. Notable fringe theories are all well and good, yes, but this does not seem to qualify, and heaven knows it's had enough people looking. Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the language article. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And your reasons are? Have you found any sources to say this is a notable topic outside fringe amateur history, for instance? --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 14 January 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. Courcelles 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Malta Ambulance Corps Limerick Unit

edit

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

WP:ORG (local chapter of organisation) and plagiarism from PHECC and Emergency Medical Technician Heggyhomolit (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Nom, non notable local chapter. Snappy (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or major rewrite.Red Hurley (talk) 11:22, 13 January 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. Courcelles 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Goeld

edit

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

US fiction writer. One of his books, Searching for Steely Dan, is self-published at lulu. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This edit has more notability. Jørdan 07:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, etc. etc. Completely non-notable vanity-press writer. Qworty (talk) 07:37, 9 January 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. Courcelles 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The-Hub

edit

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

Non-notable website. I removed all the fluff and there's not really anything left. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:59, 7 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpotGames

edit

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AFD discussions for this article:

Articles for deletion/Redspotgames

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

no real notability shown for this company. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. New article recreation at RedSpotGames (with caps) instead of redspotgames (no caps as they write it) appears to be an attempt to bypass the salting of the real title, which if memory serves correct was also recreated as a subsection of Dreamcast-Scene as another attempt to bypass the salt, with a redirect created with caps. (Speedy deletion from G4 declined, see talk page, different enough from original article.) duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Some of the "references" do not refer to redspotgames at all; for example, there is a reference to a page on Dreamcast Scene's web site, apparently because Dreamcast Scene is mentioned in the article, though that page does not mention redspotgames at all. Likewise with other references. In fact the only references which mention redspotgames are two links to the company's own web site and one to an advertising page on a web site selling one of their products, so there are no independent sources at all. (Also, in view of the close connection between redspotgames and Dreamcast Scene, pages on Dreamcast Scene's web site would not be independent sources even if they did mention redspotgames.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason giving for declining the speedy deletion was that the original version "had only four references, most of which were not independent", whereas the new version "has nine references" (actually seven), and "the editor is attempting to address the problems". While that is no doubt true (apart from the mistake in counting references), simply adding more references which are not independent or do not mention the subject does not address the problems, so in my opinion the speedy deletion notification was valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the G4 nomination was valid (I made it) and I will not argue against the opinion that there was enough difference to decline the speedy deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Canvassing via Twitter here. --Teancum (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sourcing found. Barely enough for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the following secondary sources which help establish this topic's notability.

Game Informer - Dreamcast Not Dead – New Release Set For 2010
Wired - New Dreamcast Games Coming This Spring
GamePro - New Dreamcast Title in 2009
GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games
Engadget - Redspotgames has plans for further Dreamcast development
1Up - Rush Rush Rally Racing Coming to Sega Dreamcast
Computer and Video Games - Dreamcast releases still planned into 2011
TGDaily - German developer is reviving the Dreamcast
Gamesradar - German TV show reveals a new Dreamcast game
Computer and Video Games - New Dreamcast game revealed
Kotaku - On German TV, They've Unveiled A New Dreamcast Game Note: Kotaku is listed as "situational" at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources depending on the author of the article. In this case, Stephen Totilo is a published author on video games.[5]
Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: First Trailer For New Dreamcast Euroshmup Note: Listed as reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
Game Set Watch - Sturmwind: New Shoot'em Up Announced For Dreamcast
GameSpot - GC 2008: They Are Still Making Dreamcast Games

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are serveral references even in larger print magazines like gamesTM, the links to websites above or even in Japanese media:

Inside-Games.jp

Also there are several videos of their game fair shows available:

YouTube videos Andrew wu77 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the main editor and creator of the article, if their are complaints towards the writing style let's discuss it in the article's discussion section and work towards improving it. Deleting it is a slap on the face for contributing at wikipedia :*Kotaku redspotgames tag --203.81.205.119 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^--Cube b3 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cube b3 is trying to astroturf to keep the article and all the keeps may be sock puppets. This link is proof. http://dcemulation.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=100844 -68.185.90.190 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the editor here.[6] In the meantime, 68.185.90.190, I'd appreciate it if you focused on whether this article's topic is notable. In particular, I've provided a list of secondary sources which seemed to address the main complaint about the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! - The company is the only one that is still supporting the Dreamcast console which makes it absolutely unique. redspotgames and their games have been in popular print magazines and websites and they were even on German TV, on a mainstream channel, not a gaming one -> http://de.sevenload.com/videos/Q5afitx-Sturmwind-redspotgames-bei-neues-3sat . The article may need some editing, but notability is clear for me. Also, as you can see there more than enough neutral sources.... duffbeerforme, please stop expressing your personal dislike against this company... --Maturion (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maturion is possibly a puppet as he is a dcemulation.org user. He likely came here from the topic linked above. http://dcemulation.org/?title=User:Maturion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.90.190 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a DC Emulation user as well, it is a community of very passionate Dreamcast users, just like the passion wikipedians have to write articles, this is significant to us and DC Emulation alone is a community with over 10,000 members ^[1]--Cube b3 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I am a puppet because I am registered at a particular forum is pretty poor. And no, although I am a registered user over there, I didn't come from this forum, nor did anyone ask me to join this discussion. By the way, don't you have any other points that justify the deletion of redspotgames except that we all may be puppets? The reasons for the proposed deletion are all disproven:

no real notability shown for this company. - redspotgames published 5 games, 2 more are coming very soon. Also, redspotgames is a unique appearance, they are the only company that is doing games for the SEGA Dreamcast console.
sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. - redspotgames has been featured on websites such as Kotaku, 1up.com, Engadget or Wired News which are among the most popular websites worldwide. In addition to that they were featured or interviewed in magazines like Computer and Video Games and gamesTM and they were even on German TV (3sat).

I'd call that MORE than enough independet, reliable sources with enough significant coverage. The article may need some editing, though.--Maturion (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The games have received that coverage. The company, independent from the games is in question. I'm not chiming in with a keep or delete as this topic doesn't interest me, but just be clear that game coverage with a mention of the publisher/dev is not the same as independent coverage for either company. --Teancum (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the sources provided I do not see any that would be called significant coverage of redspotgames in independent reliable sources. The nomination still stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme: Can you please be a little more specific? Are you saying that these sources don't provide significant coverage? Are you saying that they're not reliable or that they're not independent? I'm not sure what your specific objection is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mixture. Articles about their games with just a passing mention of redspotgames (gamespot, gamepro, 1up, computerandvideogames, gamesradar, kotaku), reproduction of press releases (computerandvideogames, kotaku), trivial announcements (wired, 1up, computerandvideogames, inside-games), plain trivial trivial (engadget), blogs (gamespot, tgdaily, computerandvideogames, gamesradar), user comments (gameinformer), themselves talking about themselves (youtube). There is some more overlap where I think the sorces belong. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme: Both articles from Computer and Video games are not press releases.[7][8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I can see what you mean in that most of these articles are fairly short. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are actually mainly about redspotgames itself:

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/21/redspotgames-looking-to-continue-publishing-for-dreamcast/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-XRNuVFKiE

Comment: Just quoting User:duffbeerforme: While it may look like I'm after your articles I'm actually targeting articles related to redspotgames

--Maturion (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube ref is redspotgames talking about themselves, not independent. joystiq is on the trivial size, is promotional and is on "media of limited interest" (WP:CORP, audience). As for the quote ([9]), I was at that time as wikipedia is not a means of promotion and that's what all these articles came across as (combined with the history of recreation of articles). duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling nonsense, please. They've been invited to a TV show to tell more about themselves. That's not a video from redspotgames. Actually, 3sat is one of the most popular TV channels in Germany and can be received by 80 million households in whole Europe. Joystiq is not on the trivial size, even if you claim so, something different is the case. It's the 1,534th ([10]) most visited website in the world, meaning that it gets at least several hundred thousands if not millions of pageviews a day. The website of Handelsblatt, one of Germany's best known newspapers is on #2,694 [11] --Maturion (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meant the joysiq reference, not the site itself. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since I don't understand the whole fuzz about questioning the companies' notability. I see some personal rejection here in the deletion page. Clearly there are several sources from notable resources available: IGN, Joystiq, Kotaku. I wouldn't describe myself as Dreamcast scener since I never have owned a Dreamcast before 2008, when Rush Rush Rally Racing by Redspotgames came out and saw them at a Games Convention fair and bought their Xbox 360 game Solar Struggle. I have also been to their Gamescom booth - which is the largest videogame fair in Europe by the way, another notable event, and took some photos. I can help enhance the article and provide further independent sources, such as the M!Games article (German Magazine), see: Article about Redspotgames in German Magazine - it's the largest multi platform Magazine here in Germany and they have written some independent articles about Redspotgames as a company. This very articles handles about their Chiptune live shows, which would make the article on Wikipedia even more notable, because they have unique presentations and makes them more as just "people who put others games' out". It's a big topic in the Indie Scene right now. Arno.f (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A company that has published seven commercial games, and three more to come... has "no real notability"? If that's supposed to be a joke, it's not funny. -- Stormwatch (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with number of games released. That's not a joke. Reach Out to the Truth 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Teancum. There are a couple of sources which stick out, in which this (if barely) gets by on notability. –MuZemike 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask which sources stick out? duffbeerforme (talk) 18:32, 7 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

We start round 2 now: redspotgames is a video game publisher, distributor and promoter based in Munich Germany. Established in 2005, the company is known for publishing new games for the long discontinued Sega Dreamcast video game system, recently redspotgames have also branched off publishing to digital services such as X-Box Live and Nintendo WiiWare. The company has been present at international trade events such as Gamescom, their games have advertised and promoted on National TV shows in multiple countries. German TV show Neus revealed their latest game Sturmwind. Australian TV show Good Game on ABC Australia reviewd Rush Rush Rally Racing--Cube b3 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Company lacks of notability.--79.235.100.74 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC) — 79.235.100.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison (mascot)

edit

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable fictional character I42 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, completely and utterly. And don't forget to delete the image on the way out. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While just created, nothing of encyclopaedic value could ever be added. Jørdan 07:25, 8 January 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 keep, obviously notable and well-sourced subject, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

edit

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

this page is against the emotions of Muslims Qazisamiesaeed (talk) 19:35, 7 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kahkoni

edit

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

Non-notable constructed language lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Prod removed by author of language. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly interesting, however there are compliance issues that can't be resolved legitimately. Jørdan 07:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit summary on the creation of the article is: New article related to a little known conlang Kahkoni. WP:PROMOTION? —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 13 January 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. 22:31, 13 January 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Old Cranleighans" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Cranleighans as well.) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cranleighans

edit

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

Unsourced, does not appear to be notable, possible copyright violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I violate my own written work?!! I represent the Old Cranleighans and wrote the original copy and run the website it appears on. If you are really going to be this petty then please explain in simple English, as many 'instructions' are anything but, what I have to do to sort this out. Mogodonman (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have written the original article, but you copyrighted it to the Old Cranleighans Association. It says so at the bottom of the page. If you had released it under an open source license compatible with the wikipedia license you could copy it to wikipedia, but you can not do that as it stands. You could try rewriting it to not use the actual words of the source, but that will not be easy. In any even, it is not clear that the association is notable. You should address notability issues first. Unless these are addressed, I support delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or for the copyright issue, he can get permission from the Old Cranleighans Association to reuse it (which I suspect they would grant). For notability, it would be nice to have some evidence that Old Cranleighans are referred to in secondary sources. Francis Bond (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cranleigh School. The amount of text visible in this state seems a necessary and sufficient coverage of the topic and can comfortably be merged into the school article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page in its entirity. All I was trying to do was add value to Wikipedia but its not worth wasting your or my time any further. I appreciate the time taken by your moderators to do a difficult and presumably unpaid job; I do not think the snideness and professional sleights which seem a part of RHaworth's operational style do Wikipedia any favours however. Mogodonman (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, albeit amused, you can delete or amend articles at lightning speed but when the author of them asks for them to be taken down, there's a wall of silence. Please remove the content as it appears on the Old Cranleighan Society website and without my consent to use, which in view of above conversations has been withdrawn, is a clear breach of the OCS' own copyright. Thank you. Mogodonman (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because OTRS permission has been withdrawn and the copyvio text remains under an all rights reserved license at the website, I have deleted the templated text now rather than allow our standard 7-day "good faith" waiting period. I have also purged the history because of the OTRS revocation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Restore the article as a redirect which it was prior to the recent addition of copyvio text. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my requests to remove this page which I created, it remains on the site. Please remove this immediately. It is ludicrous RHaworth can remove content when I gave permission in a matter of hours and yet when there is no permission nothing is done to remove it. Your help would be appreciated. Mogodonman (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked it as a speedy delete as an author blanked page. - It should go within a few hours. I have also rescued the text and posted it on the talk page of Cranleigh School where some knowledgeable editor can integrate it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:17, 13 January 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. Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AaB A/S

edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AaB A/S

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

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability, no coverage showing up. Wtshymanski (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit agnostic on deletion (I was the admin who removed the speedy tag though), but in the article's defence:
- The firm is publicly listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange
- The firm has an annual revenue of >250 million Danish kroner, or almost 50 million US dollars
- As is evident from the template in the footer, it is the parent company of Aalborg Boldspilklub, which seems obviously notable

Can't see why this wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of these are in WP:CORP. The paragraph at WP:LISTED doesn't say listing on a stock exchange guarantees notability. And the parent company can't "inherit" notability from the team it owns. The turnover is respectable but not notable - you dno't have to pass too many car dealerships before you've hit $50 million in annual sales. Put a couple of lines in the team's article describing the parent company, if we must; but the comany fails the guidelines in WP:CORP. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORP for notability and significant coverage. The company owns 3 professional sports teams and the largest chain of sports retailers in Denmark of more than 100 stores. Although the article is bare-boned, it has potential to be edited and expanded given the significant coverage of the company in Danish business news. A brief search of the national press found dozens of articles, for example [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the first editor of this article, I can say that I have used an annual report as source, because it is very reliable. It is reliable because the information is verified by the Danish taxation authorities as well as the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. Other sources are always good and are improving the article, which already have been done. Other arguments why this article is notable have already been mentioned by user CactusWriter.--Patchfinder (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article still is considered for deleting, please also consider deleting this article Parken Sport & Entertainment. And please make a note that says "parent companies in the Danish sports/entertainment business are not notable".--Patchfinder (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, it's got multiple independent sources. An annual is not an independent source- its self-published. Where are the independent sources? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would really improve this discussion, if you start reading what I write instead of being ignorant. An annual report is off course not independent, but it can be very reliable if the information is verified. User:CactusWriter has added independent sources to the article, which means it now has reliable and independent sources. --Patchfinder (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Wtshymanski? "Where are the independent sources?" Please explain why the included cites to Berlingske Tidende newspaper, Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Børsen A/S financial news, Ritzau news agency, etc. are not independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The added references from independent sources demonstrate to coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fed the first 3 sources provided by CactusWriter into google translate and all 3 appear to be significant coverage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 15 January 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. Courcelles 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masshole

edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Massholes

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

This is an article about a derogatory word for people from Massachsetts. That's all. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content is appropriate for urbandictionary.com, but not Wikipedia, which not only is not a dictionary, but also is not a publisher of original research. The use of a word in tongue-in-cheek articles on slate.com and alternative weeklies (i.e., this one and this one) and trademark registrations is not a sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, delete but use article content to improve the Wiktionary definition of the term. [20] --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DICDEF. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a dicdef, nothing more. Ravenswing 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The word's usage is limited to a very small and specific region of the United States, and therefore has no widespread significance. Cactusjump (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICDEF. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. While I've heard it, the word is not commonly used, and has no notability. Good sources will be difficult to find. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people from Massachusetts. Powers ^T 14:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! --Pnm (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My tongue was only slightly in cheek; I'm wondering if we should actually implement that so that searchers are directed someplace appropriate. Powers ^T 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 2005 AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massholes. --Pnm (talk) 04:20, 12 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mode Lifestyle Magazine

edit

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

I found no verification for the existence of an actual publication. The magazine is not on any major newsstands nor for sale on online sources. The official website is a single page front -- clicking any button such as "subscribe", "advertising", "back issues", etc. leads to the same under construction page. (And has since this article's creation in November). The few sources provided are self-published press releases. This is either someone's wishful thinking or a possible hoax. (In searches, this magazine should not be confused with the fictional fashion magazine Mode from Ugly Betty.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: Have just read a deletion statement for Mode Lifestyle Magazine (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ISSN: 1948-2892). The magazine is a real publication and the website is not a single page website. A publication that has been seen by thousands of people including celebrities that have attended it’s fashion shows surely meets any standards for verification with thorough research, especially since one of the many events is shown on a slideshow on the front page. The notice stated that the reason many of the pages are being updated is because the website was hacked and action was taken to protect the site and client information, and to rewrite the code with improved security. The magazine is not confused with the fictional magazine you mentioned, especially by the thousands of people that have attended the magazine’s fashion and lifestyle events over the years, some of which have been televised.

