Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 18

< 17 October	19 October >

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Deluce[edit]

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

Kayferdinand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable Canadian news anchor. Article has one source to her employers, and no good sources could be found. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to CablePulse 24 or CP24 Breakfast. Plausible search term. Location (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ndagi Abdullahi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support claims. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR as there is a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Log indicates history of article being deleted in 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ndagi+Abdullahi . Location (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's main source seem to be the subject's Facebook page. I am unable to find independent relaible sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do no Delete. Three sources http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/freekick/2008/jun/10/freekick-10-06-2008-001.htm, ^ http://www.sentinelnigeria.org/issue3/fiction/ndagi-abdullahi.htm, ^ http://sueddie.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/thoughts-on-ndagi-abdullahis-zhenti/ cited in the references to the article are genuine and verifiable ones in Nigeria. The three: Sun Newspaper, Sentinel Nigeria literary Magazine and Su'eddie's Literary critique blog cited in the references are renowned and well recognised sources in Nigeria. Furthermore, the caboose notification of an advert for the launching of a book by the author was dated the 30th of July, 2007, a day before the actual launching cited in the article. And the caboose notice is verifiable also. Garbammmoha (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2010 (GMT) — Garbammoha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm afraid those sources don't qualify as "independent reliable sources". The first two links are written by the subject; the third is by what appears to be a non-notable blogger. Location (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of the launch of a book is no indication of its notability or success. Peridon (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first part of this article was deleted in 2008 for expired prod, no notability and being promotional. I see the latter two still the same. (The new expansion is no better.) The references are just about useless. The Sentinel ref appears to be to a (very) short story and not to coverage of it. I can see little better there. Blogs are notoriously unreliable. The Sun ref is to a piece BY Abdullahi not about him. Facebook is self-published or otherwise suspect for partiality. All in all, I see this article as a piece of promotion. I am willing to change my mind (as always) but would remind the creator of the article of WP:BURDEN. Peridon (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I reviewed the article, the arguments and the previous AFD discussions. There has been no significant improvement to the article since the February 2009 AFD. There is simply nothing here to support notability. Suggestions to merge or redirect offer no substantive reason to do so as the prior existence as a state road is unproven. JodyB_talk 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 337 (Florida)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable county highway in Florida. References show that the highway exists, but don't explain how/why highway is important. –Fredddie ™ 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. See WP:BEFORE - these were trivially easy to find on Google (in addition to the Allmusic coverage already linked in the article - [1], [2]): Pitchfork Media, Drowned in Sound, New York Press, Morning Call, Denver Post, Washington Post, Village Voice.--Michig (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ate my balls[edit]

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

Not notable. And probably WP:CB too :p Chzz ► 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Chzz. ♫Mr. R00t ^Talk♫ 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Website jokes from 15 years ago are not notable. I do appreciate the chance to read WP:CB though. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Internet meme. Shii (tock) 02:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an article it fails inclusion criteria at WP:GNG. As content within Internet meme, it might survive. It is entirely possible it could be challenged there as well by the watchers of that article. My76 Strat 03:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Internet phenomena. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't even bother with the redirect. This isn't on the level of Hamster Dance, I don't think it even qualifies as a meme. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Barry wrote it up in his book about the Internet Shii (tock) 13:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Unfortunately, that's not even a weak keep, it's a very strong keep. Ate My Balls was pretty much the original internet meme and is notable enough for its own article. The article shouldn't be deleted, it needs to be rescued. It is a widespread tasteless phenomenon with hundreds of pages still in existence. Deleting this page would be tantamount to deleting YTMND or eBaum's World. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Notable cultural phenomenon and Internet meme. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good rescue (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Kids[edit]

Delete: Poorly Written and provides no sources. Merge or Delete. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you want? Merger or deletion? Only for the latter should you come to Articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion, or AFD, in any way. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 10:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google news archive search provided many reliable sources; passes WP:WEB. The real problem is that the article needs to be developed to incorporate the sources that are out there. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yahoo - it doesn't require a separate page of its own, considering that the entry it has is already small enough to be stubbed. Put it in with Yahoo!'s page and be done with. Barking Fish 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yahoo!. No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the argument for merging instead of keeping. Is it just because the article is so small right now? At one time this was a popular service and there are a lot of reliable, nontrivial sources out there that just haven't been incorporated into the article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that was the reason. However, those concerns have now been rectified. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rewrite. Notability is clearly established. Cunard (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good rescue. Racepacket (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of SamTrans bus lines[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT#INFO, just a list of non-notable bus routes. Delete Secret ^account 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like List of bus routes in London and many others like it, it's a perfectly valid list of bus lines in a major metropolitan area. The list is not indiscriminate and specific to one system. My only suggestion would be to rename List of SamTrans bus routes. --Oakshade (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid list and there are similar lists for many other bus routes. The only alternative would be to put it all into SamTrans, and I think that article would be overwhelmed by a listing of all the bus routes; better to have it in a separate article with a referral, as is done now. I agree with Oakshade's suggested rename. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per out usual outcomes here. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE. Merging this into the article on the system would overwhelm that page. Sebwite (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Swagga Nicholas[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deletion contested by WP:SPA. Top Jim (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently noteworthy to merit a standalone article. Looks like a spam autobiography. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources fall short of what is required by both WP:MUS and WP:GNG as they're not WP:RS.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be a reliable source that deals with the subject independently and nontrivially - it just came out yesterday. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:RS, unfortunately: it's just another copy of the Marketwire press release already cited in the article. Looking at the article now, I see that that press release is actually quoted three times: once from MSNBC, once from Yahoo Finance, and once from PR Wire. All three will carry unedited press releases, so their reliability as news sources doesn't actually make the press release any more reliable. I'll merge those cites now, as they're identical apart from their URLs. Top Jim (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability here. I see a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources and I found none. I see spam. delete and block sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional or vanity (or both...). No reliable referencing, and a quick g-search reveals masses of copies of a press release, plus the usual places like twitter and blogspot. This indicates hard-working PR but not actual notability. Peridon (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Jones[edit]

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

Non notable pageant contestant. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local news sources and trivial mentions doesn't indicate notability. Secret ^account 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we're talking what ... the moral equivalent of the Miss Split Cheeks County Fair? Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buyspares[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ORG, also fairly spammy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suprised someone disputed this. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I think it fails WP:COMPANY. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Home and Away characters. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Holden (Home and Away)[edit]

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

Article fundamentally fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of third-party sources that cover the subject in direct detail. Those sources are required to WP:verify notability. The only sources here are tangentially related, more suitable for the article about Jon Sivewright. The only sourced parts of this article are redundant to that one (which has at least WP:POTENTIAL to meet Wikipedia guidelines, unlike this one). Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Home and Away characters Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Home and Away characters sounds good to me. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message from nominator: if it helps to produce a consensus I would accept a merge as an alternative to deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network: Hall of Fame Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable, this article has no citations. JJ98 (Talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ClapBoy380's last article about Cartoon Network was speedily deleted as a hoax, and I suspect this is the same thing as it has been cut down majorly as the editor suspects we're on to him. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The pared-down version showing only three titles in the DVD series (beginning with Johnny Bravo) appears to be valid. Versions deeper in history are demonstrably hoax content. No comment on whether the branded series of DVDs is notable. Potential sources look thin, but I'm way out of my usual element sourcing this sort of topic. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, based on my opinion, three DVD titles which are originally produced by Warner Home Video, not Hanna-Barbera and Stretch Films. Shows that were originally made by Hanna-Barbera productions like Johnny Bravo and Dexter's Laboratory, and Non Hanna-Barbera productions like Courage the Cowardly Dog, is seem to be notable. JJ98 (Talk) 22:38, 19 October 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, JJ98 (Talk) 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and note useful. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists, but isn't notable at all. The shows are, but this collection very much isn't. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Tynan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of previously deleted article on non notable local councillor. Per WP:POLITICIAN simply being a member of a local council is not sufficient to establish notability. A search for third party refs covering Tynan in detail fail to show up anything, so with a lack of coverage in 3rd party sources, he also fails WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In his field, the relevant sources certainly seem to consider him a notable individual. Coverage of Tynan in Irish broadsheets: Irish Examiner, Irish Times, Irish Independent. Skomorokh 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claim of notability is for more than election to city council. Also noted for civil disobedience and party activism. Add more sources, but don't delete. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Page Ted Tynan has been a well-known local political activist in the Cork area for more than 40 years and was twice elected to Cork City Council (1979 and 2009). He has been involved in numerous political and community campaigns over that period including the following: Irish waterways restoration campaign, Cork rent strike of the 1970s, Ground Rent campaign (1970s onwards), Householders Against Service Charges (jailed for his part in non-payment campaign 1990), Anti Vietnam War campaign (1968 - 1970s), Free the Old Head of Kinsale Campaign (2001-present), Cork Anti-War Campaign (2002-2004), and many, many more. Joined Sinn Féin circa 1964, member right through its transition from narrow nationalism to radical socialism - Official Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin the Workers' Party, to The Workers' Party. Member of the Central Executive of the Workers' Party (current). One of the most active political representatives in Cork city. Will try to add more sources. Please do not delete. Coolavokig (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterdeep (city)[edit]

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

It looks like people have genuinely tried to improve this article, but it just fundamentally lacks the potential to meet our most basic guidelines. The only sources I see are a few WP:GAMEGUIDEs which are insufficient to WP:verify notability. The other sources don't even mention the location, going completely off topic about a game that was released too early. Needless to say, the location does not meet the WP:GNG and should be deleted due to a lack of third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom misuses WP:GAMEGUIDE in a rather comical matter: Game guides are perfectly fine as sources--the link refers to articles as game guides. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only mean to point out that game guides are primary sources (or at best, non-independent paid promotional sources). They can verify a few facts, but they have a conflict of interest that makes them inappropriate to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only if the game guides aren't 3rd party sources. Many in the article are. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several books in the Waterdeep setting are noted, with ISBNs and everything, but the references seem to be independent of the subject. Game guides are appropriate to confirm facts, but cannot themselves document notability, as Jclemens indicates - which is fine, since we have other sources to do that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't see the sources (paper sources and all) but reasonable 3rd party sources are given. Weak simply because I can't see the depth of coverage. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Waterdeep was used in two different genres, roleplaying and computer games, and that is verified both by primary and third-party sources. Daranios (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios; it has also been the setting for novels, such as the 1989 Waterdeep novel which bears its name. BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios/BOZ Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios and BOZ Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—As far as role-playing game fantasy geography articles go, this locale is decidedly more notable than most. There are enough independent book sources to confirm the notability of Waterdeep.—RJH (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hop[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Sole reference is a review from a student newspaper. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as non-notable, then re-create as a plausible redirect to the song "At the Hop". Nate • (chatter) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and fails WP:MUS. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not recreate as redirect. No coverage, therefore no notability, therefore no page. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Potashner[edit]

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

Musician with no independent notability. Fails WP:MUS and WP:GNG. Also unreferenced BLP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP fails WP:MUSICBIO. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucardo (PostgreSQL)[edit]

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

Eggyknap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable software. No good sources in article and couldn't find any. Prod contested with "Remove delete: is notable, has sources". Christopher Connor (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I guess the most notable secondary source is this OSNews article that suggests using Bucardo for upgrading PostgreSQL without downtime. Then there are two paragraphs in an EnterpriseDB white paper. The rest are primary sources (conference presentations), and blog entries. -- intgr [talk] 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAUSE-NY[edit]

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

Wongs.jcrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New York community organisation. No good sources in article, and couldn't find any. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable gorup, which is sad, because it sounds like a great organization. I can not find any independent sources at all online.Bearian (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centric (music producer)[edit]

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

CentricProducer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable music producer. Article was created by subject. Sources in article are poor and couldn't find any better. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find any coverage in the usual sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurimas Vilkaitis[edit]

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

Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm~Talk 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ATHLETE is not exclusionary. People who fail to meet it can still meet general notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted but that is why I linked to the notability page which he fails also. Mo ainm~Talk 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Lidakevičius[edit]

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

Non notable academy player per WP:ATHLETE Mo ainm~Talk 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ATHLETE is not exclusionary. People who fail to meet it can still meet general notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted so that is why I linked to the notability page which he fails also. Mo ainm~Talk 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S9 fraction[edit]

