Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:55, 20 December 2010

< 19 December	21 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg_Steele

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

Not notable Nitack (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lone contribution from User:GSteele112, most likely a fan of one of the many people in Faster Pussycat. Mandsford 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough independent notability for a stand-alone article. Anything he did of note with Faster Pussycat can be mentioned at their article. (Note that a musician with this name died in '09 but I can't figure out if it's the same guy. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joyella

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

chatty and name-dropping, but nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of many articles about New York city station personalities, written perhaps with the idea that they were on the class AAA farm team for before being called up to the major league TV networks [1]. I note that the article of these was later blocked for sockpuppetry, but I think the real problem is that most of these weren't notable to begin with. These were made back in Wikipedia's days of trying to get as many articles as possible, so back then this probably met the standards. Of course, back then, a character in a single episode of The Smurfs was considered notable enough for an article. Mandsford 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Day Books

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

Non notable bookstore, references consist of passing mentions, links which do not mention the subject, and a lecture by the store owner talking about his vocation. WuhWuzDat 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable bookstore and small publisher. Covered in depth by a couple of online sources that seem to be reliable. Clearly a borderline case, but not as unnotable as the nominator claims, nor as notable as the article's author does. More than just your average neighborhood store. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kitfoxxe Peter.C • talk 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 20 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) 00:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple references from third parties to demonstrate notability. St Anselm (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable bookstore. Qworty (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Brown (journalist)

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

she had an interesting career, nothing points to why she is notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are lots of full-career local broadcasters who we run across at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. For whatever reason, this one seems to have less coverage than most.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:30, 21 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) 00:02, 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, Courcelles 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find no RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [WP:RELIST] --Adam Kallender (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd has already been relisted twice! Do you have any pertinent comments? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is apparently following people who have !voted against him in another AfD, this time it is Kintetsubuffalo. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources outside a few name drops in regards to hirings and the media coverage in general of 9/11. Does not meet any of the criteria of the fallback, WP:CREATIVE. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 3 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) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Nagata

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single source, but not concerned with the subject itself. Article unsourced. No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Prime Blue (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 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) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 14:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could not find any reliable sources or any otherwise significant coverage. –MuZemike 22:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:35, 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. Courcelles 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Musical Day

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

Non-notable holiday, was created this year, was a redirect but reverted several times. Hopefully this will stop it Delete or redirect and protect. Secret ^account 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a promo for a website made for fun, something to the effect that if you celebrate it, you have to sing most of the day. It'll be on March 10. It probably won't be notable even on March 11. Mandsford 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. treating as a soft deletion so can be restored immdiately if anyone finds another decent source Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Hamano

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only one single reliable (but primary) source on biographical information. Article otherwise based on unreliable source (Wikia) and trivial coverage (composer credit). No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Page has been deleted before, too. Prime Blue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she qualifies as notable or I wouldn't have written the article--just because a previous article was deleted says nothing about her notability, only that it was not established in the previous article. The article is expandable, I've already added some further primary references. Commercial composers are no less composers because of the the usage of their work. Note that more traditional players of classical music like ensembles and orchestras are noticing the popularity of the Nintendo game music--I've added a couple of references to show this. Also, she is a woman successful in what is considered a man's field. She meets the following criteria from WP:COMPOSER:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (These games are clearly notable, though I'm not a fan.)
Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. (Okay, not single-handedly, but she's part of the success of the Nintendo game music.)
Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (See list of game credits.)
Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (See web search on her name for fan publications, and also magazines like GameAxis Unwired.) Pkeets (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable composition" refers to a composition which meets the notability criteria to have an article on Wikipedia, the notability of the games alone is not sufficient. Please give some reliable and independent sources to prove that the other criteria you listed are fulfilled. Especially the last point, since all the references you have listed in the article either do not mention the subject at all (e.g. GameAxis Unwired) or are only trivial coverage with a passing mention (Classicals: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases). Do you have any detailed interviews or articles on her that could help expand this article with biographical information and to establish notability? Prime Blue (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you confused Play! A Video Game Symphony with Video Games Live. As far as I am aware, Play! has not had a Metroid arrangement yet. Prime Blue (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, no interviews or puff articles. However, I've been doing a number of composer biographies and these are quite often unavailable for low-profile composers in non-English speaking countries. Most living female composers market their compositions quite actively, but are reticent about personal information. Hamano's birth date, place of birth, city of residence and employer are all covered in the article. It's not necessary to include privacy sensitive information about her family, background, activities, etc. Is expanability one of the criteria for notability? Also, perhaps the orchestrated music isn't clear in the article? It's Legend of Zelda in Play! and Video Games both. Pkeets (talk)

P.S. I've added a link to the Video Games Live concert in Singapore. This is serious music; however, the "work for hire" aspect is somewhat disturbing. I hope all Nintendo's composers are getting their due in some way or other. Pkeets (talk) 19:20, 20 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) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expandability is the fundamental criterion for articles on people, as they must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to be notable. But seeing how no sources exist to prove the fulfillment of either of the criteria, I think this is a pretty clear case.

Regarding the concerts: Play! A Video Game Symphony had the "Ballad of the Wind Fish" in its Zelda medley. Since no composer breakdowns for Link's Awakening were released, it could be that this was either composed by Hamano or co-composed with Kazumi Totaka and Kozue Ishikawa (though saying that it contained her music is completely WP:OR). Video Games Live exclusively used arranged music originally composed by Koji Kondo in both their older and newer "segments". Then again, I shouldn't have brought this up as it does not really bear any relevance to an AfD... Prime Blue (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that expandability is a necessary criterion for notability. I do agree that attribution is a problem here--another aspect of the work-for-hire situation. However, she is credited on the games, so we have to accept that she did, at the least, collaborate on this now high-profile music. Perhaps the work-for-hire is a similar situation to providing incidental music for film soundtracks (since Stokowski a respectable avenue for composers)? Anyhow, I think we should have some other opinions on this. Pkeets (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that notability is there, but I can't source it - and that's a bit frustrating. Sources would take care of the expandability issue, as well. I'll see what I can come up with. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed two references from the article because they were to books published by ICON Group International, which takes its content from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The work-for-hire situation must be fairly common in Asia. I'm currently working on the bio of a Chinese composer that works for a film studio. Pkeets (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Horseman Magazine

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

Non notable magazine. No independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage that I could find. Prod was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears to be small regionally-based publication. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 21 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) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. You will note that the total absence of any interest whatsoever speaks volumes. I've been trying to dump this thing for months. Why is it even being relisted? Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. It's a legitimate magazine with 159,000 GHits. Qworty (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number means little. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate does not always (or even often) equal notable, and neither does a google search that turns up the name. (I'm only getting 67K hits with "eclectic horseman magazine" in quotations, but that's beside the point). How many reliable, third party sources did you find in those 159K hits, that weren't to the magazine itself, advertisements, forum sites or facebook pages? If you can find me multiple (at least two) reliable sources that give more than a passing mention of this magazine, then I will agree with you that it should be kept. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete google news turns up nothing. Could not find any reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 3 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 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugz Magazine

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

Seemingly non-notable magazine. I can find no news mentions of the zine, and the web coverage seems to be mainly advertising for itself and a few non-notable mentions. Article created seemingly by the author for promotional purposes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Canterbury Tail. Peter.C • talk 01:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 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) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that, as of now, what we have here is worthy only of inclusion in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achayan

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

This is a dictionary article, Most of the text in the articles don't have a valid reference. The total content shown in the Educational institutions are not sourced and possibly Wikipedia:NOT#OR, Can be concluded in the dictionary like this Achayan : Call name for elder brothers in christian family of kerala ...Captain......Tälk tö me 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; textbook example of an article that belongs in a dictionary. Powers ^T 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some editing but it surely deserves a space in wikipedia. It is about a group of people in India and their origin, culture etc. The article needs to be improved by adding more details and information.117.196.156.162 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is only a dictionary articles with cooked up stories and boosting of of that to get it fitted into an encyclopedia it can see as Wikipedia:NOT#OR, and the above IP is linking the articles to non relevant sections of articles Contribution, Edit without sources.--...Captain......Tälk tö me 12:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The presented sources show that the term is nothing more than, e.g., "father" in addressing to clergy. Kaligelos (talk) 02:39, 28 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, L Faraone 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThere is lot to be added to this article. Its not just a dictionary article. The term is used only by Syrian Christians and that too from the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom. It not just denotes brother or father.Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you give us some examples of information that could be added to make this more encyclopedic? Powers ^T 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, No evidences...100% fiction, single line reference in some books (Meaning) can be included in dictionary....--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 07:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Time (Christina Aguilera song)

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

Unreferenced article on a single that never charted. Appears to not be particularly notable. Powers ^T 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 20 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) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-charting single, no sources, will get re-created if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Confirming