Referencing some of the points made:

a) Re “the website is a single front page”: The website is not a single front page. Some pages are being updated and some are fully live. Click on the “Shop MODE” and it takes you to the ecommerce section: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/index.php

b) Re “Clicking any button such as subscribe”: Clicking on subscribe takes you to the subscriptions page, a full ecommerce section that is being updated: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

c) Re “Someone’s wishful thinking, not to be confused with another magazine”: Here is a small list of some of the events hosted by the magazine over the years and attended by thousands of real people in the fashion and lifestyle industry at some very high profile locations:

i) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub9TykOa7Rs

ii) 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixp_zufI0E

iii) 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FffG-ScwA

iv) 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv49Yp4cfdI

d) Re “ Not for sale”: The is an exclusive publication and is for sale by subscription on the website and other places including avenues easily available to people in its target segment. You can purchase the magazine here: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/shop511/products/details/2/Magazine-Subscription-MODE-Print-Editions

e) Re “An actual publication”: Here is a link to an edition of the magazine. Most editions are not available for free online unless you are a paid member as it is not a free publication: http://www.modelifestylemagazine.com/editions/nov-dec-2009-edition-mode-lifestyle-magazine.html#page_top

Brightsky777

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightsky777 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it does not exist, then neither should the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-crowd

edit

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

Not notable, no assertion of notability. . Original research. Prod flag removed by IP editor Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, original research, self-promotion, etc. Note the link to Computer Society of India which states: "Presentation on E-Crowd by Sri Harshit Srivastava [author of the article], the young boy of 14 years, student of class –IX of ECPSSS, Allahabad was very interesting." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone's neologism presented at a conference. EEng (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. --Pnm (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 8 January 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 , G1. First time I've gotten to use that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philanthropist of Good Will/New Book Release

edit

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

It's confusing and unnotable. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:28, 7 January 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) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modeo

edit

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. œ ^™ 16:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 11 January 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) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin

edit

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Reads like an advert and article creator appears to have a WP:conflict of interest. Google searches provide nothing of note except perhaps being shortlisted for a law society award. Everything else seems marketing/directory. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like an advertisement or PR statement, which has no place in an encyclopedia. - Cactusjump (talk) 21:38, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of erroneous newspaper headlines

edit

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

Not sure where to list this but I guess WP:NOTNEWS and List of trivia . While these are notable and apt in their parent articles . A List of erroneous newspaper headlines makes no sense . Gnevin (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:IINFO. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that each headline would be better suited in its parent article; the list as a whole is trivial. - Cactusjump (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article receives largest snowball keep vote in Wikipedia history. Oh wait, that's erroneous... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that a vote to delete or keep? Gnevin (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's a vote to keep, of course, couldn't you tell? :) Mandsford 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic isn't helpful to our non native English editors, those wishing to get a quick over view of the discussion. A simple Keep or Delete should be here Gnevin (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a delete. Only "Dewey Defeats Truman" gets any real notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add-- Clarity won the edit conflict race this time-- that there is no requirement about what "should be here", nor are the participants in a discussion required to confine their statements to "a simple keep or delete". Sometimes, we editors simply make a comment or an observation, and we're all welcome to do so. I don't think anyone would have interpreted Clarityfiend's humorous comment as a keep vote, but she or he wasn't required to "vote" nor to respond to the answer a "yes or no" question. I'd add that your English is very good, and that I wouldn't have known that it wasn't your first language if you hadn't said so. My comment wasn't intended as a put down of your understanding of our language, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Mandsford 02:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one would have interpreted the comment as a Keep, the question to clarify would not have been asked. Sarcasm does not always translate well over a text-based medium. -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. This was, at one time, a small section in Dewey Defeats Truman and was then spun off into an article all its own. Unfortunately, the title makes it sound as if it's a bunch of funny Jay Leno headlines, when in fact it is a list of erroneous news stories. Usually, the reason is that an editor made the journalistic mistake of choosing to beat a deadline without confirming the accuracy of the story. I would prefer to say redirect, but there's not a good redirect or merge target. There are no "parent articles" for these to be dispersed to ("News coverage of JFK assassination" would be an appropriate parent article, while "John F. Kennedy assassination" would not be). I'm surprised that it survived this long; usually, putting the word "list" in the headline of a Wikipedia is an invitation for the article to get nominated. Without some context, of course, it's a collection of trivia that, for the most part, is not sourced to something that's verifiable on the internet. Perhaps there's some article about journalism ethics that deals with the need for accuracy in reporting. Mandsford 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few isolated and unrelated cases is hardly newsworthy. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, otherwise all would be scattered and lost. Maybe Wikipedia needs a "metadata" category, which compiles lists or comparisons of "true" entries. Until then, the better alternative is to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.94.224 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? What kind of argument is that? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask one of our non native English editors. Mandsford 22:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from Dewey Defeats Truman it is breathtakingly trivial, especially for those of us from outside the US. Andreclos (talk) 00:38, 9 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptual Diversity

edit

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

This article seems to be based on the PhD thesis of a questionably notable person who is now under AfD discussion; this is not a notable, unique, or generally used term as defined here; Google Scholar search turns up numerous other meanings for the term. MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard this concept expressed, but not under this name. Maybe some kind of article is possible, but not this one that focuses on a minor neologism from the 1990s. The concept is much older, maybe Romanticism? Borock (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough substance here for a useful article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. See comment at companion AfD for Tara Waters Lumpkin. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Empires

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third party sources. I've looked for references using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the custom WPVG Google search) and found nothing but trivial reviews, press releases, and forum/blog posts. The single third-party resource in the article (Best Browser Games of the Year 2010) is a "most popular" fan voting award on a site found to be specifically unreliable by WikiProject Video games, nothing that was given by legitimate video game journalists. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. This game does not yet appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources in the four years that the game has existed. Jørdan 08:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article already exists on the Portuguese Wikipedia, as it has been reviewed by a major portuguese gaming site (MyGames) and the game has received cover from two major portuguese media (Correio da Manhã and Observatório do Algarve). --85.240.43.160 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy my comments on the Correio da Manhã source from my Talk page: It's a trivial fluff piece and, "top-selling newspaper" or not, doesn't even appear to list the author. Plus, the article is more about the gamemaker than the game itself. What it does mention about the game is a 3-year old player count (active players or simple signup count? we don't know because the article lacks depth) and conjecture about the age of its players, which is odd because the character-creation page doesn't seem to ask that question. This appears to be exactly the type of journalism that we don't want in our articles.

As far as MyGames goes, it strikes me as a rather poor games site. There's no mention of editorial policies that I can find. Authors are listed by their username rather than a real name, and the author of the Astro Empires article appears to lack any kind of a journalist background. Beyond that, they appear to be offering some kind of contest/promotion with the game company, which makes them less than impartial.

I'm not sure how the notability policy works on the PT wiki, but on the EN wiki we need multiple sources that are significant (non-trivial) and reliable and independent of the subject. Sources that don't list an author (or give only a username), make up material to fill an article, and are tied in some way to the subject can't be used to write a neutral and reliable encyclopedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:48, 12 January 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demitasse spoon

edit

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

This is a dictionary definition with no obvious scope for expansion to be anything more. Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to translate the French article, but my English is not enough good to do it. It's just a stub. And I consider that when an article is available in a langage (in French for this article), we must give the possibility to anyone to read it in its native language. DeansFA (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Actually, the French article is not much better or more informative; it tells you that a demitasse spoon is in between a teaspoon and a swizzle stick, that it can be made of metal or pottery (?), and that it has a concave part like spoons tend to have. On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine that there isn't something out there explaining why such a size was thought useful; there is some cultural history out there. This may ultimately be a candidate for merging into spoon, but that's another matter entirely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Spoon. It's certainly a reasonable search term, but there doesn't appear to be much more material out there than would make a short description of how it's shaped and what it's used for. Etiquette guides and handbooks on coffee were the only significant coverage I found, maybe two paragraph's worth total. (They can also be used, apparently, for parting and holding delicate tissues during surgery. Hernias came up in my search much more often than I would have liked.) --Danger (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of types of spoons. No merger necessary, as the description there is pretty much what's in this stub. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more can be said about it than would fit in a list. The use and etiquette of the object is a matter for an encyclopedia , not a dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 14 January 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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Classic WP:SYNTH Article thus a Violation of WP:NOR, most of it is covered in better detail and with out the broad lumping elsewhere in Wikipedia. The article scope itself is entirely US=centric better to cover these vaious groups attepctance of LGBT in the various article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was originally created as "Racism in the LGBT community" and was considered offensive to some LGBT people. I proposed the second deletion which resulted in rename to "Relations between the LGBT community and People of Color" which later became "Relations between the LGBT community and Ethnic Minorities". This allowed it to discuss not only Racism in the LGBT community but Heterosexism and Transphobia in ethnic minority communities. However it still remained biased and essentially Heterosexist and Transphobic as no information was added about Heterosexism and Transphobia in the ethnic minorities. As a matter a fact that section was deleted along with all sections so they had an excuse not to discuss Heterosexism and Transphobia within Ethnic minorities therefore blaming the LGBT community for the bad relations between them and the minority ethnic communities. Get rid of it already. Interminority discrimination is still discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the content of this article could be woven into this article LGBT that already contains a criticism section it should be removed.--Warrior777 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:SYN. --JN 466 15:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed - This could be a good article, indeed, a very good article but it is fraught with peril, POV and poor sources. Unless a veteran was willing to promise to devote considerable time and research to this I say play it safe and delete it. - Haymaker (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly an important topic. Right now the article is mainly a collection of minor controversies and/or police cases. I don't see how an article on the topic could avoid being original research. Borock (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Did anyone even look at the talk page? This is the third nomination. Consensus last month on this article was keep. Rather then debate here, why not discuss the article on the talk page and help fix the problems? At least three editors have been working on the article in the last month. Unarchiving those threads may help (the bot settings are way too aggressive for such a small article). You can label, fix, remove, or discuss the WP:SYNTH. The problem with US-centrism has been noted there. I argued think the article should be renamed "in the United States" – easy fix. AfD is not for cleanup. --Pnm (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed those two noms used WP:IDONTLIKE or WP:OFFENSIVE arguments. I use WP:SYNTH, I looked for sources prior to nomination and could not find any that addressed the topic directly. If I thought clean up would help or were possible i would have tagged. I just cant find any thing to write the article with that would not violate WP:NOR. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually during the first AfD six editors cited WP:SYNTH. There are ample sources which address the topic directly. They cover aspects like racism and heterosexism/sexualism, again, people of color's experiences with white LGBT groups, and race during the Prop 8 campaign. Plenty of those sources can be used without "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated." --Pnm (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve substantially. It's synth-y as it stands, but there have absolutely been articles and books on this very same topic, which should be included. (How hard was it to find those? Not hard at all.) However, in the interest of not totally erasing queer people of color, I recommend that the article also include issues faced by those groups specifically, rather than just the "queers hate blacks and blacks hate queers" thing that the article has going on right now. And, minor point, "ethnic" should have a lowercase e. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to rewrite the article using these academic sources? Because if not, there is no point keeping this article if it is going to sit there for five years as a piece of WP:SYN. We might as well wait for someone to recreate it who has the time and inclination to sit down with a stack of books. --JN 466 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point, I can find all sort of books and We have articles that are covered appropriately like LGBT and multiculturalism and LGBT topics and Afro-Americans in the Americas,Lesbian and gay topics and Judaism but what we got here is all kinds of WP:SYNTH. Lumping all these groups various views into some superficial lump as ethnic monitors is silly The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you unlump them instead of trying to delete the article? Delete is not a fix all. Dusti^*poke* 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. The article lists some unrelated incidents which are stitched together as a general phenomenon. Neptune 123 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Duggan

edit

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

Craig Duggan no longer plays for Cork City F.C., I think he is now playing in the Munster Senior League (association football). He made a handful of competitive appearances for Cork City before leaving the club. Similar deletion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uros_Hojan Hsetne (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable football player. Jørdan 08:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 02:20, 14 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airtricity First Division 2010

edit

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

This article is significantly out of date. The league table for example is updated to 14 games, however the season is now over after 33 games played. Other stats are out of date too. This article is an orphan. There is already another article, 2010 League of Ireland, which deals with this subject. Hsetne (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary given that full, complete stats are at the much better 2010 League of Ireland. Anything not in that article (e.g. goal average, most appearances as sub, etc) is probably excessively trivial (and also unsourced) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and ChrisTheDude, completely obsolete. Giant Snowman 21:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No need to have the same information in two different locations. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:38, 7 January 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 - not even an attempt at an autobio just posted his CV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mont

edit

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

Procedural AfD after PROD tag has been removed. Violation of WP:AUTOBIO, as only one author named LouisIMont (talk · contribs) has substantially contributed. Article seems to be about some businessman, yet no sources appear whatsoever. Fails thus both WP:N and WP:V. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, this is quite literally just a resume thrown up on Wiki. As per nomination. ManicSpider (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But I've also tagged it for speedy as spam + no claim of notability. As in so many such cases, its amusing that someone who, believing that by creating an autobio he is spreading word of his business acumen, instead ends up broadcasting his inability to comprehend new information (e.g. the rules of wikipedia). EEng (talk) 15:33, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Sullivan

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Mark O'Sullivan no longer plays for Cork City F.C., he is no longer listed in the squad on the official club website. I think he is now playing in the Munster Senior League (association football). I'm not sure if he made any competitive appearances. Hsetne (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable football player. Jørdan 08:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no senior club caps, let alone fully professional ones, and no significant coverage, he clearly fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:53, 14 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuele Emiliano

edit

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

This article was created when it was thought that Emiliano was signing for Cork City Football Club. From the club website it seems he never signed, and he never played a competitive appearance for the club, only played in pre-season friendlies. The article is an orphan. It doesn't say where he is playing now. Hsetne (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable football player. Jørdan 08:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ho evidence this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 02:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication he meets any of the notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:52, 14 January 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. ignoring the SPAs, 3 establishededitors saying keep, only the nom saying delete. sppsrently produced some notable games. Already relisted once DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senile Team