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

Before even getting to the issue of sourcing, let me just ask everyone to ask themselves if they actually believe that the "Supernatant fraction obtained from an organ (usually liver) homogenate by centrifuging at 9000 g for 20 minutes in a suitable medium; this fraction contains cytosol and microsomes." sounds like something a general audience needs to be concerned about. A WP:PROD was declined without comment other than "removing tag." A "further reading" link to an book was added but clearly that was not actually used to construct the article as the actual article text was not changed when it was added. This article is a definition of an obscure term used in toxicology that is of no use to the average Wikipedia user. Or if you prefer: violates WP:NOTDIC and does not meet WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was easy to find another couple of references describing the process and its results, hence going beyond definition and satisfying notability. I have seen obscurer things even if the nominator hasn't. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've certainly seen more obscure articles than this, but the point is, what is it that makes this obscure topic somehow a notable one? Still not seeing that in the article. Adding references from toxicology texts helps to verify[ that this definition is accurate, but there is still no explanation or evidence that the S9 fraction is notable unto itself. There is not even an explanation of what the purpose is. I don't happen to have those toxicology texts handy and they do not appear to be online, so I don't know what useful information they contain that might indicate why a general audience would be looking this up. As it currently stands this looks very much like something that only toxicologists need to be aware of. We have specialized terminology at my job too, most of it is not notable unto itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable because there are 336 references in Google Books and 4470 in Google Scholar -- "significant coverage in reliable sources" ? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've got some statistics saying that this is mentioned numerous times. Now if you could actually identify the significant mentions that go into detail and are not just more definitions or brief mentions and use them to make the article clear as to why anyone but a toxicologist is ever going to even be aware of the existence of the S9 fraction, we'd really be getting somewhere. WP:GHITS is generally not considered a valid argument if there is no detail as to the actual substance of those hits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A whole paper here, for starters. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, if you could go ahead and read that, distill the relevant facts down into plain English that explains why this is important, and add that to the article that would be swell. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now into Ames test. Both are pretty short, and until they get developed some more, they can sit together. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The S9 fraction is notable since it is widely used in mutagenicity and metabolism studies. Since the later use has now been added to the article, it would no longer be appropriate to merge this article into the Ames test. Boghog (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False clock[edit]

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

A fancy way of saying that a clock can be wrong. Article was WP:PRODed, Prod was removed with the assertion that "a stub is better than nothing." Although refs have been added, the article has not been expanded one iota on the basis of those new refs. To a lay person this an essentially useless article as it tells us nothing of substance. There is no evidence that this is a notable engineering concept. Wikipedia is not the glossary for an engineering textbook, or if you prefer, WP:NOTDIC. The sources are puffery and were clearly not actually used as the article is still a word-for-word copy of a government document. In short: What this is is explained in tech-speak and why it is important is not explained at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition that is unlikely to ever be expanded. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary it is a dictionary definition, those go on wiktionary. This article describes a specific failure case in telecom engineering. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a stub not a dictionary definition as there is no lexical content and the the title is a phrase not a word. If the content seems too small then it should be merged into a larger article such as clock signal. This is our editing and deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it came out of a government dictionary, verbatim, so it is a dictionary definition. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Ravenswing 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dheerendra Singh[edit]

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

This nomination includes articles on his two books:

These articles fail the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. It may be noted that the publisher of his English language novel specializes in new, unknown authors. I have searched for professional reviews of his works, and not found a single one.

The biographical information in the article is completely unsourced; and the testimonials are sourced to his own web site. Statements in the article about "international acclamation," "huge fan club," and other puffery asserting notability are not supported by the citations given. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No neutral, third-party references found for the claims in the article or justifying the notability of the book and its author. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glossary_of_anime_and_manga#B. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bakunyū[edit]

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

Non-notable genre. Insufficient mention in reliable sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this can be classed as a "Genre", but it may be worth merging into Glossary of anime and manga. The article itself is just a WP:DICDEF. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - done. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the content has been merged into Glossary of anime and manga, that prevents this article from being deleted per WP:COPYWITHIN. —Farix (t | c) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a dictionary definition, and the claim that it is a porn genre is somewhat dubious. --DAJF (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary it is a dicdef. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it is definition only and doesn't seem to turn up anything useful on search. Delete it or move to Wiktionary if it meets their standards. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tranwiki to Wiktionary and then delete per WP:NOT. – allen四names 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with history to Glossary of anime and manga, per merge performed by Kenilworth Terrace. --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga#B, it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sahimi[edit]

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

The author of all the substantive content on this page is apparently Muhammad Sahimi, based on the username (Sahimi54) and the fact that this user hasn't edited any other pages. I note that whilst Dr. Sahimi does meet one of the notability criteria for academics (he holds a named chair at a university), nevertheless on account of the self-promotional nature of this article (note the unnecessary and comprehensive list of his academic papers and newspaper articles) and also because of the absence of contributions from third parties, I think this article should be deleted on account of the autobiographical conflict of interest. Literatim (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject obviously passes WP:PROF and there are other ways to deal with the abundance of inline citations if consensus is that there are too many. If the subject did create this article about himself, I think he did a good job portraying himself in an objective and neutral manner. (The SPA claim is quite ironic in that the nom is also an SPA: all seven of his edits were made over a 13 minute period regarding this article.) Location (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a GS h index of around 33 so easily passes WP:Prof#C1. All the references to papers should be removed from the BLP as unneeded. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The two comments so far miss the point: I was not disputing that Dr. Sahimi passes notability as an academic, the problem is that he is a controversial political figure whose articles have been used in speeches by Ayatollah Rafsanjani and who divides the Iranian diaspora community, some regarding him in a negative light as a propagandist on nuclear issues who has close links to the regime and some regarding him in a positive light as telling important truths about Western imperialism, etc. No controversial political commentator should be writing their own article, and Location's belief that the article is neutral simply takes no account of this aspect of Dr. Sahimi's life. And by the way, in response to Location's "ironic" rebuke, the account I created for discussing Iranian issues hasn't had any other edits yet and is a wiki-legal second account in order to protect my identity because I am known to Dr. Sahimi, but it doesn't change my criticism of this self-promotion by Dr. Sahimi. To repeat: it is not about notability, it is about conflict of interest and I would sincerely urge commenters on this deletion topic to respect the extreme sensitivity of the subject-matter and find out something about the person in question and secondly about Iranian politics before responding. Literatim (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the contrary, the alleged sensitivity of the subject matter, intimate knowledge of the subject and a background in Iranian politics are what we should not be taking into consideration in an AfD. WP:COI is not a standalone deletion criterion - and probably just as well, because it sounds like you have a conflict of interest yourself in this issue - and none of this miscellany has anything to do with relevant policies or guidelines. That you may have a content dispute is properly handled on the article's talk page, not by attempting to delete the article. We can only judge whether the subject passes the verifiability and notability bars of WP:V, WP:PROF and the GNG. He does. Done deal. Ravenswing 16:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK, I may as well go along with that (apart from the suggestion of COI). The article does, however, need some serious editing for relevance and neutrality at some stage. Literatim (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 best films of Mexican cinema[edit]

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

Purely WP:POV article as is. I'm skeptical as to whether any article which focuses on the list's cultural impact could be written, as I doubt whether this has the cultural relevance and garnered the response that some other lists have (such as the Rolling Stone (magazine) lists The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time). The group which put together this list -- the Mexican Cinema Club -- don't have an article yet, and while that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't notable, it should be noted. After some googling I've not managed to find much relevant content to support its inclusion - only some links which don't really meet WP:RS (such as [3]). I do concede that the language barrier may be impeding me here, though. Nonetheless, I think the contents fails WP:NOTOPINION, and the list fails WP:GNG.

What's more, this currently copies the list, and there are copyright concerns associated with that, too. Similar concerns were outlined with the RS lists, and the arguments can be read here. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly violates POV and other guidelines mentioned by the nom. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reproduces an entirely subjective list of the Mexican Cinema Club. Carrite (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Turns out that this was a list published in 1994 by the Mexican magazine Somos (or perhaps Somos Mexicanos[4] (translation available) on the occasion of its 100th issue, and cited by the club 16 years later, but I have my doubts on the notability of the list (the magazine itself is, or was, probably notable), and it's not clear where the titles came from. A search of news doesn't turn up any reporting of the list [5]. I don't see a problem in someone mentioning the list and throwing in the link in the article Cinema in Mexico. I hate to see information lost, given that Wikipedia fairly well ignores its own rules when it comes to English-language entertainment, but I can't see the list itself as a stand-alone article. Mandsford 21:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMI Planet[edit]

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

prod removed by IP. No reliable sources to establish a depth of coverage per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yahoo Delete no independent notability, notability is not inherited, half the links listed have absolutely nothing to do with AMI Planet. 2 says you, says two 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said "merge" but since there isn't even a mention of AMI Planet on Yahoo (and probably shouldn't be), it seems weird to redirect. tedder (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Jeopardy![edit]

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

Non-notable game show tournament. Game shows often have special tournaments/episodes and while payouts are higher than normal or special contestants appear, they are not notable events.

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

Sottolacqua (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not technically a tournament; it was a prime-time network show, unlike its syndicated parent. So this AfD is based on a false premise. 271828182 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above - Jeopardy! and Super Jeopardy! are two different shows. Bds69 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All primetime broadcast television series are notable, and this one is about as notable as game shows can get in primetime. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have no comment. WikiLubber (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jeopardy!. No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. I've been bold, creating an article to merge all these special tournaments and events into.--hkr Laozi speak 00:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the bold individual above. First bright idea I've seen in this series of Jeopardy! deletions yet. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - advertising.Pedro : Chat 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On-Target! Marketing & Advertising[edit]

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

Non-notable company. A local Houston-based ad agency that has gained some local recognition, but nothing beyond the Houston region. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Writing the best piece of junk mail to come out of Texas in 2010 may be a worthy achievement, but doesn't quite make for historical, technical, or cultural significance. Google News, Books, and Scholar all draw blanks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find an official webiste for this company. Plain ol' not notable. 2 says you, says two 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - pure spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7 - Vianello (Talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Flavin[edit]

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

Borderline speedy deletion, possible hoax. Even if he does exist there are no reliable sources so the article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as almost certainly a hoax and vandalism. 2 says you, says two 16:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon editors are continuously removing the AfD notice.... 2 says you, says two 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Even with the "sources" in this article, I'm not entirely sure what this guy actually did to warrant any sort of inclusion aside from existing. Any viral videos or "fads" would be far more noteable than the creator himself. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pervade Productions[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Of the "sources" cited, one is the Pervade Productions website, and none of the others so much as mentions Pervade Productions. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supported, unless decent references come forward. -- WikHead (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any coverage. [6]. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. T. Canens (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey[edit]