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

No indication of importance, appears to be here to gain a following but isn't blatant enough to be G11. No third-party coverage, and links are all to FB/TW accounts (more promotion). — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a tool developed by the Government of Andalusia, and the launch was an International Official Conference with international personalities of the Corporative Social Responsibility and green jobs (as Van Jones), holding and supporting it. Please visit Junta de Andalucia, AIR2010, Social Confirming, or these URLS':

http://www.abc.es/20101220/medios-redes/social-confirming-ciberactivismo-201012201022.html http://www.europapress.es/andalucia/sevilla-00357/noticia-encuentro-ciudadania-sociedad-empresas-responsables-air-2010-comienza-jueves-1000-inscritos-20101215183217.html http://www.teleprensa.es/andalucia-noticia-263489-Una-herramienta-permitir26aacute3B-al-ciudadano-valorar-la-responsabilidad-social-de-las-empresas.html http://www.europapress.es/andalucia/sevilla-00357/noticia-organizacion-iberoamericana-juventud-defiende-social-confirming-herramienta-activismo-ciudadano-20101217161604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcojaviermz (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 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) 00:04, 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, CTJF83 chat 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reading over the materials, this appears to be little more than a buzzword/neologism developed by the local government. I can't find any real substance to this "tool". Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment:" The Government of Andalussia is the equivalent to a State Government in The United States; in the second most populated Autonomic Comunity in the Kingdom of Spain and it governs to 8 million people. This initiative is designed in Andalussia but it's launched for any social/local government in anywhere. The tool is being Launched in Beta version. -Maybe I misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia in English, but I don't know exactly which are the reasons why this initiative from a government should not be in the Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcojaviermz (talk • contribs) 09:24, 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) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schiel & Denver Book Publishers

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

Previously deleted at AfD in 2008. None of the references cited indicate notability as none of them contain in-depth coverage of this company. I can't locate any other reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, to meet our general notability guideline and our guideline for corporations. There were promotional issues behind the last creation and the creator of this article has not edited outside of it. Them From Space 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ThemfromSpace, thanks for your review. This AAP publisher should meet notability standards (i.e. guideline for corporations) from verifiable involvement with United Nations Global Compact as well as from the other independent and verifiable sources listed. Although the main reference from the New York Center for Independent Publishing (NYCIP) which previously contained a detailed professional summary was lost since the NYCIP remerged into the General Society and no longer has summaries on any it's member publishers; Pan Macmillan's The Writers Handbook Book 2011 which is a major information source for writers (and readily available from most traditional bookstores) has an independently researched section on Schiel & Denver. Suggest to Keep or at most editing and making a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aronauthor (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC) this is User:Aronauthor's first edit Them From Space 10:20, 21 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) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nothing more than a vanity press. The article also suffers from WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:SPAM. Also, as an article previously deleted through AfD, it should have been speedy-deleted this time around. All of these crazy redirects should also be deleted [2] Qworty (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPAM as well as multiple other guidelines. Nakon 09:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe requires more editing, but not liking something is not sufficient grounds for removal WP:JDLI. Please tone down the grossly unfair commentary too. These "crazy redirects" are all valid search terms [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefentry1900 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything in the refs that indicates notability - one doesn't even mention the company. Merely being a 'vanity press' isn't a ground for deletion (there are articles on others), but being a vanity press without indication of notability is, as it is for any other press or furniture remover or petroleum corporation. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A word to New Accounts and editors of the article (not including Drmies...) I notice that a lot of accounts have edited this article. Indeed, with the exception of the established and regular editor Drmies, these accounts have only edited the article and possibly this discussion. This does happen, and in my experience at AfD it is often a sign of sockpuppetry. Please see WP:SOCK before creating new accounts to vote here, or using multiple accounts to give an impression of activity. This is not a head count - it is a discussion. I may be wrong, and all these eager little beavers may be just that, and not one large beaver trying to conceal its tracks. (Yes, I am cynical...) Peridon (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews shows a meagre 3 hits. [4]. one article claims this is the leading book publisher?!...if that was true it would get multiple stories in the country that publishes more books than any other. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 2 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 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Gray's secrets

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

Unremarkable game. — Timneu22 · talk 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game, no search results found, and the article is completely unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:00, 20 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) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, hoax as far as I can tell. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability, likely a hoax. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thomas Eagleton. history is intact if anyone wants to do a merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. JN 466 12:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this was to be on Wikipedia, it would be an article on the blackmail attempt on Thomas Eagleton. I notice the attempt only has one (unreferenced) mention on the Thomas Eagleton page, which is strange given the uncle/niece relationship. Just possibly, this could be merged to his biography - if sources can be found to indicate notability.--Scott Mac 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present bio reads like a coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology.--Scott Mac 12:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Eagleton. Sources about the incident can and should be added there. Location (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect The case itself is significant, but Elizabeth Weigand is not a significant figure in her own article. I can't find enough information to flesh this article out or prove Elizabeth has the notability to have her own article. Let's move the source and information then do a redirect.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I resent the inappropriate and unjustified "coatrack to besmirch the Church of Scientology" comment, and it is inaccurate. Is there a reason Wikipedia discussions have to involve ad hominem attacks so frequently? The extortion episode was notable, as were the culprits involved. A very high profile sitting U.S. Senator who had been nominated for vice president was subjected to an extortion attempt - by his niece - which resulted in a prosecution and reported appellate case. The New York Times, AP and other outlets reported on it multiple times. By way of comparison, the article on basketball coach Rick Pitino, certainly a less significant figure than Sen. Eagleton, contains an entire section on an extortion attempt involving him. For sake of discussion: Why would a crime like this be notable, but not its perpetrator? Why would a page for Seung-Hui Cho be appropriate, but this page is suspect?LanternLight (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stuff can be merged if apprpriate but classic Coatrack The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton. The material is certainly relevant, and the sources here should be added to his bio, but I don't find much basis for a separate article about the blackmailer; is there anything significant to say about her other than this incident?--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thomas Eagleton per Arxiloxos. I do not see a COATRACK problem, I see a one-note WP:BLP1E problem. This was not a big news item 30 years ago when I was in high school, and the story did not have any "legs". The subject faded into being a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online-DoctorsAppointment

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

PROD removed by creator. I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this software in reliable sources, to meet our notability guidelines. Still not sure why we don't have a speedy criterion for software that doesn't assert notability. Them From Space 12:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL as the service isn't even up yet. Looks like advertising to me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any significant coverage for this, no sources in addition to its homepage. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete. Article is about web content (article mentions shared reviews and support by banner ads) that makes no minimal claim to importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP Slayer (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Forrestier

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

no real notability shown for this bio. she has worked with a non notable person (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alverez (2nd nomination)), and notability is not inherited. largely written to connect her with him. auditioning for parts falls well short of what is needed for acting. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. there is a lot of references provided but there is a lack of good ones. a mix of youtube, PR, talking about herself, blog. the Sister 2 Sister magazine may be reliable but that does not extend to all sections of their website and the post is rather trivial/promotional. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 20 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) 00:04, 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) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 3 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) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Courtois

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

Known mostly for the XSL attack. A redirect seems enough to me. ospalh (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar citation counts of 457, 446, 342, 133, 99, etc looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me, and the media attention to his multiple cryptographic accomplishments (now added to the article, which previously focused only on XSL) looks like a pass of both WP:PROF#C7 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 23 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) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though not one of the big ones, Nicolas Courtois is a well-known figure in cryptography. He not only published notable papers on algebraic attacks (of which the XSL is the most hyped one), but also made significant contributions to multi-variate cryptography. Nageh (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DAE ONE

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

no real notability shown for this bio. he has worked with notable artists but his production work is just a few songs, none notable. his band No One (hip hop) was recently deleted so no notability from there. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. of the references none are significant coverage in independent reliable sources (the closest is two interviews where he talks about himself so don't count even if they are reliable sources). nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 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) 00:05, 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) 00:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:NN with lack of sources that meet WP:RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 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.

(talk) - u clearly just want to take the black music down. So one can work with notable artist and because you don't know the music its a problem. NO. The page had proper citations from multiple verifiable sources from varying mediums. So what his group page was deleted what does that have to do with his production page? Which had over 25+ citations. And yes I used a page where he quoted himself....last I checked thats why there is a section that says QUOTES. And I have seen quotes on PLENTY of rock and roll pages. So whats the problem an urban producer doing the same?????? Please refer to pages like TIMBALAND which this page was based on. I am highly disappointed that you take a page down because you don't understand black music. Miss Professor KG (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Miss Professor KG[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 result was Non admin closure keep by the nominator. This was a bad nomination on my part.