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

no real notability shown for this company. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some [21] [22] [23] [24] interviews, for example. As far as Indie games go, these are decent imho. Article is currently in bad shape with unsuitable material and references, but that can be fixed with a little effort. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are the company/group talking about themselves so are not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is somebody else who is talking to them. I am not sure what you mean by "independent"; if you mean that the sources are supposed to be secondary, then I agree that these are not the best references. However, these are published reliably and not against policy to use. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not somebody else who is talking about them. They are talking about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "about them", I said "to them". Of course, they are talking about themselves. And that (i.e. primary source) does not establish notability. The attention from media (i.e. press willing to interview) is what establishes notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for obvious reasons. Articles like this can provide useful information to anyone interested in independent video games, especially but not limited to the Dreamcast scene (an area where Wikipedia has been quite uninformative for a surprisingly long time), and also serve to interconnect other relevant information. Of course the article will have to be improved. That shouldn't be too hard, although many editors will probably be reluctant to touch the article now that it has been targeted for deletion. Nobody likes to see their hard work go to waste. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 87.211.187.132 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:Useful does not imply WP:Notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. 87.211.187.132 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are numerous reviews in print media with Senile Team. Senile Team IS an independent team. I see no real reason for deletion--79.235.51.134 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — 79.235.51.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep That Senile Team is notable is out of question. There are other articles in Wikipedia which are really not notable. Nevertheless. Please check the meaning of the word 'encyclopedia'. The article is not too well written, but better make some suggestion how to overwork it instead of deleting it. Sorry, but I can't see the point in that. --79.235.85.162 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC). — 79.235.85.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This really is not a vote and you need to support your opinion with arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines, in this case, mainly notability (and independent sources) as majority of references are primary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:31, 5 January 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) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite canvasing. I just found this so I'm reopening and relisting this discussion.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I said "keep", I also did respond to anons not having referred to any guidelines/policies. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I did notice that but what I missed is that every !vote in this discussion aside from yours was from an SPA. I usually catch those. I agree with you that this article might be savable but now there will be editors showing up and !voting "delete" only because of the canvassing. Similar situation happened to me at this AFD.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respect to H3llkn0wz, someone argueing one way and asking those who argue the same way to give good reasons. One person who comes out of this debate looking very good. Respect. duffbeerforme (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case they don't have good reasons as they are not regular wikipedia editors and don't know our guidelines. The only thing they know is that someone showed up in their forum, said "frog" and they jumped. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. "Notability" means that someone has "taken note of" a subject. Yes, in interviews subjects are talking about themselves but when a reporter/reviewer elects to interview someone, he is "taking note of" that someone. However, I would much rather see writeups from journalists to go along with those interviews which is what the nom was looking for and couldn't find. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-edited the article with the sources I could find. Without CRYSTALling too much, I think Wii release of Rush Rush Rally Racing will gather more attention. If this does come to deleting, I would like this userfied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the logic of deleting pages that call people in to vote and save something. I am the one who posted that thread and regardless of posting that thread I worked on improving the article, I took the feedback available and provided more noteable secondary references. Why exactly do we want to delete this page. The company was represented at this years Gamescom, when they make a press release, Kotaku reports it among other sites. So what more is need for it's significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs)

Keep Strong references have been added. The reopening for the deletion is devoid of logic. It is irrelevant if there is a discussion on their websites forum. There is a concept called freedom of speech.--79.235.48.49 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between freedom of speech and Wikipedia policy on WP:verifiability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep Senile Team is mentioned around the globe. The external references on the Wiki-Page substantiate this. There are articles listed in Wiki which are much less relevant. Please remember Wikipedia is a encyclopedia.--79.235.118.246 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also, being an encyclopaedia does not imply every subject is to be included. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senile Team has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the 2nd nomination for deletion sound more like a farce to me. Please keep the objectivity here.--79.235.122.170 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the nomination sounds farce to you or you believe Senile Team has to be mentioned, does not address the Wikipedia's inclusion/notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of the aforementioned reasons!--79.235.54.240 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that acquiring new IPs does not hide the obvious fact that your IPs are all from the same ISP/locale. You are more likely to affect the outcome of this discussion by presenting a single well-formed opinion, rather than posting multiple times. Remember, this is not a head count, and you are more likely to be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:42, 9 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (director)

edit

Moved "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)." Moved to full given name per sources. --Artiquities (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No useful evidence of notability. No evidence even that this man is known by this professional name. The two refs. included are dead. The "Awards" don't check out. Artiquities (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references currently given in the article are poor but a quick search turns up sufficient coverage of him[25][26][27]; useful examples include: [28][29][30].--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is very well known in film circles, as is his work. Ash is the name that he uses much as Woody Allen is used by Allan Konigsberg. The following source is the most reputable you could wish for to verify this. 1 Ash was nominated for the Bronze Horse as stated in the article, the same award granted to Tarantino in 1992 for Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in 1994. Robert Ebert said of 'Bang' that it was "as absorbing as any movie I've seen this year"2 and later adding of 'This Girl's Life' that "it's probably of historical value."3 He is covered further in the London Times 4 and Variety. 5 While this New York Post article confirms the use of the name Ash and his making a film for $20,000 staring Mischa Barton, Adam Farrar and Burt Reynolds.5 Juliette Marquis won the Best Actress award at the Milan International Film Festival as described. 6 I really don't understand the difficulty here, the director's films, awards and he himself are documented. Sources such as The New York Times 7 and photographs with the awards held in hand 8 can be found to validate. Jørdan 19:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the AfD page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing admin)." Moved to full given name per sources.--Artiquities (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep multi award winning and well known director widely cited by peers and written on in multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator now moved and searching full name he is clearly notable, so the issue was the former title of the article.--Artiquities (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a withdrawal so we can close this one? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:49, 8 January 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Meisner

edit

Brett_Meisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This is quite simple:

Brett Meisner is not a real person. The site is a parody. You're being trolled. It's amazing that this entry in Wikipedia has stayed alive for as long as it has. There is no obituary for a "Brett Meisner" anywhere. There are no public records for any "Brett Meisner." The site is a parody of working in the world of rock and roll.

Brett's forum is mostly him.

http://www.rockandrollbadboy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=7c7288859d057dade14ea30ca03f252a

You can find people making fun of his "death" right in a sticky on the forum:

http://www.rockandrollbadboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1659

His traffic was going down, so he decided to "kill off" the character. Even if Brett WERE real, he's sure as hell not notable. It's not as if it's an incredibly popular website.

Here's an example of the humor the site was based on, in one of his videos. Note that it has a whopping 6,000 views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVlJeDmMUc4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmith18 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interesting hoax but almost no non-trivial information exists about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Completely non-notable. Qworty (talk) 07:41, 9 January 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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McCoy

edit

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

Does not meet notability criteria Dukemc10 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On notability grounds, unable to validate his existence or WikiWorth. Jørdan 08:51, 8 January 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 nomination has been open for a month and since courcelles didn't find the consensus sufficient to delete on the 24th I'm going to treat this as an uncontested PROD. If anybody wants this undeleted let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Con-Dom

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources to verify the article. Also No charting records and probably not notable. Mattg82 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]

Delete Can't find good coverage. In the large list of releases may be two that satisfy wp:music#5 but I didn't find evidence of this. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Lloyd

edit

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

Declined Prod. This article is about a U.S. Coast Guard rear admiral with no significant combat service. Several routine command and staff appointments only. This officer fails the notability requirement. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep: unreferenced BLP. If some sources can be found, I think he has just enough notability to squeak by WP:MILPEOPLE (a few commands of notable aviation units, though I'm loathe to stop Coastie-bashing long enough to admit it). bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No suggestion that this person has attracted any of the attention required to make them notable. The Land (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What it actually needs is an update: the current official bio , a reliable official source, is at [31] Significant political role in his present and past positions, which are sufficient high in the hierarchy to be non-routine. The material is US-PD, What we need is some attention to these older articles, but if the attention is properly paid, by looking for current sources, the result will be improvement, not deletion. It's obvious the nom. did not attempt to look, or he would have found what I did--it's the first entry in Google. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person. Personally, I think that command and staff appointments are more significant than combat. But he does have the transportation 9/11 medal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons above. --Kumioko (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG; the man's directorship of Joint Interagency Task Force South puts him a cut above. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:SOLDIER, however it needs more references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 7 January 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 keep. Obviously notable village (it does exist) (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devla village

edit

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

Non notable place should be merged into the Rajkot district Article BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep, one of the strongest consensuses on Wikipedia is that all verifiable, distinct human settlements are notable enough for a standalone article. A quick google search shows that the existence of this place is easily verifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a town to me. Article could use some wikifying and a possible rename to Devla or Devda. Nominating an article of a settlement for deletion within 10 minutes of its creation is not cool. --Oakshade (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devla exists, so why would you want to delete the article? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:26, 8 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-toile

edit

E-toile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Delete. Largely unknown "group of research". This is apparently part of a strategy aiming to publicize one Yannick Bressan and his personal researchs. Article is also proposed for deletion on the french wikipedia (where the "Yannick Bressan" entry has been deleted). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look like it passed WP:ORG in the 5 years it supposedly existed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yannick Bressan, if that survives its own AFD. If not, tough. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMOTION compliment to the promotional article of Yannick Bressan, which itself is currently at AfD and seems likely itself to be deleted. No sources. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goal of the Month (England)

edit

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

Not-notable non-award. Not discussed in reliable sources. Sandman888 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to nominator's false rationale, as it's "discussed" by a number of reliable sources, including the The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Scotsman, Daily Express, The Times, etc, after a one-second Google search. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The award is also noted in many reliable sources per this search including publication by Tottenham Hotspur F.C.'s official site, the Manchester Evening News, Daily Mail and more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the GNG ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." which is what is meant by "discussed", something a "one-second Google search" [sic!] cannot determine. Sandman888 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, so keep, per the links those sources provide and per the content the of the links. (And a reminder of your own deletion "rationale" - "not discussed in reliable sources" - clearly false). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I would be inclined to think that this is probably notable, but I can't find as much in-depth coverage as I would expect. Its 83 Google News and Google News Archive results appear to come from 80 passing mentions and three proper stories [32] [33] [34]. Maybe just enough to meet WP:GNG, but marginal at best. One thing I would say is that verifiability isn't an issue, as the individual goals all seem to be discussed in the passing mentions. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about meets WP:GNG; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a worthy article.--Echetus Xe 10:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as lacking significant independent coverage Pretty Green (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - independent coverage not significant enough to show notability beyond BBC's Match of the Day (of which it is a segment).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the Global Positioning System

edit

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

NOTHOWTO. We are not wikiversity. Marcus Qwertyus 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Twinkle! This happens entirely too often. Marcus Qwertyus 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep but move and include" this information here [[35]]. The articles seems to have structural problems, not problems with content. This article provides relative information regarding a very popular gadget "GPS". Needles to say the GPS system is very technical and the article reflects this but no more then many articles regarding technology throughout Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is geared to a broad audience including the technically minded. Why move it? Because it is redundant to have two basic articles concerning GPS. The content can be moved and included requiring little work by its author(s)/editors(s). Should however other more relevant sub categories of information be needed they should be included due to the devices popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, work on Global Positioning System to make it more accessible and better organized instead of forking content. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A How-To describes how something is to be used step by step, not how something works, which is crucial information for the GPS system. A more reasonable rationale would be that the article does not succeed in providing background information in a more accessible, non-technical way but merely duplicates some content and omits other important information from the main article. (In fact, it should be the other way around: the main article should provide an accessible overview, and then the numerous and very interesting technical and mathematical aspects of the GPS should be described in a more in-deep, separate article.) ~~Suggest merging content of the GPS frequencies section into the main article and scrap the rest.~~
- Delete article. I extended the GPS frequencies section a bit, essentially based on what is there in GPS signals already. Nageh (talk) 13:22, 8 January 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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established by sources given in article, which are both from alternative media, one bordering on conspiracy theory. Borock (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not properly sourced with WP:RS, and I can't find any RS out there for it. Qworty (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 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. -- clear & reasonable consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mazda MX-5 colors and special editions

edit

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

Excessive fan cruft, a perfect example of WP:Not OSX (talk • contributions) 06:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic content per WP:NOT. --Leivick (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed info on encyclopedia -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A textbook case of fancruft and WP:NOT. --Sable232 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is neither a sales brochure nor is it a fanclub website. SHAMAN 14:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Near-in-ambiguous advertisement, fan cruft, and a classic case of WP:NOT. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 23:22, 9 January 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 Tovia Singer. With merge having already taken place. Davewild (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Judaism

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced, non-notable organization Usb10 ^Connected? 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and protect. Essentially same material as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Outreach_Judaism. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note, I've turned what was an unsourced straw man attack page into an actual (stub) article with multiple sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the Tovia Singer article because he is its founder and it's synonymous with him. One could easily take the couple of sentences of this stub User:Jayjg has worked on and put it into Tovia Singer#Outreach Judaism. IZAK (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tovia Singer. *** Crotalus *** 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tovia Singer. The redirect was initially created as a result of the AfD decision 2.5 years ago, and worked just fine until the attack article was created last month. Note, I've already merged the relevant material. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 9 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mulshine

edit

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

Non-notable local blogger and/or columnist. TastyCawks (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rather than asserting notability, the article itself, in its first sentence, says that Mulshine is "little known". That's the opposite of notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my delete based on comments by Edgar181 below. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is a nationally syndicated columnist. Previous comments were based on a vandalized version of the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He writes a column for a newspaper, so do lots of people; that does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR. To describe him as "nationally syndicated" seems a stretch; in a news search I can only find him published at the Star-Ledger itself (the paper for which he writes) plus the Spokane Spokesman-Review and the Puerto Rico Herald. I could find no significant coverage ABOUT him in independent reliable sources, and the article provides none. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 6 January 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, Courcelles 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that there don't appear to be any reliable, third-party sources of which Mr. Mulshine is the primary subject. Thus the article fails our verifiability policy and our inclusion guidelines for biographies. *** Crotalus *** 21:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK or WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 08:58, 9 January 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) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Francis Bailey

edit

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

Utterly no WP:V (and thank you DumbBOT for completing my dumb mistake)S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in notability and reliability. Jørdan 09:11, 8 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ski Tour

edit

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

Delete as promotional material. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know why you insist on calling the article promotional. Perhaps it's because WSQ declined your speedy tag as non-promotional? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources that establish the notability of this tour Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have improved the article somewhat I'll grant you, but the tour itinerary reads like something that you should be getting off the company's webpage or newsletter.

Yes, WSQ disagreed with me about a speedy delete, so what? Now I get to hear from my peers (hopefully more will chime in). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2010 (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) 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)2011 January 7[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry about that. Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:19, 7 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Behind the Signs

edit

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

Very minor book of local interest. There is some material here which could be used for the article on Yellowknife using the book as a source, but that's about it. I don't consider that an actual merge. WorldCat shows 6 libraries only: 2 US, 4 Canada. . DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor local book, self-promoted by author on WP. All is well intentioned but not WP:Notable. Borock (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs, not notable enough. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:44, 8 January 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Nailin' Paylin?

edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Who's Nailin' Paylin?

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

Violates WP:Use common sense. Porn films are made about many topics and they are (almost) all trivial. WP is a respected source of information on vitally important political topics. This article unfairly makes it look like we are out to get Ms Palin, which could undermine our reputation as a source of fair and objective information on people and issues that really matter. Borock (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG. This article has plenty of sources and appears to be notable. Dislike for content is not a reason to delete. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion criteria. The amount of coverage makes this notable times over. Grsz 11 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vote to keep is a vote for Sarah Palin for president in 2012. ;-) -Borock (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What kind of argument is that? One moment you are saying the article is anti-Palin, and now you say it will win her votes. I suspect this AfD isn't being taken seriously by its proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to be more clear. Article seems to be anti-Palin, Palin supporters will say WP is anti-Palin, WP's reputation as being a source of fair and objective information will be damaged in their eyes, Palin supporters will be more motivated to work for her campaign while discounting legitimate criticism of her, that might be enough to decide the election in her favor making her the 45th president of the United States. On the other hand it might not work out this way. You never know. Borock (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless speculation. We are discussing 'Who's Nailin' Paylin?' here, not Sarah Palin's political ambitions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments presented for deletion are of little relevance to Wikipedia policy, and the article sourcing demonstrates that the film has received enough attention from the mainstream media to meet notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable porn flick. Really bad deletion rationale. Garion96 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources establish obvious notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a current BLP noticeboard thread Inclusion of porn film in Sarah Palin that may have inspired this AfD nom. While a dime-a-dozen exploitation of this sort does not by itself merit inclusion in the Sarah Palin BLP, this video is as notable (per WP:GNG and the amount of attention is seems to get) as this sort of things ever gets. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable, no need to mention in article Sarah Palin though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, worthiness of a mention on other pages is not a topic for this DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I am planning to vote for Sarah in 2012 and anything that helps her is good. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets our guidelines for notability, it just isn't biographically relevant to Sarah Palin. jæs (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to mention in main Palin bio, but include in Public image of Sarah Palin, to which Parodies of Sarah Palin (the best home for a reference to the film) was merged. JamesMLane t c 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hold on folks... Let's focus on the actual article topic in question for a moment... is there any indication that Who's Nailin' Paylin? passes Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Forget the whole "it denegrates Sarah Palin" argument... as a film, is this film notable? I don't think so. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have quite a few references. Does film notability encompass porn? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Whether to reference it in other Palin articles is not properly in the scope of this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimately sourced, notable piece of political satire. Qworty (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In pt.wikipedia, the film's notability has been discussed in its GA nomination, and all the sources seem to confirm this. Its sequels, clearly, aren't as notable (see the other page, in portuguese), but the original film deserves its own article, and a mention in both Public image of Sarah Palin and Template:Sarah Palin, IMHO, but I understand how controversial this would look for you americans. In Brazil, it wasn't considered offensive, being mentioned as one of the reactions to the campaign, along with the Masked Avengers prank. Maddox (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Bressan

edit

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

This person is largely unknown and non-notable, including in France : his article was just deleted on the French wikipedia. His main claim for notability is coining a term for a largely unknown concept, the "adhesion principle", whose article was also deleted on wikipedia fr. I may add that his main claim for notability is/was his presence on wikipedia and assorted mirror sites. I suggest we delete this article to avoid giving this person undeserved publicity. I'll add that this person has an entry at the online version of the Larousse encyclopedia (which looks, at first glance, like a serious credential) but, at second glance, this entry is simply... taken from the (now deleted) french wikipedia article ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of serious notability. There is something wrong with the mechanics of this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzad.Fatahi (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notice of him anywhere I can see. Strictly self-promotion. EEng (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does indeed seem to be simply WP:PROMOTION. WP:SPA-created by Heinrich2, so may also be COI. The only other article linked to this account is E-toile, which also appears to promote Bressan and is also at AfD. Mystifying how these flew under the radar for so long. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled video games

edit

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

Procedural nomination. Part of this article was split into List of cancelled video game system and accessories and that was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled video game system and accessories. Although I was the sole person to support the deleted article, consensus was overwhelmingly to delete it and the reasons cited for deletion seem to apply equally to the entire article so I am nominating it for discussion also. I am neutral.