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

Non-notable club hockey organization, limited if any third-party coverage. Articles on similar teams regularly deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech Ice Hockey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Ice Dogs men's ice hockey. Grsz¹¹ 13:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable recreational club level hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge: to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. Club team below NCAA hockey. Ravenswing 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-established college hockey team. Has played in national tournaments. Has received coverage in Pittsburgh Post Gazette and Observer-Reporter newspapers. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except its not an actual college hockey team. It's a club hockey team. There is a big difference. National tournaments for recreational hockey is not notable. If it was a national tournament for a NCAA team that would be different. Local papers covering local sports are generally not considered good enough to establish notability. If they were, millions of local little leaguers would have pages on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the cited newspapers aren't mere "local newspapers," since the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is the largest newspaper in Western Pennsylvania, covering the Pittsburgh metro area (pop. 2.4 million) and the Observer-Reporter covers southwestern Pennsylvania (pop. 202,897 alone in Washington County).--GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change anything, even the New York Times does news stories about local sports etc and those aren't considered good enough to establish notability either. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ACHA Division I hockey teams can be very sophisticated programs, operating at a high level and receiving significant followings and press, (press is demonstrated in the article). They are certainly not what I'd call "recreational". Not all club sports and teams are notable, but being a "club" team, meaning it is essentially a self supporting program not funded by an athletic department, does not automatically make them non-notable. Certainly local notability could apply here too. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly some may be. Penn State Nittany Lions men's ice hockey, Penn State Nittany Lions women's ice hockey, Lindenwood Lady Lions women's ice hockey for winning numerous championships, being the subject of sustained (not just one article) third-party coverage, and in all three of these cases, pending a move from ACHA to NCAA. However, none of the articles in Category:College men's ice hockey teams in the United States are club teams. Grsz¹¹ 01:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And recreational is not an appropriate categorization. It's an intercollegiate competition all the same, just not the highest level in the U.S. Grsz¹¹ 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting PSU's transitional teams, only 58 schools sponsor NCAA D1 men's hockey out of the 335 total Div 1 schools. It is worth examining whether some of these club teams may in fact be notable, considering that there are probably 300 wikipedia articles on NCAA D1 men's basketball teams. Are all those teams more notable even though they may not be nearly as competitive in their particular sport? Same could be said for rugby, and other club sports with similarly sophisticated national governing bodies. I know there is precedent for deleting any club team, hockey or otherwise, but I think that could use some reexamination. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a worthy discussion at WT:HOCKEY. There are 57 men's Division I teams in ACHA, and with over 300 total teams, it is the largest governing body of intercollegiate ice hockey. If you subtract the teams that have NCAA and ACHA Division I teams (there are a number of them) it isn't a terribly large number. Grsz¹¹ 02:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that this is a well-written article that is scrupulously sourced to reliable sources, and it has good content without any POV'ed language. In sum, it's a net asset to the encyclopedia. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is not, almost all the sources present are either primary sources which are not good enough for notability or are stat/listing type pages which again are not good enough to establish notability. If you want to establish notability you will need to find articles in either national publications about the team, or in news papers from different cities than these teams play in. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not supported by WP:GNG. --GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely is For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage (emphasis mine). Local coverage of local sports is considered routine news coverage and is not enough to cover notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're saying articles have to have more than a local (regional coverage such as the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and/or the Observer-Reporter than most of the Jr. teams, College teams, and even minor pro up to AHL are screwed because the majority of coverage is from regional sources, league sources. Very few have coverage in national sources unless they've been in a national championship or other nationally covered event. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because magazines like The Hockey News follow D1 and pro relatively closely. Thus you can be assured that there are usually some sources. Junior isn't really even questionable because all the teams are covered here in Canada heavily in the media right down to the lower levels. It does get questionable once you get to the Junior B & C level I suppose. US junior hockey however is also questionable apart from the USHL and NAHL which get fairly good coverage in magazines like the hockey news and in the media up in Canada, but anything below that doesn't really. At these lower levels the leagues would be notable still but I don't know that the individual teams are. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sasso is wrong in his interpretation of "local" news sources. Within the context of WP:GNG, "local" means publications with very limited coverage, like village newsletters. The largest newspaper from a major American city (the 22nd largest metro area) and the largest newspaper covering a 4 county region are not "local." Under DJ Sasso's interpretation, woe to any sports program that doesn't attract the coverage of the NY Times and Le Monde.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, all major papers have local interest articles. This has been discussed at length on the notability page and in other locations. And the consensus generally comes down to any paper that is local to the topic big or small is considered local coverage. This is why local politicians such as city councillors do not generally get articles even though papers like the New York Times covers them since they are a local New York City councillor. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of an example....Would you be shocked if I told you that 48/51 New York City Council members had articles: [[Membership of the New York City Council.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I knew New York was a bad example but only used it because we had already talked about the New York Times. Most city's councillors do not get articles. Generally articles are restricted to mayors and national level representatives. In other words people who are talked about in papers outside their local area. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on an earlier quote. Another "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include, but are not limited to, newspapers, community papers, magazines, and journals representing a local city, town, or region, local television and radio stations (and their associated websites), and websites providing media to an area.". The papers you point to are all of those things. (emphasis mine) -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Washington and Jefferson Presidents. For now, under current guidelines I say merge, however if they are changed via consenus/discussion I'd say keep being that the article is well written and has usable information. In the very least that info would be good to keep in some form via a merge. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for the argument to keep the article, I would say it is different from the Georgia Tech and Georgia discussions referenced in the original deletion. Pretty much all of the ACHA DIII teams and at most of the ACHA DII teams are more recreational club programs than non-NCAA intercollegiate programs. The line starts to blur with the very top DII teams, such as Grand Valley or Kentucky. ACHA DI team are well organized and usually have high respect on and off campus. The level of play for ACHA DI is generally a notch below NCAA DIII, however the top half could put up respectable numbers in NCAA DIII and top 5-10 could really do some damage in NCAA DIII and put up a challenge against low level NCAA DI teams. (Penn State did beat NCAA DI Robert Morris about 4-5 years ago.) Let's not split hairs and for sake of argument say that ACHA DI is lumped into the same level as NCAA DIII, I don't believe we have any separate articles for NCAA DIII teams? If NCAA DIII teams not notable to have separate articles, certainly ACHA DI teams aren't. If they are-then this definitely calls for more discussion.

An ACHA DI team can have a separate article if: The program is in the process of transitioning to NCAA. (examples mentioned earlier). Or the program was once a member of the NCAA before moving to ACHA DI, ex/ Kent State, Ohio.

A few other things that make an ACHA DI team article notable: Is the program considered Varsity Club level by the university? Iowa State, Liberty Univ., Penn State (pre NCAA announcement), etc are designated as varsity club teams for their attention on and off campus and usually funded by either a sub department of the Athletic department... Another criteria to look at are NAIA schools, (NAIA doesn't sponsor ice hockey since 1980s). Teams like Lindenwood, Davenport, SUNY Canton and some others…include their ACHA teams and fund them as part of their mainstream athletic departments. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the ECAC Division III hockey schools have an independent hockey article. Heck, I couldn't find any with a standalone athletics article. Ravenswing 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any either. BUT it doesn't mean they're not notable, it could just be because no user has gotten around to it. A few months ago I finished creating articles for the rest of the NCAA DI teams (Lots of stubs left if anyone has info to work on them, they actually should look more like this W&J article btw). The hockey community on Wikipedia is a bit smaller than sports like basketball or football. I've seen NAIA, DIII, DII, and DI articles for those sports (example:WP:CFBTEAMS). If we at WP:HOCKEY find the same/similar levels of notability for collegiate hockey our structure would be articles for NCAA DI, NCAA DII (the few existing NE-10 schools), NCAA DIII, NAIA (a handfull of schools playing ACHA DI), and ACHA DI teams at NCAA schools. I wouldn't go below ACHA DI because then it's more like other club sports, and at some schools its more recreational/intramural. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is unlike say college football which as you say have pages right down to the lowly depths because football is huge in the US. College hockey however is not and its notability drops off really fast. Some D1 teams would barely make the cut, nevermind lower levels. Clearly I am not advocating removing D1 schools but anything below D2 is definitely not notable unless there are special reasons for it, in general US college hockey just doesn't have much notability as a whole beyond D1. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point about what is essentially the sports culture of the US. Part of it may be that NCAA DIII and NAIA football schools still have on average 1,000-5,000 seat stadiums, where some DI teams have around 1,000 seat arenas and NCAA DIII ACHA DI teams generally play in 500-1,000 seat arenas. A large factor in the attendance could be the number of teams concentrated in the Northern parts of the US. There's 6 NCAA DI athletic departments in Mass. but with hockey there's 10. After a quick search I’m finding a number of sources for some NCAA DIII teams, so at the very least WP:HOCKEY’s policy should be similar to that of football: Please note that all NCAA schools are presumed notable, since there will always be reliable independent sources documenting their notability. And even with not the NCAA DIII teams would most likely pass GNG with such sources. Regardless, this article poses the question do we regard ACHA DI teams like other sports projects deal with NAIA teams? Bhockey10 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... for one thing, the college football Wikiproject's notion of notability is pretty much insane; I've had battles over their insistence that guys who coached five games at a cow college in 1908 are, and should be, notable by definition. That being said, they're wrong if they think that Div III teams pass GNG as a matter of course. Really? Of the Div III college hockey teams whose games I've attended, UMass-Boston and Wentworth Institute barely merit a weekend-roundup paragraph in Boston papers. Heck, American International College (which plays, nominally, Division I) doesn't get more than that in the Springfield papers. The only substantial coverage concerning the UMB Beacons I've ever seen (and I'm an alum, so I pay attention) was a few years ago when they had a 43 year old defenseman, a fellow who'd gone back for his degree, provoking a human interest story. We're running a ways afield of this AfD, though, and this discussion probably should be ported to WP:HOCKEY. Ravenswing 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