Amarillo American Association baseball team

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

Not sufficiently notable for coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professional baseball team. Spanneraol (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to new name as soon as it is picked. Professional baseball teams are notable. No specific justification for deletion given by nominator. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- looks like it has good coverage in addition to the default notability for professional sports teams. Ma^t_chups 03:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Goldstein

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough third party sources. Shadowjams (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject has been covered in Variety Magazine, Coco Eco Magazine, X Media Lab, and Juxtapoz Magazine, all of which are independent of the subject of the article and are independently edited, meeting the requirements of WP:RS and WP:Notability (people). Note: There seems to be some confusion -- the Ken Goldstein mentioned in the previous nomination is a former vice presidential candidate, not this person. AkankshaG (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Besides Variety, Goldstein has been profiled in the Sunday Oregonian, Sportswear International, AFI Festival, A&E Television, The Chicago Tribune, The New Times and The Chicago Production Weekly.Brittponset (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was adequately and quite well sourced at the time of nomination, easily aserting and showing notability through multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems notable- article well sourced. Goldstein was mentioned in the Variety article multiple times. As observed by AkankshaG, this does seem to be a different Ken Goldstein than the VP running mate mentioned as the first nomination for deletion. SharedPlanetType (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject not VP running mate. Besides the many press articles cited above, the subject was instrumental, with Tonny Sorensen, in bringing Planet Illogica to the American Film Institute Digital Content Lab while I was Director of the Lab. Subsequent success of the venture speaks to his standing within the arts community. Zorca777 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is mentioned in passing, or is being quoted as chief marketing dude for planet illogica. But what is missing is significant coverage about him. Although there are a lot of sources in the article, many of them are not independent. For Example, COCO magazine's article is not about him. It is written by him. The reference to the article in the Oregonian actually leads to a blog on planet illogica. Just because it looks adequately referenced, does not mean it is. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in The Oregonian, dated 9 November 1997, by author Margie Boule. The Oregonian cannot be found online, but a full copy of the piece can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46562.Brittponset (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Strikethough of duplicate !vote Peridon (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in The Jewish Review, dated 1 March 1998, by author Deborah Seldner. The Jewish Review cannot be found online, but a full copy of the piece can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46565. Subject is also discussed substantively in this piece in VIBE Magazine, dated March 2001, by author Matthew Cowan. The article can be found online at http://books.google.com/books?id=gCYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=Ken+Goldstein+%22%22Vibe+Magazine%22%22Prophet+Speaks&source=bl&ots=aZquATMg5T&sig=47vUa_TILmihUfY8fejTFrswvqA&hl=en&ei=QiUUTcq6H4zksQOx_Iy6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. Subject is also discussed and credited in Variety Magazine, dated 24 February 2010, by author Sharon Swart. The article can be found online at http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015719.Brittponset (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.234.56 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Goldstein is discussed substantively in this article in the Jewish Review (http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46565), and in the Oregonian article, which can be found at http://www.planetillogica.com/kengoldstein#tab:Portfolios&portfolio:46564&media:46562, both of which support a claim of notability, and both of which are reliable sources under Wikipedia rules (See WP:Notability and WP:RS). These are multiple articles from multiple sources, which satisfies Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. A nomination for deletion is not appropriate under these circumstances, as the subject satisfies our notability rules by being described substantively in these multiple sources.MixedMartial1984 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is discussed substantively in this piece in Juxtapose, dated 25 March 2010, by author Elle Newbold. The Juxtapose article, entitled, Gators Going Green Unite With Planet Illogica for the Oceans, can be found online at http://www.juxtapoz.com/19327-oceans-infiltrate-at-university-of-florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alharrismcgee (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - subject is discussed substantively in this video clip from Boardroom Radio Australia which can be found on-line at http://www.brr.com.au/event/66613/tonny-sorenson--ken-goldstein-co-founders-of-planet-illogica-part1. Subject is also discussed substantively in this piece on the official Playstation Blog by author Joe Vaux, dated 19 May 2009, which can be found at http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/05/19/littlebigplanet-the-patch-family-guys-joe-vaux/. Subject is also discussed substantively in the this piece on Golgotron by author Chase, 3 August 2010, which can be found at http://golgotron.com/2010/08/the-people-will-look-up-and-shout-save-us/#more-5398. Brittponset —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ómar Jóhannsson

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

Prod was challenged. Has appeared for a third tier Swedish club and an Icelandic club. Don't believe he meets notability guidelines. Echetus Xe 11:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PROD contest reasoning was flawed. Neither the Swedish third division nor the Icelandic first division are fully pro, therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. This close is based on the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.E.L.P.eR. that I just closed. Even though there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, because this is a main charater, I'm going with a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Thaddeus Venture

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

Clearly, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations, and does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 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) 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. The article in its current state is a major WP:PLOT fail, consisting of 99.9% plot summary (disguised as biography, relationships, etc.), but since this is the titular main character of the series in question I assume that some third-party sources probably exist from which the article could one day be improved. Certainly there is some real-world content that could be written (creation, inspiration, animation, voicing, etc.). But yeah, in its current state it's just plot rehash & ought to be redirected. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Given that there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, I'm going with a hard redirect (delete, then redirect) over a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.E.L.P.eR.

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

I doubt that the character would meet the notability, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations. JJ98 (Talk) 10:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 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 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The character is important to the show. The show has been deemed notable. Unless wikipedia has a policy of deleting EVERY minor character. As a random example, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamslayer ? I agree that the article is poorly done, but could benefit from being edited. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERCRAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. WP:NOT#PLOT violation in WP:IN-UNIVERSE style, unsourced, no established WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing obvious to merge, but it's a main character, so there should at least be a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. The article in its current state is a major WP:PLOT fail, consisting of 99.9% plot summary (disguised as "Personality and relationships", "History and activities on the show", etc.). There's no indication that significant third-party source coverage exists from which the article could be improved. It's just plot rehash. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or bare redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. Unsourced (therefore no verifiable material to merge) and lacking any indication that substantive, reliable third-party sourcing will become available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) (comment by indef-blocked user has been struck)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy journalism

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism was closed as "no consensus to delete". Following the closure, I have moved the page from the incubator to the mainspace so that the community can evaluate whether the changes have addressed the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 24. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of the article:

Discussion about suitability as an article

Assessment

Article incubation assessment

Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
A. It meets the general notability guideline:

B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
Is it verifiable?
A. It contains references to sources:

B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

C. There is no original research:
Is it neutral?
A. It is a fair representation without bias:

B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

1A: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources
1B: No specific guideline - but comes under WP:NOTNEO, which is a specific policy forbidding this sort of article
- Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase, the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2A: Yes, there are sources
2B: Yes, there are inline citations
2C: Sources do not support the article as a topic. Sources show usage of the term as a neologism. There are a number of statements which are not supported by sources. The article appears to be original research, and there is no evidence otherwise - indeed, the article is constructed as an argument that the term does convey a recent concept.
- Disagree - A neologism is a new word or phrase (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neologism), the article is classification of a type of journalism, similar to other categorizations. Article points out usage as classification device, vice a neologism Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3A/B: The article is constructed as an essay persuading the reader that the concept of "conspiracy journalism" exists and that the term is being used in the media.
- Disagree - At no point does the article advocate for the existence of the category. It seeks to frame and identify the usage in media and academic circles. Term is clearly in use.Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4 Not applicable
- Disagree - Article contains no future speculation whatsoever. Jettparmer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5 Fail. The article was deleted after a discussion in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor, User:Jettparmer. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the decision was to endorse the deletion, though an offer was made to move the material to a subpage via either incubation or userfication. Jettparmer elected for incubation, though the article has not attracted attention from any other editor. As Jettparmer has moved the material to his userpage - User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism - it is appropriate to take this page to WP:MfD. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Material removed from user pages per WP:UserPage. Jettparmer (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and remove from Wikipedia - I participated in the MfD and was invited to add my thoughts in this AfD#2. "Conspiracy Journalism" is neologisms and there is not enough reliable source material to satisfy WP:GNG. The article violates No original research in that the article combines material from multiple web sources to reach the conclusion that Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism when the sources do not state that. The article lead states, "Conspiracy Journalism represents a genre of journalism that has elements of advocacy journalism, yellow journalism and investigative journalism." Books Ngram Viewer shows that, unlike advocacy journalism, yellow journalism, and investigative journalism mentioned in the conspiracy journalism article, the phrase 'conspiracy journalism' has had no noticeable usage through 2008. Moreover, there is no sense from the sources in the article that they are each talking about the same idea when they mention the phrase "Conspiracy Journalism". Conspiracy journalism is fast becoming the Rasputin of Wikipedia. Since its March 20, 2010 deletion, the material has been moved in the past nine months from article space-->AfD--> DRV-->Article Incubator-->MfD-->User space-->article space. No significant new information has come to light since March 20, 2010 to overcome the reasons for deletion at AfD#1. As noted in the collapsed template above, the November 28, 2010 Article Incubation assessment established that the deleted article had not proven useful to write a new article at Article Incubator. Delete and remove from Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This has been to AfD with only one keep !vote, which was from the author, Jettparmer, who then took it to DRV, where the delete was unanimously endorsed. The material was moved to the incubator, and Jettparmer also copied the material to his userpage. I evaluated it in the incubator and found it not to be an encyclopaedic article. As there were two versions on Wikipedia, I called an MfD, where there were five delete comments, and - again - only Jettparmer !voting to keep. This has taken up enough of our time and resources, so this should be the final discussion, and the title should be creation protected. This move to mainspace is against policy as the article has not significantly changed since the original AfD. I will discuss the matter with User:Cunard, as I think the more appropriate thing would be to speedy per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4. SilkTork *^YES! 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is still essentially just WP:OR. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched Google for sources on this topic, but, suspiciously or otherwise, there are very very few.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Humor - Very funny, bravo! :-D Jettparmer (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite circumstantial claims of WP:OR, this article meets WP standards as encyclopedic. The term or categorization is in use within both popular and scholarly circles. Stating that the article is simply "essentially just OR" is highly subjective and unsupported in comparison to WP standards. Development of this article is warranted and suported by the simple presence of the term under a limited Google search. Jettparmer (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is explicit: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. That is not a particularly subjective standard. --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how there has been any synthesis. The term / categorization is used in numerous areas both in media, academia and popular sources from the UN in Africa to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The aim of the article is to catalog the term / classification detailed in these references and arrive at a proper encyclopedic entry for the term.Jettparmer (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and try again with actual references. There may be potential for an encyclopedic article but the references given do not support the present one. Only Ref 8 & 9 are RSs, and they discuss ordinary investigative journalism. The Gore Vidal article in the EL section does not use the term or otherwise support the article. The use of Ref. 6, though not a RS in any case, shows a misunderstanding : the reference does not say the Clinton administration committed or even encouraged conspiracy journalism, but asserts that Hilary Clinton and what they considered to be associated sources had falsely claimed that the Scaife Foundation was conducting conspiracy journalism against the administration. The p. cited from Brach do not support the use of the term The other sources are not reliable. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would submit that sources are both WP:RS and appropriate as they adequately and correctly frame the usage and validate its definition within popular media. The sources are as much for usage as content. It is not relevant whether Farah or the Clinton administration committed the act, but rather that the issue was framed by the category. The MRC reference was intended to demonstrate that common usage of the term exists and place it in the proper context. Am I missing something here? This is not an article to prove conspiracy journalism exists, but rather that a specific and unique category of this classification does. I am surprised why the SPLC reference, number 12, was classified as unreliable, this stikes me as a solid standard to support the article.Jettparmer (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghafar (Afghan mujahideen fighter)