There are also a number of other sub-pages to consider:

I42 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. After reviewing the previous AfD, I believe the best course of action is to replace this page and the four subpages with redirects to Category:Cancelled video games. Merge these five lists together. I agree, five lists is overkill, but I'd think that it would make more sense to keep the generic list and merge in the more specific ones, seeing as the generic one could contain all of the same information. Epass (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the nomination was not concerned with the number of lists but the quality of their content (see the previous AfD for the criticism of the deleted content; the same criticisms seem to apply to what's left). I42 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of those games was released on other consoles instead. Also it's mostly unsourced.--Robixen (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unsourced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unmaintainable list, and one that's easily covered with Category:Cancelled video games. Poor sourcing - but if each individual article covered the sourcing of the cancellation and we have the category then everything is covered, making this and any sub-articles totally unnecessary. --Teancum (talk)
Keep Not unmaintainable, since it should be limited too the ones we have articles for. It wassuggested a category would do, but a list is obfviously better since it can include some context about the platform and date and produced. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: largely an unsourced OR-magnet. Even for the minority of games for which we do have an article, those articles are more likely to discuss which architectures games did eventuate rather than those that were cancelled (e.g. Crash Bandicoot (series) makes no mention of the cancellation of the "Nintendo 64, Sega Saturn and 3DO versions"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:46, 14 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muley Jat

edit

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

I am not sure whether this should be merged or deleted. I have been searching for solid references that refer to Muley Jat, but cannot find one. Some peer advice would be welcome. Sikh-History 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but perhaps with a different name. While there seems to be a spelling problem, I am getting multiple positive hits on Mula Jat; perhaps Mula Jat is a more common spelling. A real group of Muslims from the Jat tribe (or jat growers) in Punjabi India and Pakistan.

book discusses mula jat

Google book search, lots of commentary here, not all the books have page hits when you go in, but the Google summaries are convincing

Aquib (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok lets start adding citations.--Sikh-History 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most paragraphs have a citation, not a bad looking collection of sources for a small article. Goes a little heavy on the census data. Aquib (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2010 (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) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:05, 7 January 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. Only one vote for deletion and most for keeping or merging, so article should be proposed for merging at WP:PM if necessary. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appa and Momo

edit

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

No demonstration of notability, only two external sources (the rest of the sources are just episodes from the show or features on a DVD), and one of them is not about these characters but rather about the voice actor who voiced them, and only makes passing mention of these characters. Article is basically plot summary, and what is worth preserving can be merged over to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters after the article itself is deleted/redirected. No significant attempt at improvement has been made since I pointed out these problems 10-odd days ago (see Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#A different approach. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although a few of what Rjanag said I could agree with, I don't agree that the article is just plot summary. It's got a few outside universe perspective on the creation of them. As you can see by the discussion he links to, I basically put two characters in one. One already had his own article while one I merged a while back. He states that he only noticed this while I did put the two characters together, I am not sure I believe that, because he spends his time in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters all the time. And there's no way you can't notice the article there. Anyways it's not my call because I don't really consider this a article I created that much. Even though there is WP:Otherstuffexists, I stated most of the characters of the articles of this show have this problem but he still focuses on this article. Which makes me feel like he is targeting this imperfect start class article because I had something to do with it. But it's up for you to decide this. I do encourage you to read Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#A different approach. and User talk:Rjanag/Archive9# article notability on Appa and Momo to catch up on what's been going on though. Thank you! − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way my consensus (if I had to choose) is mainly Keep or Incubate. Keep is preferable to me but if delete is preferable to the majority then Incubate is my consensus, instead. God bless! − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "just plot summary", I said "basically plot summary". The only out-of-universe information in the article is mention of who voices the characters, and about two sentences saying what the creators had in mind when they came up with these characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your other arguments, there is no rule on Wikipedia stating that in order to AfD one problematic article I also need to go AfD every other problematic article in the project. You linked WP:OTHERSTUFF, perhaps you should read it as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you did. I just quoted that to set up this comment. Which makes me feel like he is targeting this imperfect start class article because I had something to do with it. I should have pluralized make to made because I don't really the same now but other wise I made my point. But if my original feeling was true then it is not fair because you shouldn't target the article just because you noticed a editor had their fingerprints on it. And you don't listen to me very while because I said I read that guideline on a different talk page. And please I don't really want argue over a article, I want our differences set aside. That's why I gave you wikilove on your talk page a while back. That's why I offered you to maybe work together to better the article instead of deleting information. I feel like you are a valid editor (but I don't think you feel the same about me) and I agree that it needs more external links. I still feel it is fine information wise and I still think it's a definite maybe on being notable which can be such a debatable term. Mainly the argument happened becuase you kind of went off topic. You complained in the wrong talk page section about your concerns about it's notability. That should be in the talk page of Appa and Momo itself or on AFD. And that's not why I created a section, I created the section to see the approval or disapproval about the new idea. User:Parent5446 is the only one who expressed opinion on that and he seemed to like the approach. But I understand though that doesn't mean it's notable and we need more sources. But I am kind of a inclusionist that's why I defended it a little. Primary sources with limited reliable sources are better than none. And it didn't look broke enough to cry out DELETE, DELETE, in my opinion. But that was just me and I understand your concerns as well. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must butt in briefly to tell both of you to calm down. I do not mean to be insulting, but the constant back and forth of Jhenderson accusing Rjanag of targeting him as an editor and then Rjanag rebutting with arguments over semantics is getting us nowhere. All further comments in this deletion discussion should be to provide evidence for or against the notability of the topic in question. If either of you believe there is some kind of editor conflict going on, this is not the place to settle it. Unfortunately, the discussion of the notability of the Avatar character and episode articles has been means for debate since I joined Wikipedia. The all-out battle that resulted when the WikiProject decided to trash the individual episode articles was humongous, and the character articles are just next in line. So let's be gentlemen (or ladies) here and get back to the topic on hand. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge - While I still weakly feel this article should be consolidated into List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, I also feel that little research and effort has been put into improving this article, and that (though I do not guarantee or even expect it) there is a possibility that there are more external sources than those that are in the article already, and that the article is more notable than let on in the current state of the article. In other words, I believe it is a premature decision to delete this article, especially considering that the article is the merger of two articles that, until recently, were considered notable enough to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, while my conclusive opinion is to merge, I do not agree with the reasoning or logic given by the nominator. It has been reasoned that because the current state of the article is mainly plot summary and that nobody has improved it in the past week that it is automatically not notable and deserving of deletion. If an author posts on the talk page that an article has problems, there is no expiration date or ultimatum set that must be satisfied if the article does not want to be deleted. I urge all editors, current and future, that are involved in this discussion do their own searching to see if the article is notable than rely solely on the comments made here. Finally, I believe that if the end result of this discussion is anything other than keep, the information in the Creation and conception section must, in some way, be preserved, most likely through a merge, because the information is important and relevant to the topic, and shows how other media in the real world (not the fictional universe) have affected the development of these characters and, as a result, the show itself. Sorry to bore you with such a long opinion. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Parent5446, I do think we are calm. We have our differences and we are debating over it. But that doesn't mean we are angry over it. I don't know if Rjanag is actually angry or not. But speaking in my point of view, I will defend him that I don't think he is angry and he is just explaining his point of view just as I am. It's a weakness of mine to explain what I believe is facts sometimes. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jhenderson. That's exactly what I wanted to hear you say. Sorry if I got a little obnoxious. :) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete generally a character is either notable enough for an article or should be included in a list--a two-character article like this is just nonstandard and strange. They both appear to be pretty well covered in the character list anyway, with a small paragraph-sized section each. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a two-character article like this is just nonstandard and strange.
See Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, Ren and Stimpy (characters), Thunder and Lightning (comics), Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, Pintel and Ragetti, etc. Are those non standard too. It's called a duo article and they can be up to standard. Some characters that are duos are notable enough to be divided such as Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher and Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse but this article I wouldn't recommend. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Although I do not think the two-character approach is the best in this case (see my comments below), the fundamental tenant of WP:IAR not only allows but encourages editors to deviate from convention as long as the presentation of the subject matter would benefit from it. Every topic has its own individual characteristics and the point that this article doesn't fit in the usual cookie cutter mould is not relevant in itself. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UN-merge the two, keep Appa (note: changed to strong keep below in relist), and incubate Momo. I will say that it is not entirely without merit to deviate from the standard and keep Appa and Momo merged, considering the many shared attributes between the two fictional characters; however, such comparisons between the two characters would be much better presented, in my opinion, as a brief section within each of two separate individual articles. Articles that cover two characters together are usually best when the two characters are like two sides of the same coin or an inseparable team... like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. While I admit that most of what I know about this series comes from reading rather than actually watching the show, my impression is that Appa and Momo are fairly independent from each other despite their parallels. Of course, I could be wrong and will say that Appa and Momo are very frequently mentioned together from what I've seen, such as in this Happy Meal Toy and often in the same sentence from various news articles [36] [37] [38]

After spending some time with my good friend Google, I believe there is more than enough out there about Appa to merit a stand-alone article. Indeed, the notability and importance of Appa is really not that difficult to prove... case and point: the Appamobile--that's right, somebody actually made their car look like Appa. Moreover, there is plenty more to say about topics such as the challenges the animators faced in adapting the 2D cartoon Appa into a life-like 3D beast for The Last Airbender film, as illustrated in this article from MTV, and how such was received by the fans. On the other hand, I'm still on the fence about Momo, though I believe there is more than reasonable potential for a stand-alone for that character as well.

In any case, I believe that merging Appa into the list of characters would make Wikipedia's coverage of the character woefully inadequate considering its notability and importance to the series, as supported by the fact that the series dedicated a whole episode to the backstory of this non-speaking role. Although finding the combination of Appa and Momo to be less than ideal, I nonetheless find even the current awkward and cumbersome article to be much preferred over the proposed alternatives of merge or delete. Further merger would only make it more awkward than it already is.