43, really!!? I agree that their definition is a bit strange, your example of coach bumpkin at cow college for half a season in 1908 is a good point, I doubt there would be even Sources. their notability definition is also contrasting because the first sentence says: Schools that participate in college football and are members of the NCAA or NAIA are considered notable as long as there are independent, non-routine references documenting their notability. That's probably a better thing to follow rather than limiting articles to NCAA DI and NCAA DIII (or deleting them just because they're ACHA DI teams) I would say ALL NCAA DI teams are notable, with some digging there's always going to be at least a cpl sources. If Bentley turns their program around and builds a powerhouse we'd see more articles than human interest pieces. One of the main aspects of Journalism is write for your reader not yourself. Bentley and AIC are smaller schools and just don't have the number of current students, alumni, and athletic fans as say BU or UMass. So back to this AfD are the sources here independent non-routine sources that satisfy GNG. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will agree that certain club college teams are more notable than the countless Canadian junior B and C teams we have articles on. We could use a purge of a lot of those articles that by no stretch of the imagination can be considered notable. However, this is most definitely a Canada vs US issue. Grsz¹¹ 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above I agree with some of that, we probably push the envelope on the Junior B or C. However, many people underestimate just how much coverage we have of hockey up here. I can read about junior B games sometimes in my local newspaper on the east coast in Halifax for teams on the west coast in BC. My !vote on this however had nothing to do with US or Canada. Just that club teams don't really have coverage outside of local interest stories. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a valid argument that Grsz11 points out, a number of the ACHA DI teams are more notable than Jr. teams. The University of Arizona Icecats average 5,000 fans per game, and against rivals like ASU sellout the 9,000-seat arena they play at. Attendance numbers that many NCAA DI teams would love to have! All of the NCAA DI teams pass GNG and WP:Icehockey guidelines, and probably a good number of NCAA DIII teams would, I would guess there's some ACHA DI teams that do as well. The original deletion argument is that "Articles on similar teams regularly deleted." This is not the case as W&J Ice hockey article is on a ACHA DI rather than a low level ACHA DIII team that fails WP:HOCKEY guidelines and GNG. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to remember its not just the people who show up to watch that count, its the people in far away places. But anyways thats going off on a tangent. My main reason for deletion is lack of sources outside of non-independent/local ones. Find me papers in other cities that talk about the team (I don't care how big the city is despite comments above that suggest I require the Times) and I am happy. I do think however this is a page that belongs more on the icehockey wiki than here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally on your side with the current standards WP:HOCKEY has right now, but even more than that I'm on Wikipedia's side- Could you point me to any part of GNG or WP:HOCKEY that specifies that established, regional (local as you called them) publications are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability/GNG requirments? Bhockey10 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of this AfD, there is no requirement for non-local sources to denote notability. Wikipedia ranges from international to local. "Jimbo's No" speaks to this in that Wikipedia can range in coverage of obscure topics that are notable in "local" or "specific" academic disciplines (as in Jimbo's example) just as much as what is notable to a particular geographic locality, and in this case, it could be Washington, PA or even the college itself. What is important is that it is NPOV and not OR, as provided by stipulations for GNG. All of them are satisfied in this case: 1) "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed", 2) sources have "editorial integrity", 3) they are secondary (and multiple); 4) are independent of the subject (not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases"), and in addition, this article does not seem to violate WP:NOT. So then, based on existing criteria, this topic is "presumed" to be notable. Only existing precedent in the hockey wikiproject says that it is not, however, wikiprojects to not own articles, and the article's topic also falls under the scope of Washington, PA and Washington & Jefferson College as well as hockey, and perhaps others. The bigger question, is this a natural and needed break-out article of Washington & Jefferson Presidents? Perhaps not, but that is a merge question, not an AfD. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous guidelines and policies that indicate more is needed than just local sources. Your points number 3 and 4 are the ones that local sources concern, and in this particular article itself there is only 1 source that is secondary, the rest are primary. And of that one secondary source its local which many people consider to be non-independent due to the nature of how local reporting is done. If the team is as notable as y'all are indicating it shouldn't be hard to find some sources from outside the location of the university. I would also note its not the hockey projects precedent that local isn't good enough, its been the case for all the sports projects. And is also common to the various projects that cover politics. Its by no means unique to hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link one policy to that effect. BTW, the two newspapers in references 1 & 2 are both independent, secondary sources. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except one of the links is a bad link and doesn't go to any page. As for linking WP:N has right on it that routine news coverage is not good enough. Local coverage of a local sports team is routine news coverage as quoted above. A local news paper will routinely cover the local sports teams in their newspaper as a matter of course. This doesn't establish notability, but rather that the team exists. Which is fine for trying to meet WP:V but doesn't help with WP:N which says that it must not be routine news coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot doesn't affect notability, nor do sources have to be on-line, nor is notability temporary. We have to assume good faith there, but perhaps someone can enlighten us to the original article content or fix the link. BTW, to be precise, WP:N is a well established guideline. Whether the coverage is routine, is also dependent on the definition of "routine". "Routine" in the context of sports seems to mean the reporting of scores and prescheduled events. It doesn't seem routine for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as that paper does not have a beat reporter covering W&J in any sport. Does the Observer-Reporter cover the team beyond the routine reports of just scores and box scores, such as with feature articles? I honestly don't know the answer to that. But, IMO, would make it notable in the sphere of its locality. However, my main point is, irregardless of this AfD, that non-local sources are not required for notability, and there is no policy or guideline to that effect. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say link rot did or that it was temporary. I simply said that it doesn't link to anything so I can't verify that it is anything more than a passing mention. One of the reasons we require multiple references from multiple sources is so that things can be verified even if some of the sources listed can't be accessed. As such with only 1 (or 2 if you count both) the notability cannot be verified because there is nothing to use except the one article. Why are people fighting so hard against finding sources? Instead of arguing about it, time might be better spent if supporters looked for more sources? Would it not? Even if you do accept that local sources are good enough you need more than 2, you need multiple. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, Multiple means "Having more than one element, part, component or function. According to Webster's, Multiple means "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". So, there's another claim that isn't supported by consensus. -GrapedApe (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is, if you have spent any time around afd at all, you would know people usually require more than two sources. That being said there is currently only one source that can be verified not more than one, aka not multiple. Again, wikilawyering instead of actually trying to improve the article. All the time spent arguing and the article could have easily been improved to the point where its unquestionably notable. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to demonstrate that you are misrepresenting notability policies and word meaning. Please see WP:OWN, as you appear to be attempting to own this AFD: "Find me papers in other cities that talk about the team (I don't care how big the city is despite comments above that suggest I require the Times) and I am happy.." (emphasis mine).--GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is just rediculous. I say me, because its my opinion, which I do own. In other words I am willing to change my !vote and am more than open to changing my opinion if you can find me some more sources. That is what AFD is about, discussion about the article in question and changing of peoples opinions by providing sources and the like. It's not even possible to own an afd. Own is about articles. You are just trying to be combative at this point and purposefully trying to twist words. I am not saying you have to please me to get the article kept, I am saying you have to be able to proove to me that the team is notable to get my opinion to change. If you truely thought the article was notable you would provide some more sources to back it up. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that WP:ROUTINE covers actual sporting events (it's even listed underWP:EVENT) not the teams. I.e. an article about a Washington & Jefferson hockey vs. West Virginia hockey game, or more commonly appears around Wikipedia a rivalry between two teams or schools is not notable. routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[3] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article. I believe that is where your logic of local news coverage comes in as well. Local news coverage of a game falls under WP:ROUTINE, now if Washington & Jefferson and West Virginia played a game and W&J won 300-299 and it was covered by the Hockey news, NY Times, CBC, NHL, etc.. b/c it shattered all the hockey records, that would be national news coverage that makes the event/game notable.Bhockey10 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the instances that are routine. But routine is much more than that, local interest stories are often cited as being routine coverage, or to stick with sports, the local little leaguer who has had a really good season and so the paper does a story on him. Is he interesting? Of course. Is he noteworthy enough to be in an encyclopedia? No. Low level local teams would be no different. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hypothetical case would fall under "Notability of high school and pre-high school athletes" and/or WP:BLP1E. College teams, even at this club level, wouldn't necessarily be analogous. BTW, I haven't continued discussing this because of the immediate Afd, but I think the discussion regarding general local sources and notability it is an interesting and important one, and it perhaps warrants a revisitation of notability of some of these ACHA D1 teams in general, for instance, the UofA team mentioned above. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it is perhaps true this lengthy comment section has gotten away from the focus of the actual Afd. In any case, access to the archives of that local Washington paper is unfortunately restricted to a pay service, so it hampers non-locals like me in such searches. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of high school and pre-high school athletes was created specifically with the notion in mind that local is not good enough. Its why we created that whole section a couple months ago because the community insisted on it because it was found that local papers were not considered independent when it came to local sports and they wanted to codify it in writing so it was clear to people that articles should not be created on such people even though they people could try and argue that they had sources such as the routine interviews of local stars. As for BLP1E, that wouldn't be applicable because a season is a series of events not a single event. But yes it is an important discussion and probably doesn't belong here, it comes up fairly often on WP:N but consensus usually favors a case by case study leaning towards local tends to be routine. Lots of guidelines/policies hint at local being not quite good enough but none are black and white, but I suppose thats the case with most issues on wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for high school and pre-high school athletes. We aren't talking about individuals; we need to keep the focus on what the actual issue is. Grsz¹¹ 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue, whether or not the one (or two) local sources are good enough to establish notability for the team. So we need to draw parallels to existing guidelines/policies. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Graped and Crazy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge: to Washington & Jefferson Presidents. Racepacket (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Division I college hockey teams are notable. This team has received enough coverage to satisfy requirements for keeping this article. Having played in national tournaments is even more evidence of notability. Dolovis (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It isn't Division I NCAA, which is the highest level, but ACHA for club teams. Grsz¹¹ 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, its approximately 3 levels below that of NCAA Div 1. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that isn't Dolovis's only point. He also believes that there's enough secondary coverage and that the national tournaments make it notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where did I say that was his only point? -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be playing at a high enough level for automatic notability, and nothing else convinces me that it meets any of the notability guidelines. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdrew deletion, and several sources added. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlag Project[edit]

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

article was originally sourced almost entirely by links to the band's myspace account, after i removed those and asked for proper sources the article author provided links to a website selling the band's albums. most refs in the article are directly associated with the band, the handful that aren't don't appear to indicate notability beyond local coverage as per WP:BAND. in addition, the article is written from the POV of someone with first person knowledge of the subject. very little in the way of factual statements, the majority of the information is WP:OR with refs provided as an afterthought. posting this AfD for other users consideration to gauge response before i render a "delete" or "keep". WookieInHeat (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now, but I could easily be persuaded to change that. Of the 19 references given, 15 are of no value at all, as they all suffer from one or more of (1) only brief mention of Mindlag Project, (2) not an independent source, (3) not a reliable source. However, there are four sources which conceivably may be better: [7], [8], [9], and [10]. However, it is impossible to assess the value of these sources. Three of them are simply scans of printed articles, with no indication whatsoever where they come from. They may be from reliable newspapers, they may be from publicity material. The fourth is a web page on a site which gives no indication, as far as I can see, as to who runs it or what its nature is. It looks very much as though it may be no more than a fan site. If, before this AfD's week runs out, some of these four sources can be shown to be significant reliable sources then I may be prepared to say "keep", but if not then it has to be "delete" for lack of verifiable evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ 4 heavily resembles a fan site. as for the first three, i don't believe "scanned copies of articles you cut out of a magazine and kept in your drawer for the last three years" is covered in WP:RS. if the articles themselves were cited thus identifying the sources, they might be legitimate; however i stongly suspect they wouldn't pass for anything more than "local coverage". ultimately though these sources, providing they were properly refed and met WP:RS, would hardly justify a stub article. even if they were to be used in that manner, it would be less work to write it from scratch then to try and salvage anything from here. hence my tendency is to lean towards delete as well. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn i have been in contact with the original author of the article and they requested my assitance in fixing up the refs and language to avoid deletion. they have provided the sources for the few WP:RS refs given and they seem legit enough to justify some form of notability. with the other editors knowledge of the band and my grasp of wikipolicy and the english language, i think we will be able to make it work. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources to verify the existence and notability of this subject. --RL0919 (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gäp[edit]

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

Article purports to be about a Cryptolect from Tatar; but there are no sources (only link is dead), and I can't find any, anywhere. I'm concerned that this is actually a very subtle attack page. Furthermore, ru.wiki doesn't have an article under any of these names, which makes me even more suspicious. My feeling is that it if this is legitimate, it needs sources, and since it's been around for 3 years without them, it's time for it to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references to verify this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary The article seems to me more like a dictionary definition with examples so would be better at Wiktionary rather than wikipedia. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea assuming anything in the article can be verified. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already exist in Russian wiktionary, but there only 'talk' meaning is presented. [11] --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a creator. I'm sorry that the link is broken now. The material of the broken link article is now located here: http://uzebez.org/2007-11-02/tatar-telen-taptarga-kir%D3%99k/ . It is in Tatar langauge, and in Cyrillic but you may prove that it has the same sence after comparing examples from article with examples from link. As for abscence in other languages, surely, it is quite normal. if you still assume me in vandal edits you may look through my editions. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not look like an attack page to me. Attacking an area of a city would not be unheard-of, but it's not that likely either. Mentioning the high crime rate makes sense as the language variant discussed is a cryptolect. (I know about two cryptolects of German: one used by children for fun, and one used by criminals.)

The obvious problem here is that we have a source that only very few, if any, editors other than the content creator can read, and for which Google translate does not work. (I tried several other languages. Only for Russian there was a tiny number of plausible English words.)

I note that there is a Tartar Wikipedia at http://tt.wikipedia.org/ . Üñţïf̣ļëŗ, is there any chance that you could create a Tartar version on that sister project? Even better would be on http://ru.wikipedia.org/ because that site is bigger and probably better maintained. I think this could accommodate at least some of the concerns.

I would really hate to lose a page such as this one if it is legitimate, and I can see no policy reason for deleting it. (Nominating it was of course a good idea, though.) The ultimate rule for our treatment of sources in languages other than English is still common sense. In this case this could include keeping the AfD open for several weeks while looking for linguists or Tatar-speaking editors. Hans Adler 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Russian interwiki. Also, I've found the original link in the Internet archive, originally it was a site of Tatar R'n'B group and a page was devoted to the modern slang and the historical one. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created the Russian article for the purpose. That's great, thanks. This satisfies my concerns. I am watching the page, so in the event it would ever be deleted from the Russian Wikipedia I would notice and check what's going on. Since Russian seems to be spoken universally in Kazan, I expect that any problems would be discovered on the Russian Wikipedia sooner or later. Since I can't evaluate the main source myself, week keep. Hans Adler 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is somewhat ambigous because Gäp, a common Turkic for talk, is also used (in similar or different meanings) in other Asian cultures (here's a thesis from U of Ghent, in Russia, which touches on the meaning of Gäp in Uzbek culture [12]). Perhaps renaming is appropriate - set the scope. East of Borschov 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that only Tatar language use the current romanization with a-diaeresis. For any other languages it will be another spelling and for Uzbek it is gap, without diacritics. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the sourcing is improved during this AfD. Per WP:V, all articles require reliable sources, and this article has none: only links to two websites of indeterminable reliability. Sandstein 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. What kind of information on this page seems to be an attack? Also, look though my edits - the most of them about facts never known for English-speaking world, such as small rivers in Tatarstan, with no online references at all. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on thinking it's a hoax/attack. But here's what I see when I look at the page: An alleged cryptolect, linked to an area of a city allegedly high in crime. No references support either claim. Second, the only example sentence given further emphasizes not so much the language as the criminality. With no reliable sources to support, it was hard for me to believe that this was a legitimate article. Now, I may very well be wrong. However, even if I am wrong, the article needs reliable sources in order to be kept--if this cryptolect is unverifiable, it shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia (and thus the article deleted). If it is verifiable but we can't find sufficient sourcing to prove it's notable, then the information should be merged into another article (either the city article, the Tatar language article, or both). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed any mentioning about criminality. More, in the references we have now, I've found nothing about it (and probably I'll found nothing about the on www, at least in English). But I can do nothing with the example - the only way to prove that it isn't hoax - to give references to the Tatar words on Russian wiktionary: --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the absence of verifiable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, verify the phrasing using links above. You may also found this phrasing on the referenced pages. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think keeping the sentence as is now is fine, given the removal of "high crime" from the lead. As to whether or not we have enough verification for the article, I'll leave that to others/the closing admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect.With a WP:TROUT to the nominator. If you want to propose a merge do so at the article's talk page, this is for deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G. M. L. P. School, Paravannur[edit]