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

Fails even the most basic requirements for WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. First part is the interpretation of a primary sources document followed by a list of individual with the same name or similar name that might be the person that was mention in the primary source. IQinn (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above [CharlieEchoTango] 08:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. I'd also be inclined to delete some of the other Abdul Ghafars listed on that page for the same reason. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Also fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N as it lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage (1966 film)

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

Fails Notability criteria for films. Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NF. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage. No reviews. No notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i prodded this because coverage seems to be restricted to the religious group. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kingshott

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

Autobiographical article of person who is not notable Bkingshott (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is registered on IMDB, is engaged in pre-production on a film project being directed by Michael J. Bassett, a major director, and has received multiple appearances on film-related websites:
The subject also appears in numerous news articles performed by a Google News search and appears in dozens of articles accessible by a Google search, as well as appearing in the top 3.
The article therefore meets the following proposed arguments for inclusion:
- The subject has multiple, externally-sourced references.
- The subject appears on numerous film-related websites.
- The subject continues to receive publicity through news and regular web searches.
- This article has the potential to improve at a later date when additional information is available. At such a time the article is unlikely to remain autobiographical as per the terms of the original observation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.43.66 (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there may be a lot of mentions of this project none are that significant and would not yet (at first look) be enough for me for the future film so he doesn't satisfy WP:ENT as a film writer. The mentions of him in the above links I have access to are of the extremely trivial nature so lacks coverage for WP:N. The subject is not recieving the coverage, the project is. That the article has the potential to improve is crystal ball thinking and that is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also vioaltes WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I see no evidence that its author User:ThePenguin1 is either Matthew Kingshott or anyone attached to the Kingshot film, I do not see this short, encyclopedic, and sourced article as being a violation of WP:NOT. That said however, the article and topic are simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Faith (song)

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

Some editors cannot deal with a redirecting so now its nominated for deletion. Fails WP:NSONGS; has not charted on any major chart, has not even been released, has not won or been nominated for any major awards or been covered by other notable acts. STATic message me! 07:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or create dab page) - As of now, this does not seem notable enough to meet WP:N or WP:NSONGS, so per WP:NSONGS, a redirect to No More Idols is most appropriate. That said, there are other songs called "Blind Faith", some probably more notable than this one. So for now, a redirect works, but ~~it would probably be better~~ eventually it may be necessary to turn this into a dab page, with links to No More Idols as well as Ferguslie Park (album) and ~~possibly~~ others, and create a redirect for Blind Faith (Chase & Status song). Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. This song is not notable as identified by the nom. Dolovis (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Waters (novel)

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable book; I almost tried for an IAR speedy, but I PRODded it instead. Does not even come close to meeting notability guidelines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chanapatana International Design Institute

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

fails WP:ORG. seems like a private institute with fancy name but hardly any coverage. note gnews also picks up Thai coverage. [5]. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 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) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small but important school of design in Thailand. Not easy to find electronic sources but has had significant media coverage in mainstream press. A ref has been added. Kudpung (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Kudpung - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Probably not an hoax but an hopelessly non-notable YouTube video character, — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Tugboat

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

Non-notable animated series lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotion/advertising (as I originally nominated, but some editor inexplicably declined). Non-notable in the extreme. Not even sure it really exists, frankly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, zero hits. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NF, clearly non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and clearly promotional. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-hoax}}; tagged as such. I'm not sure the admin that declined the original speedy did a Google search. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rémi Gaillard

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

Tag placed for sourcing in february 2010, which was not addressed properly since then. This article has -almost- no source other than YouTube videos basically only linking to sections describing the videos that in turn amount to WP:OR. The notability of the subject is itself very border line per WP:ANYBIO. Thanks - [CharlieEchoTango] 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) [CharlieEchoTango] 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Withdraw AfD [CharlieEchoTango] 07:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There do seem to be quite a few legitimate news hits for the subject on Google News[6]--almost all of them in French--and somewhat better sourcing is given in the article on French Wikipediafr:Rémi Gaillard.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a user of both wikis, I agree the french wikipedia article is much better, thank you for pointing that. There is also very good refs on the article. But if the issues on the en.wiki article are not addressed, I still stand by this AfD, this article just has too many problems (starting with the list of videos and there description (WP:OR)), and the notability is still border line for the en.wiki in my opinion. If the issues are addressed and the article is significantly improved, than I will happily retract this AfD, but I am not willing to improve or translate the article from the fr.wiki and not very sure about the notability of the subject per the en.wiki guidelines. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 07:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, turns out I'm willing in the end, but I might not do a very good translation job, not used to translating french to english. Thanks to everyone for your comments. [CharlieEchoTango] 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. AfD is not an alternative if you simply can't be bothered to fix the issues on the article. If reliable sources that assert notability exist on the French wiki then its safe to say that they could be used to assert notability on the English wiki as well. It sounds like you're in an ideal position to do this as you stated you use both wikis, but if you don't wish to then that's up to you. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the French wiki establishes notability then that is enough. Being incomplete is NOT grounds for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO, sourced, referenced. It's simple. Keep. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:04 21 December 2010 (UTC)
weak Keep is he not mentioned in wired? thats a pretty good secondary source. if the french article is better developed, might be a good transwiki article. Needs improvements but some sources seem to already be present Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to have just enough general coverage to meet basic notability requirements. Giant Snowman 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, refimprove is not a valid reason for deletion in this case. BanRay 06:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida

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

List does not cover a notable topic (ie, a topic the subject of significant discussion in reliable independent sources.) The entries on the list are themselves non-notable, and a list of non-notable streets is essentially a street directory, which Wikipedia explicitly frowns on. Initial prod was removed with rationale "No reason to delete this list!" - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing a directory, which lists events or business, from a gazetteer, which lists the beginning, end, and major crossroads and towns of routes. Wikipedia incorporates elements of a gazetteer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose --- There IS no reason to delete this list! Perhaps some of the streets that already have articles can be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets, but to delete a whole list of county roads is an asinine thing to do. ----DanTD (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something asinine is not a very good argument. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm sorry but it is, and many below this list, starting with User:Floydian understand this. And while I've had my disagreements with them on which county roads are notable enough for an article and which ones aren't, the fact that the Volusia County has these roads under their jurisdiction is notable. Just because the existance of a list of these roads may not mean anything to the nominee, doesn't mean it's not notable. ----DanTD (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Something similar to the "keep" argument from here. The main "keep" argument was that it was supposed to be a list of notable shopping malls. By that, I think lists of roads should be limited to notable ones. Since this is just a county, not a state, I imagine there would not be enough notable roads to make a list with. If there are a significant number of notable roads, then he list should just include those. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists have far lower expectations of notability than articles do. The notability is in the fact that this county decided that these select roads - no different than others - are very important to it. Generally when something is notable enough to the government , that they track them, number them, keep statistics of them, and keep them (where possible) in tip-top shape, it is notable enough for us. As an aside, if we pull otherstuffexists, there are hundreds of lists of county roads in a county. Not only in Florida, but in the United States, Canada, and probably even in Europe (though in a different sense) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to contain a list of notable entries, or potential notable entries and has a clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per USRD Notability Guidelines - While a single article on one CR may not be notable, there is a system of CR in the county, which warrants at least a list. Admrboltz (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - County routes are suitable to be presented in a list format. Dough 48 72 18:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep County routes are rarely notable on their own, but a list that explains a county route system and contains information about a collection of roads that are non-notable on their own is acceptable. V C 21:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic itself is notable even if the individual items are not. WP:SNOW close, please. Imzadi 1979 → 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per USRD Notability Guidelines - While a single article on one CR may not be notable, there is a system of CR in the county, which warrants at least a list. (It was said way to well by Admrboltz, so I just copied his comment.) --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to add that it's interesting that this is the only list of County Roads in Florida that DustFormsWords wants to delete. What about the other 20? Are they in more notable Counties than this one? --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, according to the USRD notability guidelines, this is an appropriate topic and an appropriate method of presenting it. Also, Wikipedia is not paper, and things like this are perfectly suited to the Wikipedian format, even if they wouldn't ever make the cut for a "dead tree" encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11.--Chaser (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Flakelar