Although I do not have time at the moment, I intend within the next few days to de-redirect the Appa article, expanding on the subjects on the points I mentioned above and more as well as pruning a lot of the unnecessary plot summary. I may or may not do this for Momo as well, depending on how much time I have and whether I am able to find more about that character. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article about Momo individually once. But I wasn't too impressed with it so I redirected it. I have a feeling it would have been AFD'd anyways. That would kind of explain the reason why I included Momo in the picture and let a article reflect on both of Aang's pets not just Appa. Because I don't feel like one is more notable than the other. Comparitively they are the same to me. Now as for them being notable, that up for you to decide. ;) − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you right now that the Appa article is just barely, if even, notable, so trying to get the Momo article to incubate on its own is almost out of the question. Momo is a minor character with little bearing on the show, and unless you can find external sources describing things like Momo's reception by the viewers, etc. then it will not stand on its own. I recommend using the Aang article is an example, because it is one of the better character articles on the WikiProject at this point. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be truly honest about the situation. Aang is the only good Avatar character article. This article is the second best when it comes to having sources everywhere, having a well informative Creation and Concept section and not being in-universe. Even though the sources are mainly primary. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't look to Aang's article in this case. I think Bulbasaur makes a much better model towards which to aspire since it was a former featured article and that Bulbasaur's importance to Pokémon is a good analogy to that of Appa's importance here. As for the comments about Momo, there is certainly potential for that character. I've found more than one source praising Momo as a "comic genius" which almost demonstrates notability by itself. —CodeHydro 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am just making a note that, although I haven't begun editing yet, I am still interested in working on the article and am confident that I can demonstrate sufficient notability to keep at least an article on Appa if not Momo as well. I would have begun expanding on the article two days ago, but I have been distracted by several unexpected personal issues. I apologize for the delay and request that this AfD discussion be extended by one extra week. Thank you. —CodeHydro 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the discussion should probably be re-listed, keep in mind that the article does not have to prove its own notability, we just need to prove or disprove it. If you find any outside sources that can be used to expand the article just bring them here and we can worry about actual expansion once the article is saved. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of recommending that from the get go. Because a character is ISN'T notable just because you feel like he isn't just like a character being determined notable becuase he feels like he is. Of course that is a point of view. That's why sources are essential. That's why I placed a {{find}} template on certain places. I don't recommend me as a googler though because I like or did like mainly staying primarily in Wikipedia. Searching sources can be tough for me when the character isn't a OBVIOUS notable character. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My current opinion on the matter as aforementioned is a weak merge because of my uneasiness about the notability of the topic, but if a reasonable number of reliable secondary sources are presented showing significant coverage then notability will have been successfully demonstrated for the topic. I will attempt to find some sources but historically I have not shown much skill in the matter, so hopefully some others will come and help out. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list of characters. None of them have become truly notable, a couple of lines mentioning them in reviews of the series are not enough. Take Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader or Homer Simpson as examples of notable characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I knew you were going to say merge knowing you as a editor. But merging sounds ridiculous only because Appa and Momo is a useless name title for a redirection. Come on let's think about this. You might as well delete the title name of this article will be merged. Also Lord Opeth, I don't think using primary fictional characters that everybody has heard of as good examples. These are secondary characters. I don't even think the primary character of the show involved, Aang, fits in their department. One time I mentioned a lot of duos in this AFD they are better examples, duos or not. Codehydro mentioned Bulbasaur too, (Some people will be like who is that yet he's notable to others) that will work as well. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you can create an article with an unusual title and have automatic protection from merging? That is what it sounds like you're trying to say. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am just saying it's a useless redirection name title (Appa and Momo is). Not a useless article name title. People are going to search for one of the characters not both at the same time. Please don't assume that I am against a merge. I am sorry that I am not if I am not making any sense with that comment whatsoever. It was late I guess. ;) − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jhenderson this is exactly what I was talking about before. Assuming that Lord Opeth's opinion is influencing solely by his personality as an editor is presumptuous and degrading to this argument. Wikipedia is not a bipartisan organization where editors vote along party lines and can be called out on doing so. That comment was out of line. Furthermore, the point he is trying to make by giving examples such as Mickey Mouse is that notability is not something handed out at Wikipedia like free cotton candy. Unless other evidence is provided there is little, if any, secondary sourcing that supports the notability of Appa and Momo. The Aang article was lucky to survive under the given circumstances, and it was only preserved because Avatar happened to develop a significant fan base and news sources, blogs, etc. happened to take interest in Aang as a character enough to write about him, thus the creation of secondary sources. While I will still withdraw my recommendation for merger if more secondary sources are presented, at this point we are trying to prove that two pets in an animated children's television series are somehow notable enough to deserve their own entry in an encyclopedia when one of the articles could barely stand on its own and the other was blatantly redirected due to obvious lack of notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously!!! I did not mean any offense out of knowing that he would vote merge. Now maybe it wasn't necessary to say. But it wasn't supposed to be where you had to be preachy about Wikipedia to me. It was out of respect that I know the editor that way that I said that. Nothing wrong with saying aha I knew you said that, it was random but it was a supposedly unoffensive comment out of respect. Not to be mistaked as out of line. My words seem to be minefields with you (plural). ;) And I just had different opinion on what are better opinions as examples. My point was Mickey Mouse is obviously a primary example for a obvious notable character and of top importance while I think the mere focus of example should be more secondary with low importance characters. But I get what he got as well. Don't take my quotes as a context (which I am saying with a silly grin on my face). − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now looking back at the edit it doesn't look the way I wanted it. I mean more judging by watching his contributions and noticing that he has requested merge's or merged back in the past a lot. So I just kind of said what I already told myself before I read the comment when I noticed he contributed here and when I looked in the comment I was like "I knew it". So I was just sharing that yep I knew that your vote before I read your vote out of RESPECT. But still no offense, and sorry if it sounded out of line because I did not mean to make it sound like you thought it sound. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for burning a hole on this AFD but I have a new result. I am ok with merging for the time being because basically I still have the information saved from the userspace draft I started to use to create the article of two together. So if Code Hydro still have faith on the characters and when he has time to do it. He can contribute there if he ever wants it back as a article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the sake of producing a consensus. Characters lack sources to WP:verify notability but maybe a list will be able to meet our guidelines and policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I support merging (obviously, since I think I'm the one who proposed it), I do want to point out that normally we get consensus to merge and then merge, not the other way around. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normally if you want a article to be merged. AFD is not quite the proper place for it. But I would feel there would be lack of participants any other way but AFD. And also I want to inform that Code Hydro seems to be at work at the Appa article. So fingers crossed I suppose. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a heads-up: it is more than likely that upon the closing of this AfD that I (or another editor if I am beat to it) will nominate the Appa article for deletion as well. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - When merging amounts to deletion (with the side effect of preserving a few bits and pieces of the article in another article--in this case, much of that was there already, and just got shuffled around) AfD is appropriate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know. I agree with you. That's why I did say "not quite". Mainly it could be purposed on a discussion page if you want to merge but I fear there would be less results that way. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to fix it on a userspace draft first or in the Article Incubator first. Or somebody will do exactly what you said to to when he isn't even complete with it yet. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on Appa. I've just finished the first draft of Appa#Reception_and_legacy, which has turned out quite well in my opinion. Heck, it makes the reception section on Aang--described as the only good Avatar article on Wikipedia--look pathetic in comparison. This is why I prefer demonstrating notability via editing than arguing in AfD. ;) As for Momo, he will probably have to languish in userspace or the incubator for a while because I don't really have the time to save him as well, though I still think he has a reasonable level of notability from what I've found. —CodeHydro 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you are going to vote again, could you please strike your first vote?
2. This AfD is not about whether or not to delete an article on Appa, it's about whether or not to delete Appa and Momo. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjanag, my opinion hasn't really changed. I still think Appa should be kept, only more so because I feel that the new reception and legacy section for Appa has demonstrated iron-clad notability. For now, since I am too busy, I will have to allow Momo to be temporarily redirected to the character list article so the record remains in the history in case any editor finds the time to fix Momo. Moreover, as per Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY. an AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't really matter whether I cross out what I said prior to the re-list or not. But if it makes you happy, then I'll make a note that I've "re-voted" in my previous comment. —CodeHydro 06:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is Rjanag. It's still related. Appa was a redirection of this article but he felt the characters should be divided again. So he fixed it only on that article. He probably should have fixed it on this article and then make a consensus to divide them. I will only support with what he is doing if he can fix up Momo as well. (One reason is that is still said on the Appa article still mentions Momo a little bit) Otherwise what he has done could still be put here. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep abundant out-of-universe content. Whether it should be one article or two can be discussed separately DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that my nomination statement prominently mentions the lack of external sources (e.g. lack of out-of-universe material), I would appreciate it if you could point to examples of this "abundant" out-of-universe content. All I see is a couple sentences about development (much of which is not actually about development, but just random comments from show writers), and a source that's not even about these characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the sake of this AfD, you can pretend everything in the newly restored Appa article is part of this article since we haven't really discussed the de-merger yet (much like how the merger was never fully discussed either). Both the original merger and my de-merger for this AfD were done under the priniple of WP:Bold for the sake of demonstrating the article concept. In my opinion, if either Appa and Momo or Appa are considered keep-able then neither should be deleted for now. We can take a few days to discuss which one should be redirected to the other and merge the non-overlapping content after this AfD. —CodeHydro 06:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever is in that article is irrelevant to this AfD. Saying that one article should be kept because you wrote some other article doesn't make sense. The reason this AfD was opened is to determine if "Appa and Momo" is an encyclopedic topic, not to talk about whether or not you did a good job writing an article on "Appa". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag I understood what CodeHydro said. And he made his point quite clear that either this or the other article needs to be merged and that at least one of the characters on this article has supposedly established notability while explaining it on a different article. That has made things more complicated in some areas though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about one character, it's an unencyclopedic lumping of two characters together. If I made an article Milk and my friend Bob, no one would vote "Keep, milk is notable at least". rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:55, 15 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tase Matsunaga

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A Google News Archive search turns up obituaries in 11 different US newspapers in November 1998: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] 98.116.65.131 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was named Japan's oldest person by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and featured several times in multiple news outlets. Ryoung122 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by 98.116.65.131 (talk · contribs) conclusively establish that Tase Matsunaga is notable per WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard with admiration for 98.116.65.131 and Aymath, who rescued the article by finding and inserting genuine reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is now asserted beyond any reasonable doubt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:54, 14 January 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. Based on a thorough analysis of the sourcing the outcome is pretty clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of South American supercentenarians

edit

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable synthesis of information. Bulldog123 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information: "supercentenarians" and "South America." We have a popular article for Europe, why not the other continents? Please cut out the bias.Ryoung122 15:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list relies entirely on a raw data dump, maintained on a website that bears none of the indicia of a reliable sources. The data are not reliable, as that term is defined on wikipedia, nor verifiable as that one's defined. Deriving conclusions from raw data is prohibited original research and synthesis.

This "source" is self-published raw data.

So are this one this one, this one, and this one.

That's every "source" the page relies on. The page is simply a vehicle for accreting raw data that its accumulators cannot get published (or at least have not gotten published) in a wiki-kosher reliable source. Deeming this information NOTABLE (in all caps, no less), RY is admirably straight-forward in the "explanation" of his "Keep" !vote. "This is a NOTABLE synthesis of information." This "explanation" seems to me to justify (mandate?) deletion rather than retention.

The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument falls of its own weight. The answer may be to nominate the other stuff for deletion, if it springs from the same source(s), in due course. But we review articles one at a time. This one's got no reliable sources and its principal defender proclaims it "NOTABLE synthesis". Is there more to say? David in DC (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my prior nom quoted below. I have reread the rationales below to ensure they still fit the article generally (if not perfectly on every point) and they are still sound, even with NickO adding Zapata, Reynoso, Corbancho. JJB 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The contention that this has single sourcing hasn't been challenged to the general notability of this list hasn't been established. Arguments to keep based on casting aspertions about the motivations of other editors are far less compelling then deletion arguments showing analysis of sourcing and clear references to policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability and verifiability. For information such as this to appear in an encyclopeia there should be more than one self-appointed source which says they have "verified" the claims. Edison (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable synthesis of information. Bulldog123 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

This is not a biography, the standard Edison is attempting to apply is inappropriate. We're not talking about a "notable person," we are talking about an article that is onsubject matters which are notable "Africa" and "supercentenarians"...or more specifically, verified supercentenarians.

Further, there are quite a few sources that can be used for this, such as the International Database on Longevity, the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, and the Gerontology Research Group.

Edison's comment is inappropriate; words such as "self-appointed" are accusatory in nature.Ryoung122 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: We can see that Edison is a "Biography of Living Persons" patrol...but this article is not a biography, whether a listed person is alive or not. It is a list.Ryoung122 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP applies to everything said about any living person, whether it is in a biography, a paragraph of an article about an invention, the caption to a picture, a list, or even things written on talk pages. For example, if someone calls me a homophobe on the talk page of an article, without powerful reliable sources to back it up, that person is lucky to get off with just having the remarks collapsed. I use this example because it should be familiar to RY. So Edison is applying the correct standard. Under that standard, this list fails. It relies on raw data, maintained as primary sources on websites that do not bear the indicia of reliable sources. They are not reliable, as that term is defined on wikipedia, nor verifiable as that one's defined. Deriving conclusions from raw data is prohibited original research and synthesis. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "source" is self-published raw data. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is this one. David in DC (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is this one David in DC (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning. It's hosted at something called www.recordholders.org, bears a disclaimer disavowing its own accuracy and features amazon.com ads for books associated with the compiler of the raw data more prominently than the data. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your argument is so wrong, so far off the mark, that it's wrong in two categories of being wrong. So, I'm going to respond in two parts. First off, if you make homophobic remarks, then it's appropriate to call you out on it. But that has NOTHING to do with this article. That you brought that issue up...AN ISSUE YOU STARTED...only proves that you are here to cause trouble, not do the right thing. You are lucky to get off with just a reprimand. Again, THIS IS NOT A BIOGRAPHY. But even if it was, I don't see anything offensive about listing a 112-year-old woman who was born in Africa as born in Africa. Granted, the flag should be changed to represent French Algeria, but that's a minor quibble.

You don't delete a non-biography article on a biographical standard. Now for response part II.Ryoung122 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Above, we see three consecutive knowingly-false accusations, followed by a put-down. How about some FACTS:

1. Both Louis Epstein and myself are considered "experts" in the field. That's why we have material published in journal articles, like this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1033?journalCode=rej

or how about this one:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1145

You can find me at the International Database on Longevity:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

You can find me at the New England Supercentenarian Study:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/supercentenarian/our-staff/

Oh yes, you can find me at Guinness World Records as well.

http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Oldest-Living-Man-Turns-114/blog/2667504/7691.html

The bottom line is: for you to say the GRG material is "not a reliable source" is to go against what was already decided in the 2007 ArbCom. Time Magazine said that Guinness World Records was the "official arbiter of longevity." So, actually, you are attacking the mainstream, all because of a personality conflict. Your editing is flat-out incorrect, inappropriate, false, accusatory, malicious, and spiteful.Ryoung122 01:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cabalist is back. You even have a list of articles that I support that you attack, and have been, since 2007. Get a life. And get real. Sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. all quote the Gerontology Research Group as a reliable source:

Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla. ‎ Washington Post - Jan 1, 2011 According to the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group, Onie Ponder had been the oldest person in Florida and one of the 25 oldest people in the ... Woman among world's oldest dies at 112 in Fla.‎ - Atlanta Journal Constitution all 258 news articles » MiamiHerald.com

Evelyn Margaret Ralston, 1899 - 2010 ‎ Chicago Tribune - Jonathan Bullington - Dec 30, 2010 29, the Los Angeles-based Gerontology Research Group had her listed as the 52nd-oldest person on Earth. Miss Ralston sometimes grew annoyed by questions ... Evanston woman dead at 111‎ - Chicago Tribune Illinois' oldest resident dies at 111‎ - Chicago Sun-Times Evanston resident passes away at 111‎ - TribLocal WLS all 31 news articles » TribLocal

World's oldest man reflects on Christmas ‎ USA Today - Richard Ecke - Dec 26, 2010 At 114, Breuning is acknowledged to be the world's oldest man by the Guinness Book of World Records and the Gerontology Research Group. ...

How can you claim the GRG is not a reliable source? Your accusations are far across the line of libel.Ryoung122 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very careful making comments like that; you're treading dangerously close to NLT territory. Also, your status as an expert would be welcome on Citizendium; however, all that screed above proves is that your arguments are logically unsound. Instead of addressing the concerns of the delete voters, you're using a combination of poisoning the well (by calling David in DC a cabalist before you even begin to make your point), red herring (by bringing up unrelated articles on supercentenarians), straw man (by misconstruing his claim to mean the GRG isn't a reliable source, when what he actually means is that the GRG is self-published, raw data and not The Truth^TM), and ad hominem (by calling him a cabalist who attacks every article, when you know full well that's not the case) arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Blade of Northern Lights, I'm going to respond to your misinterpretation of the situation, in part, because you seem reasonable. Let's look at the situation again.

1. My first edit, responding to Edison, dealt with policy, not personal issues. 2. DavidinDC came on here and brought up personal issues ('homophobia') that are not relevant. 3. DavidinDC made flippant remarks like this one:

"This is so far from a reliable source, it's stunning."

4. DavidinDC made mischaracterizations, using terms such as "raw data" and "self-published." That's NOT true. What is a self-published source? If a family made a personal website with their beloved grandma and claimed she was 118, that's a self-published source.

The GRG, in fact, is an intermediary source. It takes material from other sources, vets it, and decides what to publish and what not to publish. The GRG is listed as a source of the world's oldest person list by Guinness World Records. The GRG's position in the international niche field of supercentenarian research has been accepted by the mainstream media (the Wall Street Journal, New York Times,etc.). I bet you didn't know the GRG has included many of the world's leading experts, such as Leonard Hayflick. It is more than clear that, doing a little homework, DavidinDC's charges are false. And since he has been making them for 3+ years, it's also clear that he has not operated in good faith. We can't assume good faith with a track record of 3+ years of harassment, contrary to Wiki policies on reliable sources.

Of course, there's more than just the GRG at issue here. On one side, we have the mainstream media that continues to publish stories on supercentenarians as if they are notable. On the other side, we have persons such as DavidinDC that have argued, based on personal opinion, that supercentenarians are not notable, either individually or as a group.

This particular article should be based on group-notability. It's not a biography or a collection of biographies. It is a list, and should be judged as a list. It's purpose is to show what the established longevity records are for various regions of the world, and to counter the misperception that, because life expectancy varies greatly, lifespan does as well...when in fact, it does not.

As I pointed out, I am involved with all the major groups: GWR, GRG, MPIFDR, IDL, SRF, NESS, SSA.

Finally, the lists are NOT about "truth," they are about "verifiability." The GRG uses the same standard as Wikipedia: verifiability. Do you understand what that means? No one knows for sure if the oldest person ever in Africa was 114, or older than that. But we know for sure that Adelina Domingues was born in Cape Verde in 1888 and lived to 114 years, 183 days. Those are facts backed up by documentation that met the standards of age verification...set not by the GRG but by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and the International Database on Longevity. The only problem is those sources are "confidential". Only the GRG publishes the data publicly. However, if you were a researcher, you could access those other institutions.

One problem with Wikipedia is the idea that if it's not on the internet, it does not exist.

FALSE. Something does NOT have to be on the internet to be a reliable source. Yet even the Max Planck Institute and IDL have, on occasion, published their material online.

I suggest you do more reading, and gain a little background knowledge of why this is important.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/?books/drm/007/

Ryoung122 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN; it's basically grouping people notable for one thing into a completely different category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have "life expectancy" data by nation, by geographic regions. Your above comment is NOT well-thought-out.

For much of human history, there has been a belief, not founded in facts, that persons in certain regions of the world live longer (i.e., Caucasus, Hunza, Vilcabamba). One way to counter that misconception is to organize supercentenarian by geography, where it becomes evident that persons from around the world all share the same lifespan.

For example: records by continent:

Europe: 122 North America: 119 South America: 116 Asia: 116 Africa: 114 Australia: 114

Further, when we see that Europe's second-oldest person is just 115, we realize that the '122' record is an outlier (extreme unusual observation). Statistically, there's no evidence that anyone lives longer than anyone else.

Thus, it is in the best interest of science to have articles that cross-section longevity with geography, to make this point.

Wikipedia has articles on local schools, yet finds a continent-wide listing of supercentenarians to not be notable? Something is rotten in Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Don't make this a blog-war. This should be about common sense and facts.