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

Primary schools are not de facto notable, and only under exceptional circumstances of high importance are they accorded stand-alone articles. Our standard procedure is to merge and redirect to the school district or localiry. Kudpung (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the standard procedure as described by the nominator. It doesn't need a deletion discussion for you to achieve that, as it's something that any editor can do without asking an admin to hit the "delete" button. This confirms existence, which is enough for a mention in the locality article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010-11 Indonesia Super League Top Scorers[edit]

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

The list represents an unnecessary content fork for content which is already presented in a sufficient way at 2010–11 Indonesia Super League#Top Scorer, and also violates WP:NOT#STATS. Consensus for articles under the scope of the WikiProject on association football is to include the best ten scorers of a season, plus those players with an equal amount of goals as the tenth-best scorer if there are not too many of them, into the respective season article of the competition. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same concerns, plus this list is highly unlikely to meet WP:N and also violates WP:RECENT:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom; no need for a seperate article when content can & should be covered in parent article. Giant Snowman 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both This should be treated no differently than other soccer football league pages. From what I can tell, there aren't similar lists (i.e., separate articles to keep track of all persons who have scored) for other national leagues. 2010–11 Fußball-Bundesliga and 2010–11 Premier League are two examples of the status quo. Mandsford 15:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - The first is simply a content fork from the season's main article, and neither is in any way notable enough to merit a sperate article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fairly pointless content forks with no evidence of notability. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Content fork. Information should be included in the parent article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. content fork and lack of adequate WP:RS is a constant problem with the the Indonesian lists Satu Suro 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as Wikipedia is not a extensive listing of statistics and it is content fork of 2010–11 Indonesia Super League#Top Scorer. (By the way this list seems so "important", that it is not even updated). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance business intelligence[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG guidelines as an non-notable market-specific use of the term and a lack of authoritative sources to demonstrate that Insurance has an accepted appreciably different usage of the generic term business intelligence. Apart from the usage promoted by Insfocus Systems Ltd (insfocus.com) for their software, there seems little independent evidence published in the literature (searching Google Books and Google Scholar) to support an encyclopaedic article. The article appears to be an unjustifiable content fork of Business intelligence. Fæ (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Companies operating in insurance business intelligence only:

Other firms discussing insurance specific BI:

Other sources:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/bi/archive/2010/10/07/business-intelligence-bi-in-the-insurance-industry-erez-nir-cto-mitchell-international.aspx
http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=282157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insfocus (talk • contribs) 12:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification of nomination) There is no implication from the nomination that BI does not exist in the Insurance field, only that the term "Insurance Business Intelligence" is just another application of BI rather than being unique to this field. Your reference to Accenture's website is helpful as it is clear that they use the phrase "the Accenture BI Solution for Insurance" in the standard way you would expect for any other field. Customization of BI applications does not lead us to the conclusion that specialist terms apply or could be considered encyclopaedic, in particular as this would lead to pointless content forks of Business Intelligence for every possible commercial variation. Fæ (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Then why do this terms exists ? Banking_business_intelligence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanantaiber (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I have marked the (orphan) article Banking business intelligence for a merge into Business intelligence in line with your note. Fæ (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best a content fork of Business intelligence. Sources do not support a unique definition for the insurance industry. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Debating Society[edit]

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

Non-notable university debating society. Article is unreferenced and reads like a fan site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is blatantly false as the article contains references. This debating society has been at the centre of the social life of this illustrious university since its beginning over a century ago. It thus seems comparable with other prominent institutions such as the Oxford Union. Our editing policy trumps the uncivil opinion about the article's style which is, in any case, a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comparable to Oxford Union, really? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure Oxford Union would pass in flying colours the notability test. LibStar (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really - I found this comparison in a source. As this university was the first in this dominion of the British Empire, it seems natural for it to have followed the examples of Oxbridge. Note that it is an older institution than Yale Debate Association for which we have an article. The existence of these similar articles for other major universities provides a satisfactory precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

similarly if we delete this it also creates a precedent. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed for every keep precedent there is a delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Association of Debaters. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD discussion in which just one editor comments does not constitute a significant consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - I'm not a believer in AfD precedent at all. But it is no weaker a "precedent" than the existence of other articles which may or may not be analogous or may or may not be about notable subjects. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according this list, the top ranked university in the world is Sydney, and as far as I can tell, they don't have an article. I guess they're too busy winning tournaments to create pages that fail our inclusion criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage outside local media, the parallels to Oxford Union are just not there, it is just a university debating club with no indication of national or international reach. Codf1977 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some passing mentions in local media [36], but really needs to be covered outside Otago for it to be considered worthy of inclusion. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, prominent club with many notable former members (e.g., Michael Laws). Failing that, smerge this and the other recent club and society articles into Clubs and societies of the University of Otago. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 14:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The society has been responsible for grooming a hugely disproportionate number of Rhodes Scholars, politicans etc. It's achievements have been noted outside Otago, which I will add to references — Hmoving1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC). [37][reply]
Delete I only came across this article a few days ago and considered AfD'ing it. The sources do not constitute signficant coverage in reliable sources. University debating clubs are very much not generally notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is worth rescuing. There are bound to be references in print (e.g. for the first inter-university sports tournament in April 1902, where debating was one of the three sports): the problem is that someone based in New Zealand needs to track down the publications in libraries. Google Books has the society mentioned in Parliamentary debates and it is covered in Sam Elworthy's "Ritual song of defiance" history of the students' association (page 23). Bettina Kaiser's PhD thesis Collegiate Debating Societies in New Zealand shows how debating was a major element of university culture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has a lot of material about Otago's central role. I see that of the active contributors in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Otago, User:Blacksand, User:Limegreen, User:Philtweir and User:XLerate haven't commented yet. Would it be acceptable to draw this RfA to their notice? - Pointillist (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might be seen as WP:CANVASSING, it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand ( and has been since 20:00, 11 October 2010 UTC see here) Codf1977 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it might be, but if they just come in and only say 'keep i like it' it wouldn't have any effect, it would be getting their expert, albeit potentially biased opinion, and hopefully sourcing, that we would want.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philtweir is currently on campus at Otago doing his PhD. It seems pretty daft not to be able to invite him to find sources for fear of offending Codf1977. - Pointillist (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ''Collegiate Debating Societies source looks to be a good read. "Screeching, screaming hyenas" and the "Barrackers' Brigade" make it sound just like AFD. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin : Please be aware of this notice placed on Pointillist talk page by Colonel Warden. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That notice was limited, neutral, non-partisan and open. User:Pointillist was contacted because of his experience of working upon Oxbridge topics. I hoped that he would be able to assist us in this related case and his contribution does seem to have raised the tone of the discussion. We should thank him for his effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that Colonel Warden just wanted me to help find sources, since I have a reputation for being a persistent researcher (e.g. here). I assure you that I did the searches before I decided whether to vote here. I'd feel happier if those four editors I mentioned could be told about this discussion, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand is unlikely to have caught their attention. I imagine people who watch pages like that are likely to be XFD-obsessives rather than "real" editors who would invest time searching their university library for sources. - Pointillist (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Keep The Google news search shows 20 results, many of them just scans of old newspapers, impossible to quickly search through. If notable people have been part of this society, it helping to shape who they were and their careers, then its notable. Dream Focus 12:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It merits a mention that AfDs over debating society articles are not uncommon. I have no doubt that overzealous debate club members have created many articles for which little to no sourcing could be found. These are commonly deleted. Here Codf1977 has been a strong advocate for deleting or merging almost all of these articles, and has put a lot of effort into it in the last year. Few other editors have paid much attention recently. Some past history:

In 2006, there was a decision to Keep the Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society, and the close properly noted that any merger discussion could occur after the AfD closed. No merger happened for 3.5 years, however, until Codf1977 proposed a merger in March 2010. One support followed five minutes later, and another one within a day. No one else responded, and Cod1977 did the merger on April 6, 2010. One IP attempt to revert the subsequent redirect was rebuffed by Codf1977. In June 2010, the same IP proposed recreating the separate page, see Talk:Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association. Within 2 days, the same three editors who had supported the merge voiced their oppposition. So, as it currently stands, the Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society takes up about 40% of the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association article.
In Talk:Aberystwyth University Debating Union, where Codf1977 proposed a merger with Aberystwyth Guild of Students on 9 January 2010, no one commented, and the merge was performed later in the month.
Cod1977 did the same with Talk:University_of_Alberta_Debate_Society (Jan 2010, merged), and Talk:Manchester Debating Union (Jan 2010, merged), Talk:Tilbury House Debating Society (Jan 2010), Talk:Hart House Debating Club (Feb 2010), Talk:University of Limerick Debating Union (March 2010), Talk:University of Auckland Debating Society (June 2010).
Note also that (Literary and Debating Society (NUI, Galway) is currrently up for AfD also, and a merger was proposed in January 2007 for Talk:University of Western Ontario Debating Society (Codf1977 concurred in January 2010) but is still intact, and Codf1977 made inquiries last month about Talk:Yale Debate Association, where I suspect crazed and more numerous U.S. editors would fight any merge proposal.
In February 2010, there was an AfD nom by Codf1977 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Debating Union. Interestingly, closing admin Scott Mac closed it as a delete despite admitting there was no consensus-Scott at that point was no doubt feeling bold after participating in the mass deletion of unreferenced BLPs a few weeks earlier.

Appearances are deceiving here as all but one of the keep !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Debating Union came from User:Singopo and his bunch of socks - see here for more information. Codf1977 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More recently we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erasmus debating society (Sept 2010 deletion, nominated by codf1977), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash Association of Debaters (Sept 2010 deletion, nom by Mkativerata who has been involved in many of these debates).

So, from this history, we know that a few editors believe that few of these debating societies are notable. Presumably there are notable ones, as seems to be conceded above. As for this debating society, there do appear to be some sources found already supporting notability (including dedicated histories of the university supporting that this group is one of few notable student groups), and some news coverage both historical and recent, but this is a classic case of where editors will split hairs on whether the coverage is sufficient (although we can't really say we've been able to locate all the coverage). In this situation, since we should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE where possible, I am going to propose a Keep. If we end up at no consensus here, merger could be considered in the future if sourcing doesn't improve from where it is right now. Should the decision here, however, be to delete/redirect, the content should be moved into the appropriate parent article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Milowent's AfD precedents above. Also, the sources in this article are quite poor. Most are either primary, not reliable, or provide only extremely local coverage. SnottyWong ^converse 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Merge or Delete. I am unable to find any secondary sources that analyse this student club. All online sources are primary or not independent, either put out by the University or the Otago University Students' Association. I feel it does deserve a mention on the University's page due to its extreme longevity. Abductive (reasoning) 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources. I just took a look at a few pages of Dr Kaiser's thesis (which is in itself a potential source) and found:

Canterbury College Review (Oct. 1901, 18-9, Appendix 7; Jun. 1902, 7; Jun. 1903, 12-13)

New Zealand Herald (25th August 1897, 5)

Dunedin Evening Star (cited in Otago University Review, Aug. 1901, 79)

The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/) says William Downie Stewart, Jr. was a member in c. 1898-1900, John Callan (judge) was a member of the club who won the Joynt Challenge Scroll in 1905 and Oswald Chettle Mazengarb represented Otago for debating in c. 1910.

McKenzie, Donald Francis. 1985. Oral Culture, Literacy & Print in Early New Zealand

There is of course lots of stuff in Morrell, W. P. 1969. The University of Otago, a Centennial History, published by the Otago University Press.