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find much relevant coverage on Google besides listing and photo galleries. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ORB (Venture Bros. episode)

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

This article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. I doubt that the episode is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plot-only description of a fictional work, no evidence of independent notability. Venture Bros does not appear to have the level of cultural impact necessary to justify an article for each and every episode. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes#Season 3: 2008. I'm no fan of this cartoon, but I often find the questions of cultural impact of TV episodes and shows to be subjective. It's still better to save the information in older versions. ----DanTD (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ORB (Venture Bros. Episode) doesn't seem to me to be a likely search term, and in any event once this article is deleted it will return the episode list as the first search result if searched. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - This already sounds more like a redirect than a delete. I agree with you on the notability of the article, but that doesn't mean the info in the existing article can't be used in the future, i.e. for a season-specific episode list, or for a Venture Brothers Wikia, or maybe just some fansite. Saving the info is just fine without saving the article. Redirecting will help you do that, deleting it won't. I've made similar recommendations for Big Time Rush episodes. ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 2002 (Florida)

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

Non-notable county road in Florida. A Google search gives no related hits that aren't from Wikipedia. The only possible claim to notability is as a "scenic route", but we'd need a source to substantiate that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Roads are generally not notable, and there is no significant discussion to suggest that this road is an exception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm voting delete, but not all roads are not notable. See WP:USRD/NT for an example of those that are. --Rs chen 7754 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable county road. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida, despite the fact that a smaller part of the road also exists in Flagler County, Florida. As far as the notion of a source to substantiate the claim of being a scenic route, a quick scan on Google Maps Street View can answer that question, and would've certainly answer that question regarding the unjustly deleted County Road 42 (Florida). ----DanTD (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd oppose a redirect, even if the list (currently nominated for deletion) is kept, on the basis that "County Road 2002 (Florida)" is not a likely search term, and in the event that it's searched it should produce the list anyway. And no, using Google Street View would NOT substantiate it as a scenic route, as that would be original research. You need to find a reliable independent source that says that, not work it out for yourself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have to strongly disagree with DustFormsWords on using Google Street View as a source for determining a scenic highway, although I certainly wouldn't rely on it as a primary source. In the case of the Bi-County CR 42, considering the proximity between Florida State Road 40 and Florida State Road 44, and runs along the southern border of Ocala National Forest, it would be foolish to deny scenic highway status for that road. ----DanTD (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google SV can't support the word "scenic". That word is a value judgement and an opinion. You need a source that directly says that. SV can be used to say that the roadway passes "through trees". That's an objective description. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. You can start with this. As for Volusia-Flagler CR 2002, I didn't originally think of keeping it, but now I may have to reconsider. ----DanTD (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable. Admrboltz (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a passable article can be created for the scenic highway, I support merging into that article. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Rs chen 7754 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a single, non-notable road. No sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Flagler County, Florida and List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida and turn this into a dab page. Dough 48 72 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida V C 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Save the Loop! - CR 2002 (AKA Highbridge Road and Walter Boardman Road) is the northern leg of the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, a Florida Scenic Highway, designated on July 9, 2007.
Gamweb (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So really you're arguing that we should have an article on the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, not this individual road, ne? Uncle G (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't speak for Gamweb, but I'm willing to consider merging this into a chapter on the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail. Come to think of it, every road that's part of the loop should have it's own chapter. ----DanTD (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree that being part of a state scenic byway makes a road notable. The byway itself might be notable enough for an article, but its components aren't unless they have another claim to fame. – T M F 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I misread that comment. The use of "chapter" instead of "section" is probably what threw me off. – T M F 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the subject of numbered roads versus named roads, see what I wrote about the San Bernardino Mountain Crest Highway and the Rim of the World Drive at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings#Outside view by Uncle G. Ironically, we don't have the road by either its official name or its unofficial nickname by which it is commonly known. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment - Thanks to the links tha Gamweb showed us, I've just started doing some work on an article for the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, and I also discovered one road that was part of it, but was redirected to the List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida -- County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida). Do you see what happens when you redirect instead of delete, people? You get history. And that history can be useful ----DanTD (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan, things can be un-deleted. Just as an example, the banner template, {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} was deleted thee years ago this month, undeleted earlier this month and back in service again. You can always request undeletion through WP:DRV if needed. Imzadi 1979 → 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've heard of people un-deleting articles, but I never knew how they do it. The only way I can think of doing it is searching on Google and going to cached versions of the articles, and saving them as a persnal file, which isn't 100% reliable. Requesting an undeletetion is something I'm not so sure I can get away with. ----DanTD (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Its part of the Deletion Review process, and is an administrative function. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, DanTD is right in that if one merges and redirects, rather than deletes, fishing things out of the history doesn't require funnelling through administrators, and can be done by ordinary editors at their leisure. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there an infobox exclusively for named scenic routes, or should I just use the existing infoboxes? ----DanTD (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the instructions on {{infobox road}}. It covers exactly how to deal with named/unnumbered highways. Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5 vs. Flash

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

This has been around for a week or so but doesn't seem to be evolving into anything other than a personal essay. The material on it is more than adequately covered on other pages including those on HTML 5 and Flash. Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the weird example images and formatting the article has, it's pretty much nothing but an opinion piece. (BTW, DustFormsWords, I changed your wikilink from WP:FORK to WP:CFORK because I'm pretty sure that's what you were referring to.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. I'd never even been to WP:FORK before. Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay page, mostly original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comparison of HTML5 and Flash is a completely legitimate topic. The HTML5 article does not offer a comparison with Flash, and the Adobe Flash article doesn't have more to say on the topic than this: "HTML 5 is gaining ground as a competitor to Flash: the canvas element assists animation, and text can be more easily synchronized with audio and video element timeupdate events." Therefore I don't think it is fair to call this a content fork – and merging the content of this article into a specific choice between HTML5 and Adobe Flash would give this unduly localized prominence. As to the complaint that this is OR, most of the judgements expressed are properly sourced, and many of the remaining ones easily sourceable. I see no major problems that cannot be addressed by the usual Wikiprocess. --Lambiam 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Properly sourced"? The sources are blogs and comment sections. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that not all sources cited are equally reliable, but that is (as I see it) not the main point; the main issue to be considered here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable and could be developed into a reliably sourced article. Further, I do not think that being a blog makes a source unreliable per se; what counts is the distinction between self-published sources and sources that are published under some form of editorial control that may be assumed to uphold certain standards. Many leading technology weblogs have a professional editorial staff, and are of comparable quality as technology magazines in print. As it is, the topic of the article does not interest me, but if anyone else is inspired, here is a list of sources that (again, in my opinion) are reliable and can be used for the article:

CNET News:

Stephen Shankland (February 3, 2010). "HTML vs. Flash: Can a turf war be avoided?". CNET News.

CNN:

Doug Gross (November 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs Flash? Pick a side with 'Pong'". CNN Tech.

Engadget (yes, a technology blog, but generally considered reliable, with a strong editorial staff and knowledgeable authors with sound contributions; this particular article was actually cited in a scholarly article in Law Library Journal 102, no.3):

Donald Melanson (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash comparison finds a few surprises, settles few debates". Engadget.

Focus.com:

"HTML5 vs Flash". Focus.com. October 12, 2010.

Gizmodo (nominally a blog, but generally reliable and more like an e-zine; it has an editorial team, and John Herrman is a regular and knowledgeable contributor):

John Herrman (March 10, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The Video Benchmark Deathmatch". Gizmodo.

InformationWeek:

Thomas Claburn (May 6, 2010). "Web 2.0: Scribd Drops Flash For HTML5". InformationWeek.

InfoWorld:

Paul Krill (June 16, 2009). "HTML5: Could it kill Flash and Silverlight?". InfoWorld.
Peter Wayner (June 2, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: The case for Flash". InfoWorld.

Knight Digital Media Center, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism:

Jeremy Rue (October 20, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: What should journalists learn next?". KDMC, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Mashable:

Christina Warren (September 17, 2010). "Flash vs. HTML5: Adobe Weighs In". Mashable.

The New York Times (the original source may be a technology blog, but one with an editorial team; by republishing this article it was sanctioned as reliable by the NYT):

Sarah Perez (March 10, 2010). "Does HTML5 Really Beat Flash? The Surprising Results of New Tests". The New York Times.

TechCrunch:

Jason Kincaid (July 29, 2010). "YouTube Weighs In On Flash vs HTML5 Video". TechCrunch.

VentureBeat (same story: technology blog with an editorial team):

Dominique Jodoin (December 17, 2010). "HTML5 vs. Flash: How will the battle play out in 2011?". VentureBeat.