The fact is, Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article.Ryoung122 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/KeepThis is not "poisoning the well"... It is already patently obvious that David in DC is working in tandem with people like JJBulten to destroy articles and lists on supercentenarians. His repeated denying of this accusation further lends weight to this statement. As for the GRG being a "unreliable source"...get a life before you begin making accusations like this. Do a Google search and you will find that most, if not all, articles on recently-deceased verified superecentenarians list the GRG as their source. The 2007 ArbCom determined that the GRG indeed was reliable... and though consensus can change, there is no indication that the GRG has since changed its 'methods' that would make it any less reliable by general standards. The sources are NOT "self-published"... outside reports decide whether or not these sources are reliable or not, not Wikipedians engaging in ill-tempered Wiki politics who contrive to destroy the subject in question being discussed. Also, this source does not have "zero" sources... thus any argument about "unsourced" is INVALID. → Brend an 06:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read the definition of poisoning the well? The logical term means to attempt to influence someone's opinion before even introducing your argument, which is exactly what calling David in DC a "cabalist" seeks to achieve. And you haven't addressed our concerns above in any meaningful, substantive fashion- your arguments are sorely lacking in logical soundness. They suffer from all of the problems I mentioned above; shall I go through them point-by-point? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you even read what DavidinDC wrote? David poisoned the well, not me. DavidinDC posted issues of "homophobia" which have nothing to do with this AFD discussion...except if David wants to point out that he has a history of bias.
  - Yes, I read what he wrote. If you actually read argumentum ad hominem, you'll see that it can be used correctly, and that David in DC is doing so while you are not. David in DC pointing out past disputes that may have carried over into this debate is perfectly reasonable, as it provides some context; your telling me to get a life is not only supremely ironic, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Now would you answer my question instead of throwing yet another red herring and another personal attack? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If David is not a cabalist, it would only be because, technically, he has made it so obvious that he has a personal vendetta against me and against articles on supercentenarians on Wikipedia. So, I suppose one could argue that a "cabalist" operates in secrecy, while David has made his personal bias known. That's not a much better argument.Ryoung122 12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, delete as lacking notability and verifiability. This empire constructed on the basis that reaching a certain age of itself is sufficiently notable to warrant article after article needs to be trimmed down to proportion, I'm afraid. I find it an embarrassment for the project that such a fuss is made over some very very ordinary people on such a flimsy basis. Tony (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prior nom quoted below. I will read the very interesting discussion above later. I have reread the rationales below to ensure they still fit the article generally (if not perfectly on every point) and they are still sound, even with NickO adding Narbonne. JJB 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wholly redundant with other articles, in that every name appears in other more basic articles, primarily the deaths-by-year articles and the list of living supercentenarians, as well as the records articles, each listed at Template:Longevity. I would delete List of European supercentenarians too but I believe it should be double-checked for 100% redundancy first.
Absolutely no reliable sources; every single source is tied to the GRG (one indirectly through Louis Epstein), whose founder and lead members are members of the WP:WOP workgroup that maintains these articles. A rationale that the GRG e-group need not reveal its sources, when they are 95% the same type of Web sources Wikipedians use routinely, is utterly unviable. A rationale that sources are unnecessary because they appear in the bios or other list articles fails because it illustrates the redundancy (and because many list articles also treat sources as unnecessary). Paging WP:V.
The GRG links do not demonstrate that the topic "list of [continental] supercentenarians" is notable; no such continental list occurs anywhere to my knowledge except in WP as a trivia review. A rationale that such data need multiple presentation methods fails because the presentation methods themselves are OR (nobody else uses such methods) and because of undue weight. Redirects are contraindicated because there are no targets and because they would perpetuate the OR.
Numerous longevity-endemic problems to the degree that WP:TNT is better: sparseness of fill leading to too short a list to be notable as a list, in a possible attempt to list every supercentenarian up to three times (by death date, country/continent, and in a bio: undue weight), when the proper approach is to list each notable one once in a small set of list articles (and then to let growth accrue only due to notability and sourcing). Sort by age is wholly OR as if "5th oldest African emigrant" occurs anywhere in the world but this article. COI and walled-garden problems in project (primary editor NickOrnstein is sometimes OK to work with but is spinning his wheels very unnecessarily, keeping this article precisely synched with the others and the GRG pages). Bias against unverified Africans and South Americans, who appear in longevity claims, but for some reason only if they're 113. JJB 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. WP is not the place for researchers to publish their original research; what's more, the list appears to be indiscriminate, as the notability of this topic has not been demonstrated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Addressing issues raised by DavidinDC at the commencement of this article, in referencing to Original Research. This is not correct. The data that is referred to comes from a multitude of sources made up of a worldwide network that gathers such information. The information is gleaned from media sources, usually print newspapers and electronic media, which have published information on notable persons of longevity on a regional, national and worldwide basis. If one accepts the notion that encyclopaedias contain information on the highest mountains, the longest rivers and the biggest cities; there is an encyclopaedic category of oldest people. The problem up to now has been using the scientific method for the observation, verification and recording of the oldest people. Modern industrial nations have used birth certificates, marriage certificates and census taking for such authentication. Such processes do not apply to the bulk of the world’s population in Asia and Africa. We are now developing an understanding of other processes such as comparing the use of different calendars and other forms of record-keeping. What is now emerging are similarities in the human population on all continents in the process of aging and longevity. For the genuine researcher seeking a scientific observation of human longevity such research is invaluable. Such data is encyclopaedic by nature. To aid in the scientific study of human longevity it is essential that such data be tabulated on the internet-world encyclopaedia: Wikipedia.Cam46136 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)cam46136[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare Industries

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The cited sources for this article are namechecks at best, and some do not appear to mention the subject at all. Lack of WP:RS and no evidence of significance other than claims of notability-by-inheritance. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Oh let's see, where to begin. Ok, delete per 1st AFD. Also, the first link is broken, the second link doesn't cover the label, the 3rd and 4th links are paylinks (a no-no in WikiP land), and the 5th and 6th links are (as per the 1st AFD) not indepentent coverage. Have I covered all the bases? Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE pay links are ok to be used in articles. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you could point me to the relevant policy/guideline? Because I am having a heck of a time finding it myself. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:PAYWALL, part of the verifiability policy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This label has put out albums by many notable bands (which are listed in the article), and is well known in punk rock. They put out such critically acclaimed albums as Chamberlain Waits, Total and Weight of Air by The Sidekicks (named by Punknews.org best album of 2009). There is no way anyone can argue they are non-notable. Grue 16:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added even more sources to highlight the labels notability.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 7 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Schussler

edit

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

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While most of the article focuses on the company that the subject started, little else focuses on the subject of the article. The lede (two sentences) are all that mention the subject, and these two sentences are a copyvio/close paraphrase of http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/12/13/business/columns/marc_kramer/doc4d06576e4ac0c034616498.txt Regards, Cind.amuse 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a biography, it is an article about a chain of restaurants with some brief mentions of the person who started the franchise. An interview in one local newspaper interview is not significant coverage and clearly does not assert notability. The page reads like and advert and such entrepreneurs are not a rarity these days. --Kudpung (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undo the recent redirect of Rainforest Cafe, keep Steven Schussler as redirect to Rainforest Cafe. The chain is notable (almost 4,000 hits at Google News archives in papers all over the country, going back more than 10 years)[50])(Some examples from the first three pages of the search results:[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]) Google Books and Google Scholar also turn up assorted discussions of this chain in academically-oriented literature (examples:[59][60][61][62][63]) among the thousands of hits. It is less obvious that Mr. Schussler is separately notable. The Rainforest Cafe article has existed since 2004; it has been tagged as spam, but recent drafts of the article were less spammy, and in light of the extensive third party coverage of the chain there is no reason that a neutrally-worded article can't or shouldn't be maintained. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I totally agree. The redirect from the Rainforest Cafe should definitely be removed. I see no rationale for creation of the redirect in the first place. Remove the copy/paste content (currently in the Schussler article) that was taken from Rainforest Cafe, remove the redirect, and restore the article. Redirect the Steven Schussler article to the Rainforest Cafe until such time as someone can create an article without copying from other articles both on and off Wikipedia. Cind.amuse 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, paraphrasing is not copyvio, that's why we paraphrase; and the article is about Schussler's book. While we could keep both articles, we shouldn't delete this one, since he's notable for other things besides the cafe. Schussler has significant coverage in RS, as shown by the source already provided. Here is another. More can be provided [64], [65]. As I said when creating the page, the Cafe material can be included till someone develops it to be too big for the article; and another option is to have both articles. Here's a quote showing he does other things "That seasonal eatery is owned by Steve Schussler, a multi-millionaire restaurant creator who also developed the Rainforest Cafe concept." [66]. The source I used in the article stub is a really good RS focusing on his book. So in summary, we could have two articles, or we could have one for the sake of neatness. But this one shouldn't be deleted. Here are other sources showing him independently notable: [67], [68], [69], [70]. If this is showing anything, it's that both articles should be kept, considering our further research. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is a fine line between copyright infringement and close paraphrasing. You may want to revisit and review those two issues. That said, the Steven Schussler article is not about his self-published book. Only one sentence even mentions the book. This is an article about a restaurant chain attempting to dance around as a biography. Makes me think of an emperor lacking clothing as he skips along the promenade. Sorry, I ain't buying it. Remove the content sliced from the Rainforest Cafe, along with the lede snipped from The Bulletin (Philly newspaper), and the Steven Schussler article would basically be blanked. Honestly, while I thought to bring this article to discussion, it also would have been appropriate for an A10 deletion. No harm; no foul. Cind.amuse 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are hardline editors like you when I want an article deleted? But we don't delete for lack of development in an article, but for other reasons, such as lack of notability, and I believe I demonstrated notability above. I see what you mean about A10, but you nominated an article created late at night on the very next day... and it's New Years. C'mon dude. And the cafe information belongs in his bio, because it's a large part of what he's notable for. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely support Cindamuse's rationale. The author seems to be confused as to what is a biography, and an article about a company. In either case, notability is not established for this article whatever time of the year it might be. Kudpung (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Did you read the sources I gave above? All you need to do is establish "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I did that above. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some digging on him and found several mentions in reliable third party sources:
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
- A Bio here (may be borderline reliable)
- Third party coverage of his book (review, I have issues with reviews...)
- Press release from him but it talks about a Food Network show called "24 Hour Restaurant Battle". Might be able to glean something from that.
- An interview on WCIU-TV --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 7 January 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. Article is no longer unsourced and there is a consensus that it is notable. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Solusod

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria, lacking any appropriate reliable sources. See WP:BIO, WP:BLP Chzz ► 21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom completely. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE - the world of Anime cons is quite large, and the subject has appeared as a guest in at least a few (see [71] and [72]). I think that, based on his touring, he meets WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accepted articles for other popular anime voice actors (Monica Rial, Vic Mignogna, Todd Haberkorn) also lack references, and consist mainly of listing the actors' roles. Actor is popular and prolific in the anime community, with guest appearances, interviews, and mentions in the same events and publications as other voice actors, and as such meets the same level of notability requirements. 04:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.178.111 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2010 (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) 01:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 01:07 1 January 2011 (GMT)
Keep Has had notable roles, making this person notable. [73] Dream Focus 02:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a complain about the bio? Even at the time this was nominated, there were links to the guy's official website, confirming the information. More information has been added now. [74] As for as notability, see WP:ENTERTAINER Dream Focus 02:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep If this was a Japanese voice actor portraying these roles for the first time, then he would unquestionably pass WP:NACTOR #1. However, the holdup is (1) Solusod is replacing the original Japanese dialog with English dialog. (2) Unlike in Japan where these series was broadcast nationwide, The English language version was released direct-to-video, streaming over the internet, or limited distribution on digital cable and satellite services. For the most part, I like to give the benefit of the doubt because the English-language release do achieve notability one their own through reviews by Anime News Network, Mania.com, and Otaku USA. There is the question of the three interviews. While the interviews are reliable sources for the contents of the interview, the podcasts that conducted the interviews probably will fail WP:SPS. In addition, there is the question of whether the interviews should be treated as first-party or third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 1 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting admin comment. Did anyone find any sources yet? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has several sources, though I've added a couple more and moved the others into the filmography section. The three interviews are sources as well, though currently unused. The article isn't an unsourced BLP, if that is what your are hinting at. —Farix (t | c) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has sources, is notable and therefore should be kept. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable films, multiple films that have notability as stated on "entertainers" in WP:Notability (people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titlestocga!n (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

User blocked. Nakon 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. Found this. One or two more and this would be a "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not believe he meets the requirement at WP:ENTERTAINER? A voice actor is as notable as a regular actor. He didn't just do bit parts in episodes, but main characters as well. Dream Focus 05:48, 14 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Carrera

edit

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

Relisting per decision to list on AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO with the AVN Award. Article just needs to be expanded. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received nominations for well-known genre awards in multiple years. Meets WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:17, 7 January 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) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmwind

edit

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

no real notability shown for this game. sources provided show no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (no evidence provided this is the same game as discussed in www.illusionware.it and nothing tells me this is a reliable source) and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found the following independent sources which helps the game's notability. This has had a lot of media coverage and might see a Nintendo Wii or Xbox Live Arcade version, since the publisher also ported previous games to those Nintendo / Microsoft systems.

Andrew wu77 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another secondary reference

Kotaku--Cube b3 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cube b3 is trying to astroturf to keep the article and all the keeps may be sock puppets. This link is proof. http://dcemulation.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=100844 -68.185.90.190 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not invalidate his comment, nor does it rationalize your delete !vote. Marasmusine (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at the sources provided I do not see any that would be called significant coverage of Sturmwind in independent reliable sources. Reproductions of press releases and blogs and trivial announcements are not good enough. The nomination still stands. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "nuke patrol" jab is 100% true, I'm sick and tired of seeing good articles deleted because some people choose to be pricks and call "irrelevant" whatever they don't get. Also, I see this strong "big corp" bias around here: I mean, if Nintendo announced a new Zelda or whatever, you can bet there would be an article about it as soon as they revealed the tiniest bit of information. But since this is from a small indie team, no, it's not notable... regardless of the developer's or publisher's proven track records, regardless of how much info has been released up to now, regardless of how much coverage the game already got. So my vote is, KEEP this goddamn article. --Stormwatch (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the sake of argument, I'll point out that being a game from a large publisher doesn't automatically give it notability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - some of the sources listed above don't pass WP:RS, and some are just re-hashes of the fact that the game was announced, but a few actually cover more than a simple announcement. Could have done without the incivility in the AfD, though. --Teancum (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I agree with Teancum. As a side comment, after reading a couple of related commentary, if I didn't participate in a similar AFD and was not a nice guy, I would have issued some blocks. I am very disappointed in the conduct by a few of the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedSpotGames and this AFD. –MuZemike 22:44, 6 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ So what do you want us to do now? Relist the websites that assert the noteablility?

Rudeness doesn't help the situation, and you've already noted to keep earlier. --Teancum (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm also in agreement with Teancum. I feel like notability could be a bit more well established, however. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 04:07, 10 January 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Proctor

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Most sources are primary. Article is heavy on COI and trivia. Another user tried to nominate this but instead relisted a discussion from 2009, which had a result of "no consensus", so this is more a procedural nom than anything else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, nothing to indicate notability. He once ran for mayor of Pasadena but lost heavily, getting barely a thousand votes. His professional wrestling activities seem equally non-notable. Same for his writing and blogging. Basically he is a 29-year-old who has yet to make any mark on the world. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has achieved some notoriety in two very different areas. Notability is established with indepedent, third party sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 6 January 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, CTJF83 chat 05:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being an also-ran candidate in a smallish city doesn't confer notability. Plenty of coverage in local periodicals, but a lack of coverage outside of that. Many of the articles simply mention Proctor in coverage of the mayor. Others are coverage about yet another blog- hardly sufficient for depth of coverage per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - clearly non-notable for being a failed political candidate, see WP:POLITICIAN. Ditto for his blogging. He may be notable as a pro wrestler, but cites would be needed for this. (I don't know enough about pro wrestling). In any case his blogging and political "careers" are non notable and should be hugely reduced, like to a single sentence. Adpete (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't been relevant since 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.19 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The accumulated importance of the subjects various activities do not seem to achieve article level importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Vanity page, nothing at all to indicate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.62.240 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — 74.109.62.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing. The issue of merging/redirecting is already being discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Now (autobiography)

edit

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Up to Now (autobiography)

Up to Now (autobiography) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Note: The article has been moved to a new title: Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article on 4 January. Since then it has been disruptively edited and vandalised beyond recognition. I am not able to edit to construct it further because of this. As the author, I would therefore like for it to be deleted Wikipedia:CSD#G7 Also, I have repeatedly placed sources on the page which are repeatedly deleted by editors or administrators. Therefore the page does not have recognised sources.

It is also said to fail the notability criteria.