- Pointillist (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the thesis is a secondary source, but it's in-house. The primary sources are all local, and just as important, don't say anything interesting. I'm sorry, but "there's this student club that dates back to 1878, and in all that time has had three members who later became notable by Wikipedia standards" just doesn't cut it for me. Abductive (reasoning) 18:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thesis author is a European and she did the work at University of Canterbury so it isn't "in-house". It is "local" to New Zealand, I suppose (Canterbury is about 200 miles from Otago^{18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)}). New Zealand isn't well covered by wikipedia: there are other notable members of the debating society in the DNZB but they don't have wp articles yet. - Pointillist (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the debate swings on somebody's unpublished PhD thesis, and that thesis has basically no sources, one is forced to conclude that the topic is uninteresting. Abductive (reasoning) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the debate "swings" on the fact that a large number of potential sources exist (Dr Kaiser's thesis has a 33-page bibliography). These sources are over 100 years old and aren't on the Internet so they can't be examined without library work, which is impracticable without support from some contributors based in New Zealand who have access to university libraries. But we can't ask them to assist because Codf1977 would complain to the closing admin. I cannot see why it is so important to insist on deleting this article given that wikipedia is happy to have articles about in-universe characters from popular culture entirely referenced to sources that have a financial interest and no academic standards to control what they say. Good grief! - Pointillist (talk) 21:38, 18 October 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, -- Cirt (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it reads like a fansite is irrelevant in a deletion discussion (easily fixed through editing). The question of reliable references has been addressed thanks to the work of Milowent and Pointillist. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The first 3 sources in the article at the moment are: The Otago University Debating Society, The University of Otago, and Otago University Students' Association, so these obviously don't count as independent of the subject. Also, the 4th reference doesn't even count as a trivial mention, while the 6th is at least a legitimate trivial mention. The only source that gets even close to being independent and providing significant coverage is the 5th, but that on it's own isn't enough. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second source (a 261 page book about the university) is probably going to be pretty reliable, even though it was published by the university and written by a long-serving academic from the university. According to his DNZB article, the author W P Morrell is a well-established NZ historian who had a double First from Otago and a DPhil from Oxford, was a lecturer and reader at Birkbeck and eventually became Otago's Professor of History. He might be a bit of a primary source, but with that pedigree he's unlikely to be materially inaccurate. - Pointillist (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that primary sources can never be used, however at present, it would appear the subject is non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-independent source in its purest form. Abductive (reasoning) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I incline to inclusionism, not deletism, but I am not by any means an extreme inclusionist. We should remember that we are trying to write the sum of all knowledge. Is this article part of that knowledge? The questions we never ask at AfD are "Are there readers who might want to read this article" and "Does removing it really improve the encyclopedia". The answer to the first is "yes, not many, but other debaters will want to know who they are up against in competitions". The answer to the second is "No". The sources are not great as others have said, but I think they are enough. The article will improve with time. I say keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Codf1977's 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Note to Closing Admin : please also be aware that the AfD nominator notified Chickletducks (talk · contribs) whose most recent edit to Otago University Debating Society ‎was on 2006-09-22, and whose account has been inactive since 2006, but did not notify XLerate (talk · contribs) even though xe most recently edited Otago University Debating Society on 2010-07-04, is still active and is a member of Category:Wikipedians in Dunedin and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Otago. - Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am willing to create a combined page for Clubs and societies of the University of Otago as suggested by Grutness above. I am at the University and could possibly find some of the book references. Several of the other club pages already deleted could be included in the page. The debating society, while today only as notable as any other on campus club, has had a large role in the development of student politics at Otago, and therefore in New Zealand. Combined, perhaps the page could have enough notability to survive? GintyFrench^(talk!) 15:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabila Jamshed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete:-The subject of the article is Non notable without awards or significant inventions.She has just written a book that has been reviewed in some newspapers but that in no way establish the notability and significance of the subject as well as the article.When nominated first it was deleted and it is likely that the subject kept on screaming to keep it and previously deletd page can't be put up like this.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nabila_Jamshed Also the weeks link do not work.External links have a blog.Also book has not been published by any significant publisher.It just small new house with few books.Mere media coverages can't establish notability.The coverages must speak about the notability which this article is lacking.Just a way of self promotion.I suggest strong delete of the article.Moreover the subject has written just one book that is no bestseller or award winning book.Just this is a case of self promotion.--Poet009 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMO the coverage in The Hindu, NDTV and a regional page of Indian Express makes her meet WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just media coverages can't make a subject notable.Te coverages donot speak of the notability.If media coverages were enough to make a person eligible for wikipedia then all journalists whos articles appear in their name must have their bio in wikipedia.Not a strong reason.Also user has not singed his comment.My friend aboe who has forgotten to sign has not read WP:GNG properly.There should be depth in coverage and it should mention why the article is notable.Also the "Presumed criteria is there.The subject might have media contacts through which she had promoted herself but I don't find her book in any journals and so.--Poet009 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me above. I have stuck your second vote, as we are allowed only one vote each in AfD. I am afraid my interpretation of GNG differs from yours. She is an author of Young Adult Fantasy, so naturaly you won't find the book in a journal. It has received reviews in two (three if i count the The Week review) national media outlets and in on regional page of another national media outlet. The coverage is about the book and the author and i believe it is deep enough. Media coverages do make subjects notable, that's why GNG exists. This is not the case of a journalist whose byline has appeared in the media. A borderline case for the author, but enough coverage exists. (and how she "might" have obtained the coverage is pure speculation. Even if she had the articles planted - must have a good PR team to get covered in Hindu, IE, Week and NDTV - its still coverage ) --Sodabottle (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just 3-5 media coverages do not make a subject notable.3-5 media coverages is not enough that too which doesn't mention her notability.There must be other independent sources and these sources should mention why she is notable.Writing just one book that has neither received an award nor has been on the front page of any magazine like India Today etc. she can't be notable.Many people receive 3-4 media coverages but that doesn't make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.And yes neither the publisher is a famous and renowned one.--Poet009 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Sodabottle. This young author has received reviews from several national media outlets, WP:RS that are not passing mentions but focus entirely on her. The subject's ~~previous~~ first AfD deletion now seem to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; she truly does have the refs to retain, it seems to me. And I agree with Sodabottle about the nominator's baseless speculations. They damage rather than help his case, as does his efforts to !vote twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and also the nominator has linked to the first AfD where the article was deleted but conveniently omitted the 2nd, where it was kept after a unanimous !vote. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_3#Nabila_Jamshed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He omits linking the 2nd keep AfD, but then leaves this message on that nominator's User talk page, blatantly canvassing for his delete !vote. This is really poor behaviour by this nominator. Suggest this be speedily closed as a bad faith and point-y AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- My dear editor Shwan in Montreal has forgotten the policy that re-creation of a deleted article is not allowed as per G4 but still this article was nominated for a 2nd afd without a deletion review and Significant media coverage doesn't mean 3-5 media references about a new book.I have no problem if this article is kept but I don't feel this is a notable author as per BLP.Good day.--Poet009 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion review allows for editors to "create a useful article on the same subject" if a stub has been deleted for lack of content. I don't have access to the first article, but as the closing admin at the 2nd AfD did not seem to consider this article to be speediable per G4, I think it's a little late for that argument. And please read WP:CANVAS regarding Votestacking. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - meh, considering my involvement with the page, I think it's reasonable to drop me a line. My !vote hasn't changed since the first AFD which was successful (and the second should have been deleted as {{db-repost}} but wasn't, oh well). Note that as far as I can remember, the sources for the first and second page (i.e. initial page and the recreation that was AFD-ed a second time but survived) were identical, and are still the same - the only thing that's changed is the fact that it's now for sale outside of India, which doesn't seem to help it pass WP:NBOOK. The sources are problematic - the first is now dead]. The second is a bare mention, two short paragraphs that don't even review it, merely summarize and give a blurb. The third is also not a review, it's a short blurb. The fourth is the longest, but there's nothing after that. Google turns up little - wikipedia is the first and facebook the second. Jamshed published a single book, then there doesn't appear to have been anything else. I would argue that this is WP:BLP1E, but it's a judgement call. A series of short articles giving a burst of attention indistinguishable from a publicity blitz to push the book does not long-term notability make. That last article added by Arx pushes it over WP:N for me. BLP1E might still be something, but I don't have the experience to interpret it in this regard. The article still needs a significant rewrite though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether you deem it reasonable, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." The nominator knew which way you are going to vote: he did not notify any of the keep !voters in your previous AfD -- which were unanimous in their opposition. Just you. This is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS I respectfully ask that the closing admin take this votestacking into account, in deciding on whether to overturn the unanimous keep !vote on the second AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice his edit count of less than 300? I'll try to review the whole conversation in a bit, but perhaps we should be civil with the new account rather than berating. Consensus can change, the page is unlikely to be deleted, so this is really a learning experience for a new editor who just got bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking is not acceptable and should rate more than a "meh" from an experienced editor such as yourself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Shawn, I was not aware of Vote-stacking.But what I am concerned with is with the article.Being an Indian myself and a teacher in English, I have never heard the name of this author and I have not been able to find articles about her in Google scholar.The Google search indicates that Wikipedia is being used to promote her novel and name.The novel for which she has been nominated has not been published by any significant publisher, it does not invent something and 3rdly it is not a bestseller either.Just some mere media clips can't make her notable as the media clippings does not speak of the notability.Her name is also nowhere is some journals neither any renowned name in literature has reviewed her work.--Poet009 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not the best place to be looking for WP:RS related to a popular writer of juvenile fiction, which is what she appears to be. WP:RS can just as easily be articles in mass market newspapers and media. She doesn't need to "invent something." And she certainly doesn't need to be reviewed by a "renowned name in literature," I don't know where you found or came up with that. Look, maybe WLU can adopt you and show you the ropes. I'm serious. He is looking to mentor new users and he's certainly a supporter of yours, even to the point of bending Wikipedia policy to do so. Ask him to mentor you on some of this stuff, maybe. We don't agree on this article's notability but I think he would agree with me that there are policy areas where you need help. Or maybe not. I don't know. Also, your level of English might make it difficult for you contribute to this project. I don't want to insult you, but it's well below what I would expect from someone who teaches English in a professional setting. You may want to consider the Simple version of Wikipedia if you intend on creating content. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Shawn, without giving proper arguments is concentrating upon personal arguments or rather personal attacks as evident from his conversation.I suggest instead of making personal attacks think about the article's notability.His bottom-line is anyone who writes a first book and has 3-5 media reviews can have a Wikipedia article.Please note on the personal attack like statements made by Shawn in Montreal.News or media coverages may not be significant to keep an article just for only one event and yes when there are just 3-5 of them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event--Poet009 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said above is a personal attack, but I've no patience for this anymore. Do consider getting mentored. Good bye. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Detailed review of the links that do not establish notability:-

1>In the footnotes the link of the Week is a dead link. 2>The Indian Express link just mentions that Girl has released a novel.The coverage includes many others.The coverage does not show why the subject is notable. 3>The NDTV Coverage just shows that she has released a novel upon terrorism.Nothing significantly told about the subject. 4>The Hindu link gives a book review with some minor details. So just one media coverage(Hindu) is there which gives a review of the book and a bit about her.Just one media coverage cannot make a subject notable.Jamshed is likely to be a self promoter editing her bio from anonymous IP addresses.Taking a look at wikipedia's policies a bio can't stand as a wiki article basing on a book which is neither a roaring best seller nor has been a subject of wide review.No awards, no inventions nothing.Just a book that too is not available in all big stores.Totally non notable subject.Her article in wiki is just promoting her book and herself in Google search.Nothing else.--Poet009 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person important only for having done an ordinary thing at an earlier age than usual is not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia.that;s the sort of human interest tory that falls under NOTTABLOID. I do not see any evidence that the book is otherwise notable. . The claims in earlier AfDs that the book would eventually become notable do not seem to have be borne out after 3 years now. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 17 October 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, -- Cirt (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, as elucidated in the second AfD. Also, I'd note that the September 2010 release of a new edition[38] seems to have drawn new press, for example in the July 21, 2010 Asian Age[39].--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That pushes it over the edge for me, struck and changed !vote to keep on the basis of that final coverage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiviral[edit]