--Lambiam 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources brought by Lambiam. Topic seems indeed to meet GNG. The article needs at least a complete rewrite, but that's an editorial process that per deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. Perhaps also a move to "Comparison between HTML5 and Flash" could help focus the issue, but again, not an AfD matter. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete but it is a legit topic but right now it :DustFormsWords has it the nail on the head its Original research, personal essay, and invalid content fork of the existing articles on HTML5 and Flash. Some one can (and probably should) recreate it in way that abides by our policies. I think the article Office suite would be a good model on how to do the recreation The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources provided by Lambiam are excellent and certainly demonstrate notability. This is a great opportunity to provide encyclopedic coverage of a timely developing topic. I refactored the existing content and substantially cleaned up the article. --Pnm (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Leveraged Solutions

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

Business jargon. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Feezo (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I cannot find significant discussion establishing the notability of this term. Also, the article is currently only a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. A rambling essay about making money fast on the Internet. Meaningless title. IP Levergate Solution is the a value-added service where a company uses Intellectual property (IP) to create a Solution that would not have been possible without this specific IP. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to create a page around the concept of leveraging a better idea or "Intellectual Property" to do business in a better way (not necessarily a more profitable way). I know it needs more information. I am hoping to get some help. The content will get better. Protecting and using Intellectual property in all facets of life is a concern in many areas such as medication, software development, process improvement, etc. Eagle team (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable jargon. Nakon 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily as dictionary definition of jargon. (Much of the article is already covered at Intellectual property.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed/edited some parts of the article which were either unclear or restatements of information available elsewhere (such as the list of different types of IP) which I feel did not help the article. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Barkatullah

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

Delete. Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in a print encyclopedia, as referenced in the article, so is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 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) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entries in real encyclopaedias (just added another) and set on national curriculum establish notability.--Misarxist 11:40, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rappelz

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_12#Rappelz_.28closed.29. I am neutral. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 20 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) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The previous AFD showed multiple reliable sources covering the subject, indicating notability. They are copied below for convenience. - hahnch e n 23:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Spieletipps
online article: Kilian Meier, 2010: Rappelz: Gratis-Rollenspiel mit starken Pets und Fähigkeiten, spieletipps.de [7]

printed article: is in Ausgabe 09/2008 [8]

company details: [9]

gamers.at
online article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at, [10]

print article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at, 25, page 80 ff. [11]

company details: [12]

pcaction.de
printed article: Alexander Wenzel, 2008: Rappelz: Revolution, PC Action 09/2008 [13]

onlinewelten.com
online article: Andre Bergmann, 2006: Rappelz Gratiswoche bei OnlineWelten Tag II, Onlinewelten [14]

company details: [15]

Computer Bild Spiele
online article: Test: Rappelz, 30.06.2009 [16]

online article: Rappelz: Ein abgespecktes World of Warcraft, 06.03.2009 [17]

online article: Rappelz: Tipps zum kostenlosen Online-Rollenspiel, 06.03.2009 [18]

those articles were also printed: Test: 12 kostenlose Onlinespiele, COMPUTER BILD Ausgabe 12/2009, pp. 86 [19]

Company: [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.173.224 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A add to the articles listed above, but now more scientific and not so much from the few point of the players, is found in the Google scholar search provided in the start. In the article Gyuhwan Oh and TaiYoung Ryu, Game Design on Item-selling Based Payment Model in Korean Online Games, DiGRA 2007, Rappelz is used on page 651, as an example for online games that provide their services free of charge. However the author made a typing error and the connection is only made if you follow up the references to number 17: "Rappelz". Available at http://www.rappelz.com/. The article over all covers quite well the business model used in Rappelz. - 194.160.173.224 (talk · contribs)

Keep - I'm not sure about some of these sources, but Computer Bild at least is strong. Marasmusine (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability isn'tclearly established but there seems to be some consensus that a new more focused article might be more acceptable then the current one Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masreliez’s theorem

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

WP:COI article by Masreliez promoting his estimation of Kalman filtering. Not generally a notable algorithm and not encyclopedic. jps (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable result by unnotable person. Given details on user page and editing history across multiple other wikipedias, probably self-written. Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one know whether it's a notable result or not, without knowing its content? The article fails to say what Masreliez’s theorem says. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did a search on Mathscinet under "anywhere" with the keyword "Masreliez". There were nine results, including four papers by the author. The paper containing the theorem has not been reviewed on Mathscinet, but is cited in 3 subsequent notes. In Zentralblatt, I found 15 results for the name with a similar search. The author's summary of the 1975 paper is reproduced in a scanned version of Zentralblatt. [21] There are four citations which reproduce the three citations in Mathscinet, plus a second citation by the author Cipra (with Rubio) from a paper which was not reviewed on Mathscinet. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC) cses where either 1)[reply]
    - So what does the theorem actually say? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you not click on the link to the author's summary at Zentralblatt? "Two approaches to the non-Gaussian filtering problem are presented. The proposed filters retain the computationally attractive recursve structure of the Kalman filter and they approximate well the minimal variance filter in cases where 1) the state noise is Gaussian or its variance small in comparison to the observation noise variance or 2) the observation noise is Gaussian and the system is one step observable. In both cases the state estimate is formed as a linear prediction corrected by a nonlinear function of past and present observations. Some simulation results are presented." (4 pages, IEEE automatic control, 1975) Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am afraid this is just foul tactics in jps’ initiated battue at Masreliez associated edits. Jps takes fright at any edit that might give C. Johan Masreliez credit as a notable person also doing well received mainstream science. Please also note personal attacks here. ¨( Kurtan (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remarkable unsupported allegations and conclusions. I am NOT Masreliez or his puppet. I am living in Stockholm, Masreliez in Seattle, USA!

Why should I not list it on the Swedish, Japanese and Spannish wikis, as I use to edit there since years, if I find it a notable idea?? Is it really neccessary to list all 144 citations to the follow up article by Masreliez & Doug Martin (1977)? /Kurtan (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a minor mathematical theorem, that (like much such work) builds upon earlier work & has been built upon by later work. No indication that this theorem has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", just occasional discussion in derivative primary literature, and the odd passing mention in the secondary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but at stake here is its role in robust statistics. I use to support the number of followers with 50 third party relevant references from Academic Search, which I reckon a reliable source, at least to give a sense of not being minor... /Kurtan (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. May be too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- 190 citings as you mention below should be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eponym status should also add to notability as should the impact on follow up papers on robust estimation and its applicability over the notable Kalman filter range. /Kurtan (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what the allegation of COI is based on, but in any case COI is not by itself a ground for deletion. The citations produced by Google scholar and Google books show sufficient notability. The treatment leaves ample room for improvement, but that's what Wikipedia is for; it's not so bad that it cannot be improved and needs to be deleted. --Lambiam 23:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously, did the people !voting delete even attempt to search for the subject. Apparently some people find this notable enough to mention in an abstract for published lecture notes. [22] Which is just one of the more than 200 hits on google scholar.TimothyRias (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, the person who mentioned it in 1979, was a coauthor of another short note. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. Just needs a lot of work. Melcombe (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A problem is that no general consensus has emerged as to how much a theorem has to be cited to become notable. The GS cites for Masreliez's paper appear to be 190, which is not at all high compared to some of the figures that appear on these pages. It may not be useful to have an article on every paper with 190 cites or more. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not notable. There needs to be evidence of articles about rather than just mentioning this theorem. There are 11 Google Scholar hits for this linked above, as opposed to at least a thousand for "Rolle's Theorem", "Rouche's Theorem", "Lagrange's Theorem". At the same time, I'm not convinced by the argument about it building on other work. After all, Fermat's Little Theorem is a special case of Euler's Theorem is a special case of Lagrange's Theorem, and yet we quite rightly have articles on all three. Notability is the criterion here. Zarboublian (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability yes, but it is established not so much by the name of theorem, but rather by the name of its paper, which on Google Scholar gives 161 hits (and the 190 citations). This means that most scientists are not aware of a title of the theorem (1975), but well on its scientific implication. I found this notable enough for my edits on the Japanese version and would vote for “Keep” here as well. (+4 st ~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariguld (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly userfy if someone is willing to work on it. We can't allow an article on a theorem which doesn't state the theorem. It isn't even clear from the current article that the object is really a theorem or an algorithm. I have enough background to understand what the algorithm might be doing but the article clearly needs a very large amount of work. Even after a lot of work we could still argue about Wikipedia notability, but I hope that we could find a home on some wiki for a clear statement of this algorithm if (and only if) it allows someone with a basic knowledge of Kalman filtering and robust statistics to understand it. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1868 North Carolina railroad bonds scandal

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

I see this as WP:NOTNEWS. given that it happened so long ago it will be harder to find sources. but the current articles sources a blog which may be unacceptable under WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (a) Notability is established through sources such as this article in the Florida Historical Quarterly or the entirety of Chapter XIX of Western North Carolina: A History from 1730 to 1913. (b) WP:NOTNEWS is overcome through the assertion in the article (backed by the sources) that the event had long-lasting historical significance, due to its effect in "stagnating the state's railroad development". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because WP:NOTNEWS applies to breaking stories and current events, not historical events that happened a century and a half ago. Historians have had ample opportunities to analyze past events in secondary sources, and such events are entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, if properly referenced, and written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is being challenged on inapplicable grounds, in my opinion. Not the best page on WP, but the event is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACityDiscount

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

Could not find significant coverage for this retailer. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what Fetchcomms said the article is super promotional. Peter.C • talk 00:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 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) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement -- Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advert, would qualify for speedy delete. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DiFazio

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

fails WP notability criteria for a tennis player Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 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) 00:06, 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) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 3 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 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Money 2: As The Beast Returns (Mixtape)