Merging with an article on its author is proposed. But nothing would be added to that article by the bare information contained here

This request was initially denied by an administrator SarekOfVulcan who has previously blocked me for an alleged edit war where he did not block the other party - it takes two to edit war, except apparently on Vulcan. He has since alleged a breach by me of the three-revert rule although I have made no such breach. His or her actions appear ego-driven. Unfortunately, the only conclusion is that this administrator has personal issues with me and is not an appropriate person to resolve this.

The refusal seems bizarre and arbitrary. This page is very short, it is not progressing and is subject to multiple tags and criticism. The best thing for it would be deletion. There is nothing to be gained by keeping it - and I say that as its creator and author. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely moot an pointy — there's a merge-discussion going on; result will most likely be merge; others are encouraged to leave comments there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is one of those who has disrupted and vandalised the creating of the article. There is nothing to be gained by a merger. Independent review, please? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please redact the above personal attack, TWSN. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've flagged the article for {{Rescue}}, because the terms it's spoken of in the books TWSN has mentioned suggests to me that it should have WP:reliable sources out there, if someone can find them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is arbitrary and vexatious. I added sources that were repeatedly deleted for not being relevant. Now it is said that these sources are somehow relevant!

Not a personal attack, but valid reasons why neither this admin nor this editor should be involved in this process. Admin and editor challenge my actions on principle. Alleging vandalism and disruptive editing is not a personal attack but airing a legitimate concern.

Significant integrity issues here, sadly. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 now threatens me with sanction for alleging vandalism against him or her. A rogue editor abusing his or her position. Seeking to act as judge and jury in an allegation of vandalsim against him or her - inappropriate. Now attempting to move towards a block, in order to prevent me from contributing to this discussion. independent intervention, please. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have been the persistent target of cyberbullying by editors including Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. I was told that alleging bullying was grounds for a block. Cyberbullying is a criminal offence. It is Wikipedia policy to use a block in order to prevent a justified allegation of a criminal offence by an officer of Wikipedia? I am sure that is not the case. Does Wikipedia have a policy on cyberbullying by editors or administrators? If so, could I be directed to it, please? Thanks. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge. This has gone on long enough. I'm sorry that we weren't able to come to an agreement on this article, but for now, I think that the best thing to do would be to either delete it or merge it into the article suggested on the talk page. It can always be recreated with proper sources at a later point in time. Nakon 06:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nakon. I agree with you. Obviously, I propose delete. I also regret the inability to come to an agreement. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article hasn't been "vandalised beyond recognition". I can show him hundreds of examples of vandalism, but this isn't one of them. Listen, TWSN - if you don't want your writing edited, don't submit it here. If you withdraw your legal threat and return to editing, he should know that a) this is not your article, and b) it doesn't not qualify for WP:CSD#G7 because you aren't the only editor who has made significant contributions to it. Sarek is correct, TWSN - I'm sorry that you don't like it, but the policy is clear as day. This AFD should be closed pending the merge discussion on the talk page. Krakatoa Katie 06:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as a pointy attempt to use AfD as a forum for making legal threats and personal attacks. -- œ ^™ 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The deletion rationale provided by the nominator is, of course, not going to fly, because per WP:OWN and WP:REVOKE editors are not permitted to revoke their contributions or to delete articles they started just because they don't like what other people have done since. That being said, there was already a near-unanimous consensus at the talk page that the notability of this article is questionable and the article ought to be deleted or merged, so we might as well go ahead and discuss that. (If someone wants to houseclean, go ahead and procedurally close this AfD and procedurally open a new one with that rationale.) Then eventually someone is going to have to take the initiative to clean up all the POV, unreferenced, and/or unencyclopedic writing that TWSN has added to other articles, as it seems he is essentially a single-purpose editor out to write flowery prose about his family members. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Merge to Martin Shaw (composer) without redirect~~ (See my comments below) At the moment, there really isn't enough notability for a stand-alone article, although it would be a useful addition in its own section in the article about the author. There is room for slight expansion if editors can get access to the following journals. It was apparently reviewed in The Musical Times, Oct. 1, 1929, vol. 70, no. 1040, p. 897-898 and Theatre Arts Monthly, Volume 14, 1930, p. 89 ("This is an entertaining little autobiography, ambling and inconsequent, full of revealing anecdotes about other interesting people..."). It was also adapted into a 45-minute play by Robert Shaw and performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2010 although the reviews were not favourable [75], [76], [77].
I would not recommend re-directing unless the article title is changed. Al Smith's autobiography published the same year by Viking Press has the same title and is far more notable in terms of citations, coverage, and library holdings: [78], [79], [80], [81]. I have written in a similar vein at the merge discussion on Talk:Up to Now (autobiography), where four other editors have also opined that the article should be merged. – Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have a few concerns about the accuracy of the Oxford Companion to Music quote which is very vaguely referenced (no exact title for the entry and no page number). Googling the exact phrase (or shorter phrases within it) produces zero results, and many editions of the work have been scanned by Google Books. Even so, there probably was something similar written about it there. Of the four results in Google News cited by Dream Focus, only one is relevant for establishing notability, The Sun. The Evening Post article is about one of the people discussed in the book, Viscount Grey of Fallodon, and is merely relating an anecdote about him from Shaw's book as part of the story. It is not about the book or a review. The Los Angeles Times article is not referring to the author of this book at all, but to Martin Shaw, the actor, and simply uses "up to now" as an expression (note the capitalisation). The Lewiston Daily Sun is a two line snippet concerning the two books with the same name, and I had already added it to the WP artcle. Having said that, I have since found a review in The Times and will shortly add it to the article. This, combined with the review in Theatre Arts Monthly (already in the article) and the review in The Musical Times, which I'll probably be able to access at some point, plus the 2010 stage adaptation, albeit by a family member, probably lets it scrape past the notability threshold. Although I've changed my opinion to a weak keep, I'd also be happy with a merge. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its from a review of notable books. [82] They mention it, then quote one of the characters to give an example of it, that working out better than just writing about it. Most news sources do not archive their stuff from more than 80 years ago, or don't have it typed out where you can actually search it. But if the person was notable, than this book about them surely would've been reviewed. Dream Focus 07:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seen in the context of the whole page, it would count as a review of sorts. Just as well, because from what I can see of the Baltimore Sun article, it is a similar item to the snippet in the Lewiston Daily Sun about Shaw's and Al Smith's autobiographies having the same name. The Baltimore Sun clearly doesn't even know who Shaw is, because they refer to him as "the English philospher". Having said that, I don't think it's valid to argue that an article should be kept simply because there must be reviews somewhere. They need to be found and verified. Otherwise, it's saying that any book written by any "Wikipedia notable" person is worthy of a stand-alone article. Some may take that view, but it's not one that I share, and it's not one expressed in Wikipedia:NBOOK either. But that's a moot point, as I think there probably is enough verifiable coverage in this case to scrape a keep. Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I managed to get a snippet from The Musical Times as well and have done just about as much as I can with the article. I now think there's enough there to establish notability for a stand-alone article with definite scope for expansion for an editor with full access to The Musical Times and to the book itself. So, just a plain old keep, not a weak one. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added Oxford Companion reference. Knew the sourcing was out there somewhere. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google news search for "Martin Shaw" and "Up to Now" has results. [83]. The first one is from the The Sun Sep 25, 1929, but you have to pay to read the article. The Evening Post in Australia gives a review about it. [84] Dream Focus 05:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of the article has been blocked from Wikipedia. [85] Dream Focus 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of both the nominator, and this article has been 'fraught', to say the least. [86], [87], [88], [89]. Nevertheless, since the AfD has started, and the article is now radically different from the one created by Time Will Say Nothing and subsequently nominated for deletion by him, we might as well judge it on its own merits and put the subject to rest. Voceditenore (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Invalid nomination. We don't delete articles because they're being vandalized. Apply for page protection or report the vandals to administrators. SnottyWong ^prattle 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check the edit history, the talk page, or any of the numerous links provided above in this discussion, you will see that this article was never vandalized; there was a content dispute and, as usual, one party who got fed up decided everyone who doesn't agree with him was a vandal. Please don't tacitly accuse that the rest of us who edited the article are vandals. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although an invalid nomination by a disgruntled user, at least the AFD has led to the article being improved beyond all recognition thanks to the super efforts of User:Voceditenore, to the point where one cannot even consider merging it. Rob (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subsequent work has established notability --Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 11 January 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. Courcelles 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air ticket

edit

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

Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band/article has a long way to go before scraping the bare minimum requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. What appears to be its only independent reference, is incredibly weak, and lacks substance beyond a casual promotional-plug for its local-area band. -- WikHead (talk) 21:48, 13 January 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 consensus is clearly to keep, & I see no valid argument for deletion; even if this is fringe, its well weithin the sort of fringe that we include as notable DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen body hypothesis

edit

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

Article is mostly made up of fringe ideas from both apologists and skeptics being given undue weight. The subject should be a summarized section in the Resurrection of Jesus or Empty tomb article. LittleJerry (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit / Procedural note: This nomination was pretty much invisible because nominator did not apply {{afd2}} to generate the header. As such, I'm removing it from the January 4 log and adding it to the January 7 log, as I doubt anybody saw it on the Jan 4 list where it appeared to be an irrelevant comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive Rite which was listed above it. Additionally, nominator did not use the required edit summary of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see (debate)", so this appeared to be a standard edit on watchlists. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Yes, many of the ideas from both the apologists and the Dan Brown-esque conspiracy types are flaky. However, they indisputably exist and can be sourced, which is all that matters. It's a notable theory, although the original wave of "prove weird events that are kind of based on the Bible" has passed and was strongest from 1900-1970 or so. Wikipedia certainly covers such ideas anyway (stuff like The Passover Plot, say) even when they don't have currency now. Even a quick Google search shows that the apologist side of the debate is still deployed against this issue, which again would probably be sufficient even if *nobody* ever believed it (a la the Satanic ritual abuse panic). Sample links just from the first page of Google results on "Jesus body stolen disciples": [90] , [91] , [92].

To be clear, yes the article is currently bad and needs more sources, but I've actually intended to improve this article with proper scholarly sources since I found it a month ago - I recently tried to make the article less horrible than it was before. There's definitely enough material for it. SnowFire (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes but Wikipedia isn't supposed to give undue weight to fringe ideas. The Resurrection of Jesus article was made up of a back and forth between apologists and skeptics arguing over whether it happened or no. Thankfully it was restructured and the debate over it's authenticity being addressed in the "Origin of the narrative" section and citing repected textual critics rather than people who are simply try to prove or disprove it. They can be cited but we should give too much detail to their fringe ideas. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. One, I'm not sure this can be so lightly dismissed as "fringe." Fringe now perhaps, but clearly relevant at one time (the Dialogue with Trypho citation in the article is pretty ancient), and still not considered entirely dead judging by the above apologetics websites. Wikipedia contains articles on plenty of theological debates and theories that seem utterly nonsensical to modern eyes, yet once were relevant. Second, assume it is "fringe" - if anything, it would be undue weight to fully discuss the hypothesis in the Resurrection of Jesus article, and I say this as someone who is a fan of merges of small topics to bigger ones in general. If it's as fringe an idea as you suggest, then it should merit no more than a paragraph in the Resurrection article. Yet I feel that - once the article is straightened out - there is certainly room for considerably more than one paragraph of sourced content (including material from "respected textual critics" who I'm sure have covered this debate as well). So it's deserving of an article, just as sufficiently sourced astrology topics or apocryphal saints who probably didn't exist have articles. SnowFire (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / update. Chatted with someone on this and apparently The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave covers this from the skeptical scholarly position. (I don't imagine it'll be hard to dig up the apologetic side of the argument, as that's mostly already in the article, and this book apparently includes some original apologetic material anyway even if it's being responded to.) Sadly none of the bookstores in my area have this in stock - I called - but I have this on mail order now and will update the article once I get it and have read through it. (Or, if there's really nothing there, I'll be happy to help merge the article after all, but I find that chance incredibly unlikely.) SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fairly important concept or idea in Western culture. Even if the article is rough it has some good information. A merge to Resurrection of Jesus is possible. Maybe what is needed is two articles: One which considers Jesus' resurrection as a (possible) real event and one that discusses its spiritual/cultural significance.Kitfoxxe (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Personally, I do not believe this theory, but it has been sincerely held view, ever since the Resurrection of Jesus (or according to the theory non-resurrection). It is thus a notable topic, which deserves an article that can be designated as a "main" article to the relevant section of the Resurrection article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 10 January 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) 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Previtera

edit

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Everything notable is duplicated at Scott Muller (cricketer) anyway. Adpete (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable under this name - BUT redirect the Joe the cameraman article to Scott Muller (cricketer) instead.The-Pope (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per the above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - I'm beginning to wonder whether to instead rename the article to Joe the cameraman. (i.e. delete the redirect at Joe the cameraman then rename Joe Previtera to Joe the cameraman). Yes it can all be put at Scott Muller (cricketer), but I wonder whether the incident (not the person Joe Previtera) is notable enough to have its own page, especially since it has (in a small way) passed into Australian vernacular. Adpete (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, definitely agree the article should be titled Joe the cameraman. Leaning towards keep for the incident, as it has recieved lasting coverage and, as Adepte says above, it has "passed into the Australian vernacular". For example, see this search of The Age archives here. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 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 User:Jimfbleak. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential guide to online course design

edit

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

Business book, published today. No indication of notability. No sources. Prod tag removed without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:07, 7 January 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. There is a weak consensus here that this can be more than a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grecomans

edit

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being about the meaning and use of a word. The article has been a cause of dispute as can be seen on its talk page. An article on the people themselves would be fine (if well sourced) but not under a name that is said to be controversial and sometimes offensive.Jaque Hammer (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced. This specific term is a fact, including in scientific litarature. There are a lot of similar articles in Wiki: Serbomans, Bulgarophiles and others. Jingby (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jingiby, term is also well known in literature (try gbooks for example), and can be expanded.Alexikoua (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That it's a real word is irrelevant. Consider also deleting Serbomans and Bulgarophiles. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, as above! --Vinie007 08:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Wikipedia is not a glossary of racial slurs. Powers ^T 14:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jingby. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article on the term is sufficiently sourced and seems well represented in scientific literature. Along with the other articles from the group - Serbomans, Bulgarophiles etc.--Laveol ^T 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at the Bulgarian piece on that topic, you'll see that the article has potential. It can be expanded to discuss the emergence of such populations, their assimilation, the geographic range of the influence of Hellenism over the neighbouring ethnicities, etc., etc. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is notable and well-attested in the literature. Just because the article is a stub does not mean this is a case of WP:DICTIONARY. The article has strong potential for significant expansion. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The term was well established in Ottoman times, and applied in particular by non-Greek peoples (Bulgarians etc.) to describe members of their community who voluntarily sought to acquire Greek ethnicity. Apcbg (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it notable. Is there anything encyclopedic to say about this word beyond simply what it means and how it is used? Powers ^T 14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not about meaning, it's about its usage that was part of notable political, ethnic and cultural developments; I added the above explanation as this aspect seems less than clear from the present article text. Apcbg (talk) 15:25, 13 January 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 as attack page by User:Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward English

edit

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

None of the sources mention the subject - no apparent notability. The article seems to exist on the grounds that the subject was transferred to a school which was connected with sexual abuse claims, but no explanation of how the subject was related to those claims is provided, and at best this would be WP:ONEEVENT. Bilby (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article seems to exist to make unproven allegations. I'm not sure if I shouldn't just blank it out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it and three articles on related people as attack pages. WP is not the place to go after people, even if they are really bad. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I was planning to nom the other three shortly, either under the same grounds or oneevent, but I'm just as comfortable with CSD. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 7 January 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. Courcelles 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Bluegrass and Old-Time Music Festival