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

Speedy declined. PROD removed. WP:NOT (dictionary). Probably neologism formed in 2010. If there's anything notable, should be merged to elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. As it stands, it's pretty much a WP:NOTDIC. But Googling does find usages of the phrase "multi viral marketing", though I haven't found anything that would satisfy WP:RS. The author has indicated an intention to expand the article, so I'll reserve judgment to allow some time for that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of expansion, and I can't find any suitable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the person that mistakenly raised this for speedy, I agree that the deletion was not that simple and appreciate an AfD being raised for wider discussion. There is little evidence for use of this word in technical use and hardly any evidence for common usage (though some, probably incorrect, usage for "multi-viral marketing"). The most frequent use is for the biological sense for a vaccine or blood test that applies to multiple viruses, however published usage is for the word to be hyphenated (example:[40]). The use of the word for a software virus on a computer network does not appear supported by reliable published sources. This is unlikely to be sufficient for an encyclopaedic article for any or all of the meanings that can be supported by the sources. Fæ (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's talking about computer viruses, but about "viral" memes - ie ideas that get spread rapidly via multiple connected communities. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition that isn't quite sure what it's talking about; would appear to be so confusing that nobody could be expected to make sense of it. Probably intended to promote some marketing buzzword: The adjective or adverb multiviral may refer to any viral phenomenon that originates and grows simultaneously across multiple networks. Multiviral is more powerful than traditional viral growth because each propagator spreads content across multiple social networks simultaneously. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in the United States[edit]

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

Article doesn't contain any meaningful content and is unlikely to do so in the future -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Retitle to List of Railway stations in the United States, make this the head list for various lists of railway stations per state, something similar to List of windmills in the Netherlands. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any volunteers? It's quite a simple task - take a public directory, copy-paste, wikify, here's the list (just sort out inclusion rules first). But who will subscribe for such a dull dull exercise? East of Borschov 12:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improve and rename per Mjroots or redirect to Rail transport in the United States. At List of railway stations you can find a ton of these articles (easier navigation at the bottom of Category:Railway stations by country) but they are inconsistently named. Also they get quite long, like List of railway stations in India and List of railway stations in Japan. I imagine the U.S. one would be more enormous and would take a lot of work. Here is a start. Right now though, the article is a terrible representation of its subject. I left a comment at WikiProject Trains were an active discussion on these lists was ongoing.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to excessively long lists is to split them into sub-lists. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these lists already exist. Besides the List of Amtrak stations, which Mandsford already mentioned, you've got lists of many commuter railroad stations, especially one that I've done frequent work on such as the List of Long Island Rail Road stations. ----DanTD (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way then to make all of this branch of off one article?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better as a category of stations listed in individual states? Britmax (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in Category:Railway stations in the United States, which is de-facto by state cat. East of Borschov 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would probably have to be broken down into 'List of railway stations in [U.S. state]' as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly useless as an article, and for its purposes, it seems to be redundant to List of Amtrak stations. The links aren't to stations, but to pages about the cities themselves. Click on San Diego and you'll get the article about San Diego, California. The title notwithstanding, it looks like the intent was to list only those cities that a passenger might stop at while zooming on a high speed line. List of Amtrak stations could be edited to reflect that info, or someone could write an article about the individual high speed lines themselves, since the intent was to show the stops in order. Having 50 individual categories is of only limited use in this instance, but I have to agree with NortyNort that a list that tried to name 'em all would be a big project. If there are high-speed passenger lines not already mentioned on the Amtrak list, I can see linking articles about those other lines to that list. However, this looks like what may have seemed like a good idea at the time. Mandsford 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for high speed rail there is an article already - High-speed rail in the United States. I have no issue with it being turned into a redirect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the scope of the article seems to limit itself to "major" stations, which would, as Mandsford said, almost be redundant in light of the Amtrak article. It also seems to be limited to passenger trains, with a focus on the western United States. If the scope was in greater detail, with mention of (and perhaps links to pages on) stations throughout the US, there would be something here worth preserving, but I just don't see a lot that is. Kansan (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is a useful place to put existing and proposed railway stations (in line order), particularly high speed lines. For consistency and shortness, the name of similar topics should be Railway stations in Cameroon rather than List of railway stations in Cameroon. Tabletop (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See: Railway stations by country.

Delete Such a list, if complete, would be impossibly long, and even the author says so. It would be tantamount to a directory. In any case, it is no aide to navigation, which is considered to be a function of lists. I do not oppose there being lists of manageable lengths of rail stations in a particular smaller jurisdiction, or a list of such lists, as either would aide navigation. Sebwite (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a great deal of potential to this article and if complete, branch sub-articles because it would be huge. There are numerous locations that were created by the railroads existence in various parts of the country, many that are not common to the large cities list. Smaller stop names do not conform to city names or other geographical references. I admit, this is currently poorly done, but there is zero potential for this list to be useful if you just delete it. Nobody will see it, nobody will contribute to it, it will have a black mark against ever being created in the future. Deletion is an entirely negative solution to a relevant subject. OsamaPJ (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the first sentence admits, creating this is an unmanageable task. I believe that in US they are called "Railroads", not railways (a British term). The presnet list is not a list of stations, but of cities that (allegedly) have stations. The list thus does not even comply with the title. Articles on the US are usually split by state, so that List of railroad stations in Virginia might be a viable article, but it should be a list of stations (which have or should ahve articles), not merely a list of cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless and unmanageable. I would have said "merge" but there's nothing that would survive a merge into a parent article on railways in the USA (which is not linked from here) and the list is shorter than on some articles about individual amtrak routes (which are also unlinked from here). The current list is actually a list of cities, and almost wholly incomplete. If you want a long list of stations perhaps a category would be better - it would certainly be easier to keep current & accurate. Referring to Railway stations by country hardly helps, as many of those have even worse problems than Railway stations in the United States. If somebody were really willing and able to write and maintain a meaningful list of railway stations in the United States, I would happily say keep, but I think that is not the case. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what the purpose of having this article would be. Actually including every railway station in the United States would make the article both unmanageable and too large to be of much use (List of Amtrak stations is already quite large, and adding a bunch of commuter rail and rapid transit stations would make this a monstrosity). Listing major stations only is impossible without a consistent and useful standard of what a "major" station is, which probably doesn't exist (using ridership, for example, would result in a list consisting mostly of rapid transit/commuter rail stations and leave out systems which don't track ridership). It also shouldn't be an index of smaller lists of railway stations; this would make it redundant to List of railway stations, which is already more of an index (albeit a poor one for the US), and this function is better served by categories anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Muehlenbeck[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO . simply being a city manager is not enough. he gets gnews hits but more for statements he's said representing the city, not actual coverage about him as a person like education, career achievements etc. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. City manager is way too down the line of government hierarchy to be considered notable. Especially if the city involved isn't a major metropolis like New York City. There are sources from local media mentioning him, but none of them specifically focus on him, as is required by WP:RS. Either way, the subject doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO for politicians, which requires that local leaders underneath the mayor must usually be "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city".--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A man doing a job. In fact, if he's Deputy CM at Austin as well, doing two jobs. (Unless that means he's upping and offing in the near future...) No real notability shown, and in fact unreferenced in any outside source. Is a City Manager a politician? They aren't elected (at least, our equivalents aren't), and if they are anything like ours are usually in battle with the politicians as to who actually runs the place. Whatever, non-notable. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not. But as WP:BIO does not have a notability guideline specifically for "City Managers", the politicians guideline, which does discuss what to deal with the direct subordinates of people who are elected officials, will have to do. :)--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Gui[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Dian[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shui Sheng[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Fang[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other similarly named people. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Zhaozhong[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other people also named "Zhang Zhaozhong". 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Bing[edit]

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

Avoid confusion with other people also named "Luo Bing". 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-official languages of Singapore[edit]

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

WP:OR. Anything meaningful can be covered in Languages of Singapore. I'm suggesting deletion rather than redirection as this is an obscure title and there's only one inbound link. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly dubious that anyone will be searching for "Non-official languages of Singapore" as opposed to "Languages of Singapore", so a redirect isn't neccessary.--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I too doubt that anyone would search for the title, but you you never know. I can't see anything of value here that isn't in Languages of Singapore already. Peridon (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object. As a representative of the authors of this page, we would like to say that this particular article is still in the process of being built and thus we request more time to provide more information on the topic. We believe that issues concerning Non-official languages of Singapore deserve more attention than is given under the Languages of Singapore page - for example, dialectal issues are small paragraphs in various articles concerning Singapore and her language policies. Also, we welcome suggestions for a more appropriate title change to the page. --Veldakhoo (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something here, but why don't you just add the extra info to the existing article where people are far more likely to see it? My suspicious mind wonders if a point is being made by the creation of this article, and recommends looking at WP:POINT. I know if I wanted to know the languages of Singapore, I wouldn't type in 'non-official'. Peridon (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I have read WP:POINT and believe that what we plan to talk about, including the treatment and spread of such languages in Singapore have too little information on Wikipedia. While we are definitely putting the issue under the spotlight by writing an article on it, I sincerely believe we are not disrupting Wikipedia to prove something. In the upcoming couple of days we will be putting up some more content and perhaps you could judge from that? Also, we plan to arrange information on the Languages of Singapore page to better organise the content there now about Chinese, Malay and Indian dialects. These 'dialectal' issues would then be too huge to be added on to the existing page. However, we do agree that 'non-official' might not be a good enough link to the page that we're creating - yet for lack of a better word we're still using it at the current moment. --Veldakhoo (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the draft we are currently working on - we aim to get it to a standard that is acceptable to us before pushing it to the main page. As you can see, issues covered in this article are not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia's articles on Singaporean languages. We believe that this is adequate to push for a separate article on the topic. --Veldakhoo (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Bi[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. "A Bi" can refer to anyone with a "Bi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duan Zhengming[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. Duan Zhengming is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Shengtai[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. Gao Shengtai is a real historical person. Even though he appears in a work of fiction, redirecting the page to the characters list will make readers think that he is also a fictional character. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Zi[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. "A Zi" can refer to anyone with a "Zi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Zhu[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. "A Zhu" can refer to anyone with a "Zhu" in his/her name. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A'Ke[edit]

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

As per A Ke. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Qi[edit]

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

As per A'Qi. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A'Qi[edit]

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

Not a useful redirect. A'Qi can refer to any person who has a "Qi" in his/her name. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Xifan[edit]

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

This redirect is misleading. Feng Xifan is a real historical person. Even if he appears in a work of fiction, this page should not redirect to the list of characters, because readers will get the wrong idea that he is a fictional character. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close as discussion should be held at redirects for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Kun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This redirect isn't very useful, as Cheng Kun can be a common Chinese name. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Wuxia novel character's name. 暗無天日 _{contact me (聯絡)} 06:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ice (group)[edit]

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

This group is not notable. They have one album. The only sources given are the myspace group for the group. Wlmg (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice-T. A collaboration between Ice-T and anyone else merits a mention somewhere.--Michig (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) A mention there that the two collaborated on this mixtape should be sufficient.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A mention in the Ice-T article would suffice. As for merging other than the track listings, the whole article is two sentences so... Wlmg (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 5 October 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, 10 October 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, Jujutacular ^talk 05:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The collaboration of Ice-T with Black Silver as the group Black Ice as well as their album Urban Legends is already mentioned in the Analog Brothers article. So this article need not be merged.Wlmg (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McElroy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Following seems to be sufficient to me:
- NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/technology/personaltech/15basics.html
- CNN Money-http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/07/07/n_broken_iphone_fixer.cnnmoney/
- Ianacion (Argentina Newspaper)-http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1254991
- Manilla Bulletin-http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/254957/how-fix-your-iphone-unofficial-edition

bpamac (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2010 (EST) — bpamac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Above links #1, #3, and #4 are all from the same NYT writer. Brief public interest story does not demonstrate "enduring notability". Lots of information in the article cannot be verified with the references and links supplied (e.g. date of birth, middle name), so I suspect possible WP:COI. Location (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point of links #1,#3,#4 is to demonstrate the worldwide interest of this topic by showing that it has been published by reliable and significant sources worldwide. Mr McElroy is of interest to the tech community, and a wave of similar operations seemed to come out of the woodwork after the Times piece. His middle name and date of birth can be viewed on his facebook page, and both the NYT and CNN verify his age. There are many other publications that mention Mr McElroy and Dr Brendan. Would it seem that a Dr Brendan page would be more appropriate?
- Swiss Miss - http://www.swiss-miss.com/2010/02/dr-brendan.html
- MacGasm - http://www.macgasm.net/2010/03/24/dr_brendan/
- Thrillist - http://www.thrillist.com/east-village/dr-brendan-iphone-repair
- The Inkwell - http://jrcreativeink.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/brendan-mcelroy-iphone-doctor/