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

Mixtapes are usually not notable, Google shows only the WP article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant discussion of this mixtape. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Giugiaro

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

Renomination, to clear up several malformed and incomplete nominations by other ed. I have no firm opinion, but I see some major problems. The earlier nom. said "not an artist", which presumably means "not sufficiently notable as an artist." What this exceptionally spammy article really needs is a check for copyvio, and then a check for usable sources. (The weird use of the present tense is a customary side effect of a Google translation from the French. At the frWP, [23] the article was speedy deleted as non-verifiable, restored after request through OTRS, and deleted again through their AfD process.) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP with no independent reliable source. (feel free to remove this !vote if this changes). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it were all refed, it doesn't add up to notability. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hijab tax

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

Small article, which most likely is impossible to develop further (unless some bigger controversy erupts out of it or it will be passed as an actual law, not as a suggestion from Wilders among other suggestions). Not really needed as a separate article since it can be fit right in to Geert Wilders article (like I said, small content), which I can do by myself if this AFD will be passed. Userpd (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy anything from this article to another, the project's copyright licences will require that this article be kept. Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be paraphrased then to avoid copyrighting issues. Userpd (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple problems. Unsourced. No evidence of notability. Appears to contain original research. Suffers from biased point of view problems that may extend to the choice of name for the article. And it is, in essence, speculative. Uncle G is correct that you cannot merge and then delete (see WP:MAD for why - although you can Merge and Redirect), and in any case there is no reliable sourced information here capable of being merged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The as yet unanswered question is what Userpd thinks should happen when a reader who has heard about a "hijab tax" comes along and tries to look up hijab tax in Wikipedia. Should the reader be invited to start an article? Or should the reader be directed to an article that covers this in the context of its proponent? The latter seems the obvious answer. No deletion is required to enact it, however. Indeed, the article could have been just merged and redirected as an ordinary editorial action without coming to AFD at all — and in fewer edits than an AFD nomination, to boot. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Massoudy

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

Article that violates WP:BLP and is extremely poorly sourced for five or so years. Couldn't find much on google except for mirror sites; a lot of content was also swiped from the subject's personal webpage and could be copyvio. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.While information in English is a bit scarce (but here's a biographical sketch), info in French is fairly easy to find (e.g. [24], [25]). In fact, useful info tends to be drowned by casual mentions of his name with relation to his work either artistic (i.e. in expositions, in sales, on book covers...) or in publication (his books are frequently discussed, critiqued, recommended), which to me further confirms notability. Circéus (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A French gbook search makes it pretty clear he is notable:"Introduction aux littératures francophones: - Page 206, Christiane Ndiaye - 2004 - 276 pages - Preview, "L'un des principaux artisans de cette vague qui dure depuis de nombreuses années est Hassan Massoudy, originaire d'Irak,...."; Paris le peuple: XVIIIe-XXe siècle - Page 107, Jean-Louis Robert, Danielle Tartakowsky - 1999 - 231 pages - Preview, "En 1978, Hassan Massoudy, le calligraphe persan aujourd'hui de renommée internationale, crée l'affiche pour un cachet de 300 F..." Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 14 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 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above two comments are all well and good, but can we get this BLP sourced before we press the keep button? Courcelles 01:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP-PROD - This meets all the criteria for a BLP PROD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it wasn't created after March 18, 2010. Which is why I brought it here. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 02:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish^Tk 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Rewritten, but potential for increase. Biography sourced. Bibliography evidentiates notability.Racconish ^Tk 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Baris

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

Unsourced BLP without much evidence of notability. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. A substantial portion of the article is about Amnesty International rather than the specific individual concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AfD proposal withdrawn. Article converted to redirect to Postmodern religion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Wicca

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

Almost identical text to that found at Postmodern Neopaganism which is arguably a better home for this material Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be merged directly without coming here, but the text does not appear identical--was this an attempt at a split? DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author responsible for the whole text of this article has just reduced it to a nine-word stub - presumably to render it non-identical to the article at Postmodern Neopaganism. I guess the article we are discussing could now be speedied as having little or no content, but I will not paste a speedy template myself. The topic of the viability of this article has been discussed at great length on the talk page and also on the Wicca talk page. All the contributing editors apart from the one responsible for starting this page were of the opinion that the topic was WP:OR and non-notable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor contributing to this article is making heroic efforts to flesh it out so my comment on the "stubby" nature of this article no longer applies. However I do believe this material is largely WP:OR and is essentially an essay which is one thing Wikipedia is not. I have proposed that this page (which largely discusses Neopaganism, not Wicca), should be turned into a redirect to Postmodern Neopaganism. I have made this suggestion to the principal editor, who continues to beaver away regardless. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor concerned is now gutting her own article at Postmodern Neopaganism (see edit summaries at page's history. I cannot think of a viable reason to do this, unless it somehow relates to the discussion here at AfD. This getting out of hand and I am taking a back seat from editing these articles or this AfD further for a while. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. POSTMODERN WICCA has been identified as GOOD ARTICLE BY BOTS
I have created an entirely new category for POSTMODERNISM (VITAL TOPIC) and article POSTMODERN RELIGIONN - identified as a Good Article by Bots
2. The flow for my content is
POSTMODERNISM
POSTMODERN RELIGION
POSTMODERN NEOPAGANISM - Sub-articles to include POSTMODERN WICCA, POSTMODERN DRUIDISM, Semitic Neopaganism etc etc
POSTMODERN CHRISTIANITY
POSTMODERN BUDDHISM
POSTMODERN HINDUISM
ETC ETC
3. I am attempting to create a series of connected articles, however, Repeated suggests are that the articles should be merged into WICCA - or deleted, but my articles connect to POSTMODERN THEORY so they should not be merged or redirected. I keep repeating that this content connects to POSTMODERNISM, however, the WICCA community is very upset and continues to delete, revert etc etc etc etc
4. Could perhaps someone from Postmodernism shed some light??
5. I have provided over 50 references and worked very hard researching to contribute good content to Wiki on a topic that has not been covered - postmodern religion. All religions can be interpreted from a postmodern perspective so I don't really see why it is such a problem if I write about this??
6. I am a little confused about the level of resistance here considering the content is new and the sources are credible. Some articles are short but I am working hard and if I could I have a little bit of space to develop the new content. I am better at developing new content and research or coming up with angles on topics that may not have been covered on wiki, yet users are searching for or interested in - my editing skills are sadly lacking, so this is an area that I would love to focus on in Wikipedia.
7. The average user may tend to run a search for postmodern wicca etc. rather than postmodern neogpaganism - it is a more refined and specific search and the term wicca gets more hits than neopaganism so level of user interest is evident. As the majority of Neopagans are Wiccan/Witch (Google searches are 400,000 per month for Wicca) it makes sense to have a separate page. The article has only been around for a week and there are lots of references, it seems that it would be better to keep and add to the content, rather than delete the content.
8. BE OBJECTIVE - The Postmodernism - Postmodern religion - Postmodern Christianity - Postmodern Buddhism - Postmodern Neopaganism - Postmodern Wicca - Postmodern Hinduism - Links to Religion and Philosophy as major portals - also we can link to Christianity, Buddhism, Neopaganism, Hinduism etc don't waste a good opportunity.
--Kary247 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for caps. I have poor vision, working hard and forget to change to lower case, glasses etc. I have fixed up and shortened - I will get my glasses next time--Kary247 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, we don't title articles based on keywords or Google indexing. We base them on the best title for the subject, what it is called in the literature. We don't make a bunch of small articles if the material would be better organized into a more general article. We don't decide whether an article should be kept based on possible hits, only on notability and verifiability. Also, SHOUTING in BOLD doesn't help your arguments but rather only makes them look weak. Please don't shout, it's hard to read and annoys other editors. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (a) It's an invalid content fork of Postmodern Neopaganism and (b) Having looked at the sources I'm unconvinced that "postmodern wicca" has a meaning distinct from "wicca that is postmodern". Random accretions of adjectives and nouns are not inherently encyclopaedic, no matter how many Google hits you get for their usage. (Arguably postmodern wicca is the only form of wicca that ever existed, but that's really neither here nor there.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the subject is at all notable, the Postmodern Neopaganism article is the correct place for it, with sections on any subcultures such as Wicca and Druidism. There will not be enough material specific to those topics to avoid the unnecessary repetition of material such as is already going on. These articles look virtually identical with minor changes in wording. I'm not convinced that this is anything more than an essay or original research topic. No need to proliferate articles until that is resolved at Postmodern Neopaganism and strong evidence is produce that there is enough material about pagan subcultures to justify additional articles. I am particularly concerned that all these articles start out with "Postmodern x can be defined", as an encyclopedia article should be about something that is defined. I'd like to see sources for the definitions, otherwise this looks like a personal synthesis. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pearse

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

Non-notable cartoonist. His works may be notable but he isn't. Nothing in google news archives, nothing in google books (except for 3 Wikipedia-derived spam entries). Plenty of web results, mostly from Wikipedia, but I can't find anything about him. Pontificalibus (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:20, 14 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 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only thing coming close to significant discussion in a reliable source that I could find was this. Not enough to pass WP:N, so delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Kindler