edit

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

Five years after this article was created and it's still a stubby stub with barely any edits and no discussion on the talk page. Other articles link here but this MBOTMA Festival article contains almost no information. The article states it was IBMA Event of the Year in 2005 and 2007; well, it also won in 2009 but that isn't even mentioned! This article deserves compassion: I suggest we axe it. —oac old american century ^talk @ 01:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete per Cmadler's findings. Keep: Even though it is a stub, that doesn't change the fact that it is notable for the awards that you mentioned. Maybe it could possibly be merged or something, but I don't think it should be deleted. It can be salvaged, if an editor with knowledge on the subject is willing to fix it up. Until then, I don't see any harm in leaving it as is; it would be simple for someone to add in the 2009 award. Epass (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete despite nom treating AFD as a cleanup venue. The event won awards from IBMA but I'm having a hard time verifying any of the info through secondary sources. Google News hits show only one sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news coverage seems to consist only of event listings and the like. On the official website, they claim to have been nominated for IBMA Event of the Year three times (2005, 2007, 2009), not to have won, and checking the IBMA awards history website confirms that MBaOTMF hasn't ever won Event of the Year. Most of the links to the article are probably through Template:Bluegrassmusic, the bluegrass music navbox, from which I've now removed this article. cmadler (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After removing it from the template, there are no incoming articlespace links. cmadler (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 January 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 Optimus Prime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy)

edit

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

There is already an article at Optimus Prime which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be of dubious notability, and does not have any significant reliable third-party sources. The sources which do exist are mainly long discredited fansites. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is already a proposal to merge this page with the other Optimus Prime page by the same person who now nominated it for deletion. Talk:Optimus_Prime_(Transformers)#Merger_proposal_for_Optimus_Prime The intention of this deletion proposal seems to be to bypass that proposal. Mathewignash (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Howe about some third party RS, not toy caTALOUGES.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We only need one Optimus Prime article. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 10 January 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 Krav Maga. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Krav Maga techniques

edit

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

A non notable list of techniques without any real definition on why its encyclopaedic. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Krav Maga My reasoning is explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. The article could use better sourcing. Astudent0 (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article could be merged into Krav Maga, but a list of techniques used at one school (and the matching belt color) doesn't merit its own article. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Obviously mergable. The avoe argument, though saying "delete" is actually for a merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was leaning towards delete, but decided I could live with merge. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 14 January 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. Courcelles 03:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Karate Confederation

edit

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

A non notable marital arts organisation which doesn't demonstrate with third person sources why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be interested to hear what experienced, active karate competitors (or those involved in karate competitions in other roles) have to say about this subject. In a brief search for sources, I did not see anything that strongly suggested notability, but I did see enough that I would want to seek qualified opinions. Any thoughts from those involved in karate competitions? Janggeom (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following Papaursa's comments below. Janggeom (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find sources that truly support notability. I find lots of mentions of people, primarily kids, who competed at one of their events, but little that shows the organization is notable. You have to be careful when searching because besides this WKC organization, there are other WKC organizations--among them are the World Karate Council, World Kickboxing Council, and World Karate & Kickboxing Council. My experience is more with open tournaments than style specific ones, but the competitors' names I found for the U.S. don't appear to be America's best from the open circuits (no offense intended). Papaursa (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete An organization with international competitions would seem to be notable, but I didn't find independent coverage of the organization itself. I found the kinds of mentions Papaursa found, but I don't think that's enough to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 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 Starscream . Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starscream (Unicron Trilogy)

edit

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

There is already an article at Starscream which summarises this fictional character; this page appears to be of dubious notability, and does not have any significant reliable third-party sources which explain in detail why this particular incarnation is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is already a merger proposal by the same person who made this deletion proposal. Talk:Starscream_(Transformers)#Merger_proposal_for_Starscream. This nomination seems to just be an attempt to bypass that first proposal. Mathewignash (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few ore RS establishing that this is independantly notable might help.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We only need one article on Starscream. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agrred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 10 January 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. absent more detail on the sourcing we have an outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Shams Uddin

edit

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

Queried AfD (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)):-[reply]
- My article with the name of Mian Shams Uddin was deleted. It looks like that was deleted based on assumption that it was adverting or self-promotion but the underline message was noted. This person died more than one hundred years ago and his writings are not yet published / uploaded on internet but his poetry has been published / printed many times in the past. We are planning to have his poetry and other writings uploaded on internet but will take time to do so. I want to know what can we do as we need some assistance from common people who might have some material of his writings or about him who may want to share. We would like to collect that material to publish. Please advise how can we proceed? Regards, Rafiullah Khan (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the person sounds interesting and possibly notable, without verfifiable references, the article fails WP guidelines. Also, WP is not a place to solicit participation in an information search. It is an encyclopedia where people go to view information already obtained. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have asked the article author for more information about the sources cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 1 January 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) 01:04, 7 January 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. Courcelles 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Waters Lumpkin

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass wp:academic, at least according to Google Scholar, and the references provided are to her own work/organizations. Can't find anything to suggest wp:bio or wp:gng are satisfied either. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that there was a previous AfD that resulted in the deletion of the page. As people were mentioning tarot card reading in that afd, I'm not sure this article is the same as the previous, but maybe an admin could check to see if G4 speedy applies. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same person, but not wholly the same content. (There's a slightly different focus on the biographical detail.) This article cites sources where the previous did not, too. So at least one of the rationales from the preceding AFD discussion doesn't fully apply. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. She has written a couple of books, but one of them was published by a ministry of Namibia and the other by "Union Institute", a publisher about which I can find nothing. Neither book appears to have attracted any notice or reviews that I can find. The article lists no Reliable Sources. Her claim to fame is inventing the term Perceptual Diversity, which article was written by the same WP:SPA and should also be considered for deletion as non-notable and unsupported by Reliable Sources. I suggest somebody nominate it; it could have been included in this discussion but can't be added now due to time considerations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 6 January 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, Courcelles 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nominated Perceptual Diversity for deletion here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because she does not seem to have gotten the kind of notice that leads to WP:Notability. Borock (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9 cites on GS. 100 times too small. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. All the above comments seem spot-on. Both this article and Perceptual Diversity seem to be either fanpages or vanity pages designed by the WP:SPA account Jaredpoole to WP:PROMOTE Lumpkin. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I might almost go further and call this article WP:ADVERT. The article references her personal website several times, through which she offers various new-age services, presumably for a fee. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuichiro Kaizu

edit

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable third-party references found (very few google hits even in Japanese). No assertion of notability which would meet WP:CREATIVE. No page on ja.wikipedia either. Plad2 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 14:43, 5 January 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) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably speedy deletable, as there is no indication of why this person is at all notable. --DAJF (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability. I've also PRODded Yuhi no mimi. Pburka (talk) 04:48, 10 January 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. since the sourcing is still unresolved we have an outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Antic

edit

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

wiki isn't for everyone, this person is of limited note and less educational value and totally WP:RS uncited, delete delete delete. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the reliable sources I could find describe Dragan Antic as a 1990s Serbian newspaper editor at Politika, a discredited propagandist who backed the dictator Slobodan Milošević, not a gold record winning musical performer. Some of the sources describe that editor Antic in great depth, and perhaps he's notable. Is this article a hoax or an attempted whitewash? Or are there two people with the same name? Or were they two different careers by the same person? Cullen328 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Google image search finds a number of record sleeves, so it does look as if the singer by this name is genuine. (No idea on notability though). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He recorded over 50 EP and LP records and he was awarded with 3 golden and 8 silver records. As a very popular entertainer he had over 3500 concerts around the world but most in Europe and fmr. USSR."
Sure sounds notable, can we confirm this somehow? (His political views are completely irrelevant here, mind you). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure that the subject of this article and the journalist are different people. The journalist's full name is Hadji (or Hadzi) Dragan Antic, and none of the sources that I can find about him mention his having been a pop star. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. If we could cite some of the claims he would be notable and there are pictures of quite a few album covers on google, Clearly in need of an expert on 70s Yugoslavian pop music? Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 January 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) 00:51, 7 January 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. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concentração Motard de Faro

edit

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

Non-notable bike rally, as far as I can tell; perhaps the fatally broken English is blinding me to its wonders. Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep source says it's a 24,000 bikers meeting. It should indeed be rewritten, not deleted ;) Comte0 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2010 (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) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep gnews indicates some coverage in Portuguese of this event. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 9 January 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. Courcelles 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kaelin

edit

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

No evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO NW (Talk) 02:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a celebrity in Switzerland according to her google news hits, satisfying the GNG. Article should be expanded using those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2010 (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) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Plenty of Google News and Google Books results, just mostly non-English, but definately meets WP:GNG, just needs expansion, as per Morbidthoughts. -- œ ^™ 16:53, 7 January 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) 16:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Sulong

edit

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

Per WP:ANYBIO. Several search hits for the corporation he heads [93], but none that focus on him.

Also, previous version of article was purely libellous. SPat ^talk 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (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) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one seems to focus on him quite prominently. -- œ ^™ 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks good. I don't have access to that, unfortunately. Can you use it to expand the article somewhat? SPat ^talk 02:01, 8 January 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. Will userify on request. Courcelles 03:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah wood (drummer)

edit

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for musicians. E. Fokker (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... I have cited many sources for my info. I just added some now. I'm very sorry, this is my first wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbabe1219 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using my site (the about page) to get all of the info that's on my wiki page. Is this not enough? I can't really go much further as far as sources because my site is the only place where my bio is located. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 07:39 PM, 6 January 2011 (EST)

Comment- Just because a page is properly referenced doesn't necessarily make its subject notable. See WP:BAND. Epass (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I just looked at that. I believe I meet all that criteria. I haven't yet posted all of that as of yet on to my wiki page however. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please supply which of the twelve criteria you are basing your notability claim on? (For example, #3 is Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.) An artist only has to meet one of the twelve criteria to be considered notable, but I can not determine which you are referring to. Epass (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh sorry!! typo..didn't mean ALL. for example: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." - I perform with Mark Wood who is an Emmy award winning composer and has many platinum selling albums as well as Laura Kaye who has performed with Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Lenny Kravitz, and many more notable artists. Also, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." - I have won a major drum competition in NY. And, "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." - there was a full length feature on what I do on NBC's today show. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - When it speaks of ensembles, I believe it is referring to a more long-term ensemble than just doing some performances with them, but someone with more knowledge on this subject may be able to elaborate. Also, I believe for a music competition to be 'major' it must be national or international, or at least be well-known outside of the area in which it happens. For the final point, as I have not seen the feature you are referring to, I can not make a judgement. To meet that criteria, though, the segment would have to be solely on the person in question; the person could not have been included on a segment that talked mainly about another artist to whom the person in question has a relationship. See Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid_criteria. Epass (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do perform with the Mark Wood Experience as their main drummer and we have toured. It's not just "a couple of gigs". As far as the others, that would make the drum competition void as well as the today show feature. It was on the program I work with and I did get an interview on it. In addition, MTV is planning to do a pilot with that same program, again with me on drums. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 01:38 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete for now since his notability has not yet been established. When he gets some coverage in the mainstream media (or at least respected specialty media) then he should have an article here. Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been covered by many national TV stations. I did a feature on NBC's Today Show and I was on CBS evening news. My drums have been used in the Tour De France bike race on international media. I don't really know why I shouldn't have an article here. I do successfully meet several of the criteria mentioned before. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 02:12 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, at the NAMM show (5 days from now in CA), I will be performing with many famous musicians and I should also mention that I'm endorsed by 3 major drum companies and will appear in the 2011 ads for Zildjian cymbals. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 02:17 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I'm unsure if this article meets this criterion from WP:MUSIC:

"In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Epass (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I do apologize, it is late where I live. If you allow, I would love to continue to edit my article to show that I have accomplished all that I've stated. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 02:23 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As someone else on this list said, "Don't judge the notability of an article's subject only by the sources placed by less knowledgeable editors. A web search finds that this artist has been well-covered but everybody neglected to put better sources in the article. It needs expansion and improvement, not deletion." - I do believe that my article just needs to be expanded and improved on. Which myself and others can do. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 08:00 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had all my comments addressed, and I think that this article should be deleted. I agree with the reasons stated by Jaque Hammer; after getting coverage in the mainstream media this musician may warrant a page, but their notability has not been established quite yet. Epass (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not clearly established through available sources. Subject should read the COI notice on his talk page and consider that if the subject were notable enough, someone else would already have written an article about him. Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete son of a notable person, but notability is not inherited. (see WP:NOTINHERITED) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've put a note on the author's talkpage offering to help him look for RSes to support notability if this closes in a delete and he wants it userfied. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you were Carmine Apice, Harvey Mason, Lenny White, Billy Cobham, (or even Gerry Brown who still doesn't even have a Wiki page), I would give you a page in Wikipedia without hesitation. One win at Drum Fight VI + Drum Expo, a local Long Island event and an extremely brief and fleeting mention of it in Modern Drummer among all the other winners does not constitute significant coverage. All the other sources are self-published or non reliable websites and do not count. Endorsing contracts do not count for much - I've had them myself with Paiste and Premier. Whether you are notable or not, unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are based on provable fact. Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 12 January 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. No argument for deletion has been advanced- merger discussion can continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Neptune

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is about a codename of a home version of Windows 2000 that was never finished by Microsoft. At the very least, the content in this article can be merged with Windows 2000 or into Development of Windows XP. SixthAtom (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from the fact that no rationale has been offered to explain this nomination, this process is not for proposed mergers. In any case nothing has changed since the last AfD – was considered notable then, still is now (WP:NTEMP). Without reiterating everything that was said last time round, coverage (significant, much of it and lots of reliable sources) more than satisfies notability requirements. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does there exist a process for merging? If so, then I will gladly close this nomination and resubmit it to that process. SixthAtom (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Please refer to WP:MERGE and Help:Merging. Essentially, you'll need to start a discussion section on the article talk page, use the {{Merge to}} & {{Merge from}} templates on the source and proposed target, and then notify interested paties/projects of the discussion. _wjemather ^bigissue 01:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I will let this AfD discussion run it's course before considering to move it to that process. Thanks for showing me that. SixthAtom (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to think of a rationale for deletion. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here. _wjemather ^bigissue 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would handily support a merger to Development of Windows XP. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment regarding proposed merger. From WP:MERGE. Reasons not to merge, "3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short." As already well established, Neptune was an entirely different project to Whistler/XP, even though many of the ideas were carried into that new project, so the development of XP article is clearly not appropriate as a merge target. Neptune is mentioned as much as it should be in that article already, anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Windows 2000 is also an inappropriate target since it is entirely a business oriented O/S, whereas Neptune was being developed as a consumer O/S, based on Win2K yes, but an entirely discrete project. There is no appropriate merge target that I am aware of, so for me the very idea of merger is a non-starter. _wjemather ^bigissue 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune was not a discrete project, it was a stepping stone and a merge is entirely appropriate. Neptune, for what it was in the time frame, was destined to become Whistler/XP even if Whistler/XP didn't yet exist. There are always groups doing experimental/far future/hypothetical work at Microsoft and as the project they work on gets closer to reality, the experimental stuff gets pulled in or discarded. This may not be apparent from reading the Wikipedia article, but the amount of "exposure" Neptune gets here on Wikipedia is quite a bit of WP:UNDUE compared to what it actually was (which is forgivable because our favored sourcing is the mainstream press). You're welcome to email me privately if you're more interested in the background here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Quite simply, WP:V. I'm aware of your claims and couldn't care less whether you worked for MS at the time or not. There are zero reliable sources that are able to verify anything you have said, and that is all that matters. Until you can provide such backing, we can only take what you say with a pinch of salt and dismiss it. Sorry. _wjemather ^bigissue 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close this is a merge request. 184.144.162.245 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Quite obviously a merger request. No rationale has been offered for deletion. Should be closed ASAP. _wjemather ^bigissue 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 January 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. Courcelles 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coldest fall

edit

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

Non-notable band. Also this article has no references aside from 1st-party references cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. This band does not not meet any of the twelve criteria for notability. Epass (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. E. Fokker (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello guys, my name is Elijah Wood. I'm the drummer of Coldest Fall. I would be considered a notable musician (still being fought right now for my own wiki page, but it's clear considering I met 3 of the criteria) As one of the criteria states, you must have someone in the band or group that is a notable musician. That would be me. We will soon be releasing an album and several articles will be posted soon, after the NAMM show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbabe1219 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which of the notability criteria do you personally meet? --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - for example: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." - I perform with Mark Wood who is an Emmy award winning composer and has many platinum selling albums as well as Laura Kaye who has performed with Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Lenny Kravitz, and many more notable artists. I am a permenant member of their band "the Mark Wood Experience" and we tour all around the world. We are opening the NAMM show this year as well, which is the biggest music convention in the country. Hotbabe1219 (talk) 01:53 PM, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 7 January 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.