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

Person who's only claim to notability is working for a notable entity WuhWuzDat 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. From the Wall Street Journal legal blog: "Former Cravath M&A lawyer-cum-J.P. Morgan investment banker Robert Kindler made headlines this morning with news that he’s defected to Morgan Stanley, where he’ll become vice chairman of investment banking. The Financial Times calls it a 'poaching coup.'" [26] If the WSJ says says somebody's professional activities make headlines, they're pretty surely notable enough for Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:23, 14 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 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Global Head of Mergers and Acquisitions and Vice Chairman of Morgan Stanley" would sem sufficiently notable. This is not exactly just "working for a notable entity". That would be a correct description for an ordinary member of the staff, not one of the senior executives. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angola at the Big Four pageants

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

The concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI. This is essentially the same content, only spread across many different country articles, which are also included in the nomination. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also included. O Fenian (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SYNTH and WP:CFORK, already exist as Miss Brazil, Miss Angola, Czech Miss, Miss World Czech Republic, Miss Georgia (country), Miss Venezuela, Miss Mongolia, Miss Pakistan World, Miss Vietnam, Miss Universe Vietnam, Puteri Indonesia, Miss Indonesia, and several more which are actual articles about national pageants and their national titleholders, and these additional articles only aim to promote a neologism. There don't seem to be reliable sources that identify them as "Grand Slam" or "Big Four". Wikipedia isn't for terms made up by pageant fanatics who use Wikipedia to advance a position or promote usage of a term. WP:NEO is applicable. --John KB (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This appears to be a case of deleting articles because of objections to the title. I suppose that one could rename it "Angola at the Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International and Miss Earth pageants", or one could split each of these into four separate articles ("Angola at the Miss Universe pageant", "Angola at the Miss World pageant", etc.). In that the information doesn't exist elsewhere, deletion is the most extreme fix to the so-called problem here. Mandsford 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just an objection to the name, it is an objection to the entire concept of there being a "grand slam" or "big four" series of pageants and presenting the results of those tournaments together in a single article regardless of what name it is. The information does exist elsewhere already, just not combined in articles that are original research. O Fenian (talk) 09:25, 15 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 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per O Fenian. Beauty contest#Around the globe claims that Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International, and Miss Earth are considered the "big four pageants", but no source is provided to indicate who, exactly, considers them the big four pageants. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have examined the articles, the past AfDs, and conducted my own Google searches, and I am unable to find evidence that the terms "Grand Slam" or "Big Four" have a notable meaning in the context of beauty pageants. (Most usages seem to stem from a crusade by the creator of these articles to popularise them, or through mirroring from Wikipedia content.) I am likewise unable to find evidence of the concept of thes four pageants as a group being notable, under any name. Therefore the articles do not cover a notable topic and should all be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep all - All articles should be kept as they are, but remove any mention of "Big Four" which is the main bone of contention. I don't think anyone is arguing with the validity of the contents of the articles themselves. To delete them because the concept of "Big Four" is wrong would be too drastic. Therefore, I would rename them all "COUNTRYNAME at worldwide beauty pageants" and leave it like that.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Actually, following on from my comment above, probably "COUNTRYNAME at beauty pageants" would be enough, as there's no reason why the individual countries' participation, success or otherwise at a continental level (eg Miss Africa, Miss Europe etc) could not also be included on these pages.--Tris2000 (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Plummer (politician)

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

Article about an unelected politician which does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. TM 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he does not meet our notability guideline for politicians, and his other accomplishments are non-notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - losing major party candidates for statewide offices may be kept, when they have some bare claim to outside notability. The subject raised over a Million $USD, came fairly close to winning, and is not a gadly. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman with Harry Wilson (businessman) and Sharron Angle. For disclosure, I am a Democrat. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I get your point, Bearian, but our notability guideline for politicians has no exception for losing candidates who raise lots of money, even if they get 49.9% of the vote. By the way, I'm a Democrat too, but try really hard for evenhandedness when dealing with these matters. The issue, then, is whether Plummer meets the threshold of notability under his other accomplishments. It seems very unlikely to me given the descriptions of his successful but non-notable career in the article. Sharron Angle is in no way comparable, since she was a long-time state legislator in Nevada who was clearly a notable politician years before she ran for the U.S. Senate. Harry Wilson, as a highly placed Wall Street executive and member of Obama's auto industry task force, has a good claim to notability independent of his losing campaign. That's my opinion, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs)
Weak delete or merge to Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010 or Bill Brady (Illinois politician). I am the one that tagged this article for notability. This article is about the running mate for the losing Republican gubernatorial candidate in Illinois; they had business ties to each other and the race was always about Brady, not about Plummer. Notability is not temporary and, with that in mind, I don't see Plummer getting beyond WP:BLP1E in the long term unless he gets elected or appointed to high office. --Closeapple (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem Attack Squad

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

An article support almost wholely on primary evidence to sustain it as article with no secondary sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:01, 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 00:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Marginal concept from a fictional universe; entirely unsourced and no evidence of independent notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the character page for the characters in Transformers comics, which is where these guys come from. Mathewignash (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz 240D

Mercedes-Benz_240D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

It's poorly written, unreferenced (since 2007), unneeded and confusing as there are main articles about both Mercedes-Benz W115 and Mercedes-Benz W123 series which are of good standard and they're including info about this model. This model doesn't need separate article also because it has no extraordinary features which couldn't be found in other W115 and W123 series cars.

SHAMAN

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:01, 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 00:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation page, explaining that the name can refer to a diesel powered version of either the W115 or W123 series, and linking to those two articles. M0ffx (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea but the trouble is that someone keeps reverting this article SHAMAN 12:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Richter

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

This article was made by an overambitious assistant. Williamrichter (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 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 00:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Just who is the editor Williamrichter? This account created the article early in 2009 and has edited it many times since. Now, we have a deletion nomination from the same account saying the article was created by an "overambitious assistant". Are two people using this account, namely the subject himself and the assistant? How do we know who is editing here? Perhaps the subject is notable, perhaps now. But we need to understand what's going on here before deciding whether to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No we don't. The only pertinent question is whether reliable and independent sources exist. Waffling over the identity of the person operating the account is, in essence, avoiding that question for no good reason. It's possible to look for the existence of such sources without even caring who the accountholder is. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to suggest that is not entirely correct. For marginal BLPs there appears to be (from what I've seen) a community leaning to deletion when privacy may be an issue. (issues about two people using an account should be dealt with elsewhere if needed.) (haven't had a good look at article so no comment on deletion.) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who the nominator is isn't relevant, as you can't opt out of your own article anyway. Regardless, this article shows no evidence of meeting our notability guidelines and should therefore be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marjan Television Network

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

Fails WP:ORG. A Google search shows no independent source for this company. Another name is Manoto TV. Farhikht (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 15:50, 18 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 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. extransit (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Hightower

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

not notable. a local basketball coach and superintendent. also, his article is highly POV with few sources. also, article is an orphan with no articles linking to it. KingJohn23 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why is he not notable? When discussing a person's notability, just saying "delete" or "keep" with no further explanation is basically a thoughtless response and doesn't show that the user put forth any consideration at all to his/her explanation. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to point out that the above user is most likely a sockpuppet and the account has only responded in a limited number of AfDs. His/her explanations don't clarify anything either. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found plenty of Ghits, and the fact that he's refereed in 12 Final Fours puts him in the top tier of college officials. There has been no precedence on WP:CBBALL in terms of referee notability as far as I'm aware of, but this is as good of an example as I can imagine as a definite keep. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 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 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination ("a local basketball coach and superintendent") seems to have missed the point that his notability has been as a game official (referee) in multiple (12) NCAA Final Fours and that he was honored by the NCAA as official of the year. Mandsford 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While it is criminal that this guy was ever selected as "official of the year" by anyone (lol), he certainly is a well-known college basketball referee and is notable. Rikster2 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Workshop Foundation

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization does not seem to have attracted any significant coverage in reliable sources since the previous AfD discussion resulted in the article's deletion. ^Bongo_matic 03:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-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 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I see a few mentions in google news and a single mention in google books. Probably too little independent coverage to write about this neutrally. Currently the article is based entirely on the primary source. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 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

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)2010 December 20[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)2010 December 20[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 delete. Courcelles 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Egan

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 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)[reply]

Comment I've asked Alan Liefting to elaborate a bit about the subject of his AfD nominations, but here we have just the briefest possible nomination "non-notable person". The subject is a top-level fly fisherman. I don't know if we have a notability guideline for this sport. There are lots of Google News mentions of this person but unfortunately nearly every one is behind pay walls. This is worth a more thorough discussion than implied by the brevity of the nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sport is irrelevant. The usual criterion for all biographies applies: Do the independent and reliable sources exist, documenting this person's life and works in depth, from which a neutral and verifiable biographical article, documenting this person's life and works, can be created? Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability. EEng (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abduction of Rahma el-Dennaoui

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

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. children go missing all the time. all the cited sources are around the same date which just reinforces this article is just a summary of news coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A little bit of WP:BEFORE would have shown that this is more than just an old news story. [27] and [28]. Given that the case is still being followed by the press five years later, it crossed the line from WP:NEWS to WP:EVENT awhile back. Mandsford 15:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand this fact: the article is about one of the most debated crime case of Australia so keep. User:Lucifero4
Keep -- criminal justice cases that go on for years beyond the crime are generally kept. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg Steele}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Steele}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Joyella}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighth Day Books}}