Bpamac (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or reconfigure: at most the refs establish notability for the business, not the person. Hairhorn (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Media Month[edit]

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

Non-notable event organized by a non-notable group. Google could not find anything on this group aside from a primary source (press release). It appears that the creator may have a conflict of interest with the topic; see the conflict of interest noticeboard (section BONN) for more details. Netalarm^talk 04:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence supporting notability. The COI discussion is here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than press releases by the BONN Group itself there is no information available for this website and event. Alexa rating is non-existent, which means essentially no traffic at all. Fred Talk 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news hits, no regular hits, no notability, so no page. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University Professor (Columbia)[edit]

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

Article is an uncited list of full time current faculty at Columbia. I can't find secondary sources to support the position of University Professor at Columbia anymore notable than any other job elsewhere. The prod remover said it passed WP:PROF, but since the article isn't about professors but a position which professor hold, I don't see how that guideline is relevant. TM 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. This is a valid navigational tool, I think, but it should be called something like List of University Professors at Columbia University. That's a little wordy, but accurate, I think. ~~Finite~~ Coherent list, notable contents, finite length, useful function. It's missing some sort of note on sourcing. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge and redirect to List of Columbia University people?--TM 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable rank at famous university. I'd retitle as Carrite suggests. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombshell (Transformers)[edit]

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

No evidence of major coverage on CNN and CBS news, MSNBC, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that seems to be a skewed view of the world, does everything have to make it onto US TV news to get an article? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Transformers. There are several such lists, so merge to the appropriate one, or a new one. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Insecticons. I don't see how a Transformers character would have to be covered on TV news to be notable. JIP | Talk 06:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poorly-phrased nomination, but the gist is sound; we need to see coverage in reliable sources to justify these sorts of articles. As there are none to be found for this or the dozens of transformer articles that have already been deleted, the choice here is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons or Delete lack of reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to the article about Insecticons. NotARealWord (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons. No point keeping it, no point deleting it. --Divebomb (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Insecticons. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrapnel (Transformers)[edit]

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

No reliable coverage on CNN, CBS news, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This character shows no notability, only important within the franchise. Can serve better in corresponding character lists. Sarujo (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a character list per SarujoSadads (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that seems to be a skewed view of the world, does everything have to make it onto US TV news to get an article? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Transformers. There are several such lists, so merge to the appropriate one, or a new one. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Insecticons. I don't see how a Transformers character would have to be covered on TV news to be notable. JIP | Talk 06:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Insecticons. The arguement that CNN isn't covering a fictional character is a bit flawed. They don't generally cover fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poorly-phrased nomination, but the gist is sound; we need to see coverage in reliable sources to justify these sorts of articles. As there are none to be found for this or the dozens of transformer articles that have already been deleted, the choice here is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Insecticons.Dwanyewest (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think some people here are deliberately misunderstanding the original point. It doesn't have to be on the TV news, its just that the examples used here were TV news outlets. The point is that there is NO coverage from outside the franchise and its fandom, whether on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, in books, or any other medium. You know, RELIABLE 3rd party sources. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well in that case the nominator is pretty fond of those examples. So far, he's used them in every Transformers AFD he's participated in. --Divebomb (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc (in all their comments). This does not have the level of notability, as far as I can tell, to have Shrapnel {Transformers) as a search term (that is, as a redirect). Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to the article about Insecticons. The other Shrapnel was never actually seen, so he doesn't really matter. NotARealWord (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insecticons. There's no point deleting it, and there's no point keeping it. If I may borrow Tarc's phrasing, the choice here is pretty clear. --Divebomb (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is moving one un-notable subject to another un-notable subject suppose to be a better solution? Sarujo (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do you know that the other subject is also non-notable? This tendency to make broad judgements about the notability of certain topics annoys me. --Divebomb (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because both this character and the insecticon pages do not show things critical and real world impact. Things that do make up notability. Their just random characters in a story. And I ask that you compose yourself a little more tactfully in your comments. Sarujo (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment That's a rationale for improvement, not deletion. Reliable sources are out there for a lot of these characters. We just need to find them. --Divebomb (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I'm not quite sure if the Insecticons as a whole are non-notable, it could be one of those articles that are just badly written/sourced, instead of being a truly non-notable subject.

Most Transformers articles are so badly sourced people can't tell the difference. Thats what happens when fancruft is left to run wild.
— Dwanyewest, the reply to a comment of mine on the Transformers Wikiproject talk page

-NotARealWord (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I know of at least one third-party source that talks about the Insecticons, so it's not like they're one of those random obscure characters that no one outside the fandom cares about. --Divebomb (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please stop bickering and just get on with deleting this thing. This topic gets no play in the real world. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purpose of AfD discussions is not to "get on with deleting this thing" but to form a consensus on whether an article should be deleted. Currently it looks like many people here want the article to be merged to Insecticons. JIP | Talk 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Insecticons as a whole are an (somewhat) important subgroup. I'd prefer merging or redirecting since they're not completely trivial characters. NotARealWord (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Insecticons per Sarujo and request checkuser on afd nominator per past precedent with banned sockpuppet nominating transformers articles with similarly weak deletion rationales en masse. Vodello (talk)
- Take it to SPI --Divebomb (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - I don't have a problem with a merge as the article does not have enough to deserve a solo article but can be redirected somewhere useful. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not familiar enough with the current situation to know which banned account this new user is. I request that someone else take this to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and possibly ~~include User:Divebomb~~inconclusive that "new" editor is banned sock as he is also a new account that has mass-nominated Transformers articles and carries the same traits of a previously banned sock. Vodello (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architexa[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, non-notable company. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did compete in a notable competition, but did not win it. Sounds a lot like an advertisement, and the creator of the article, User:Vineet Sinha MIT, likely has a conflict of interest, as his account was devoted primarily to the writing of the nominated article.--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Account was created after MassChallenge had multiple news stories with no entry in Wikipedia. My conflict of interest has been that I took part in the contest. Of the 110 Companies that were finalists, Architexa and 25 others went on to split the $1M dollar. Given that enormity of the program and how few startups made to the end of this largest incubator program, I felt that they were worthy of inclusion. I have requested information of the 24 other companies and have intended to put them up, but I can stop if you feel it is not appropriate. Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vineet, the best way to improve the article, IMO is to include in it the history of Relo and your doctoral dissertation and other published (and peer-reviewed) papers. The tool is really more important to readers than your company, though you can mention your company's name in passing. I think this article deserves to be kept, but you need the right focus (software, not company). — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds good. Will enter information on Relo as well. The secondary question is - should I get the other companies that went past the Final stage to the award stage to have an entry on Wikipedia? (getting the information here is work - and I would only do it if it makes sense) -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not necessarily; we're not really interested in other companies (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -it may be that they shouldn't exist either). We're mostly interested in seeing how this company conforms to our notability guidelines - namely WP:CORP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I am working on doing a significant rewrite, to not only increase the above concern but to also address above recommendations. Please give me 2-3 days. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly Updated based on above recommendations - shows the notability of the company from the technical perspective. I can easily add more nice parts (like pictures, logos, other information), but my goal really is to first make sure that the content meets the basic needs here. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've added content, but you have not added more independent sources - I checked the sources in your new content and they appear to be papers written by you. It is the sources that are lacking, not the content. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are peer-reviewed at the top conferences within the field and have been referenced by others multiple times. The citations were meant to be the authoritative pieces and have significant discussion on details on each topic. -- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but the notability guideline for companies says: 'A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both 'Architexa in MassChallenge' and the technical publications have been cited in reliable and independent sources. Sorry, I am just not sure what part I am loosing you at. --- Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"independent of the subject". It's great that other people have cited your papers, and that they are peer reviewed certainly means they are reliable. But we need at least two totally unrelated people who have written a non-trivial amount of coverage on your company. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These papers that have been cited are the core of the company. The citations are almost always non-trivial and by unrelated people. Perhaps this might help. To give two examples, I pulled in two articles from the linked pages that should meet your criteria: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1134285.1134428 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2007.12 - Vineet Sinha MIT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The first article you list's mention is in the related work section, which reads 'Relo builds and automatically manages a visualization mirror of the developer’s mental model, allowing them to group viewed artifacts or use the viewed items to ask the system for further exploration suggestions.' This doesn't mention your company at all, and even if we were discussing an article about Relo specifically I think this would be a trivial mention. The second article you list has even less, it just includes the name 'Relo' in a laundry list of related work without any description. Again, this is what we mean by a 'trivial mention'. Do you have any sources that are about the company? A newspaper article, or a profile in a trade magazine, perhaps? - MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mermaid[edit]

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

Although there are several links for various topics covered in the article to which the subject may be related to, there are no reliable sources that cover "Melissa Mermaid." Thus the article does not satisfy WP:BIO. Oore (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article fails to establish notability. Individual lacks GHITs and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and COI concerns.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any evidence that the subject is a notable person. Wikipedia is not a webhost for Mermaid to write her autobiography. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as non-notable, lacking reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be one reliable source--the article in Obesity Help. Admittedly it was written by the subject (as was much of the Wikipedia article) but that's okay since the publisher is independent. Probably a delete, but not without hope if additional reference, preferably truly independent, can be found.Ma^t_chups 18:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that article contributes to her notability at all though, as it's still a primary source. I should have specified that I meant no reliable secondary sources in my nomination. Oore (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant vanity page - almost every article under "Published articles" is self-published (all you need to do to "publish" on newsvine is sign up), no secondary sources attest notability, and, oh yeah, the article was written almost entirely by "Mpthemermaid." Roscelese (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd C. Bayne[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate that fails WP:BIO. The article's references are not sufficient to establish notability and a search didn't reveal more than passing mentions of Cantor's refusal to debate him. Gobonobo ^T ^C 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobono this article isn't about Cantor not debating. It is about the very notable Floyd who has dozens of search pages with many secondary source News Papers and Tv stations interviewing him about the race. J. D. Hunt (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. When the article says "family man" in the opening sentence you know it doesn't have much going for it. A fringe candidate who should be redirected to the election page as WP:POLITICIAN explicitly prescribes. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7 per Mkativerata. Precedent in other articles of the same substance suggests that this is the appropriate action (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). Three of the five sources are from the subject's own website and the other two are from a local paper in the context of routine election coverage. Location (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) edited 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No notability exists or is likely. Ray^Talk 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this opinion. Notability exists, as others have pointed out (below). Squ1rr3l (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please. Third party candidate who manages a press writeup or three, but has no chance of election? This is the very thing WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:POLITICIAN were set up to prevent. Give him a sentence or so in the article on the election proper, and get rid of it. Ray^Talk 16:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ray quit embarasing yourself. You are showing that you are either biased with an agenda to delete this article or you can't read Floyd Bayne has dozens of writeups in many different newspappers and has been on all the District Television stations. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This candidate is very notable. When you search his name at least 20 search pages on Google from various third party sources come up. He is sited in articles that are from papers all over this district, as well as mentions in major national websites like Redstate.com, and there are even international articles about about Mr. Bayne and his part in the race. J. D. Hunt (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Bayne has been covered twice by one of the district's most watched televison WTVR CBS News 6 here and here, and featured on the other bigest WWBT NBC News 12 here. WRVA, the Districts top talk/news/political station has had Floyd featured on the Morning Show at least once and the Most listened to Afternoon Show with Doc Thompson Twice; here is one and here is the other one. This is from Mr Bayne's News Blog, but it gives a list of many independent news sources that talk about Floyd Bayne in the Virginia 7th District Race right here. And I am sure he only listed the ones he considered faltering to himself, because there are additional many unflattering ones about him. He was also invited and appeared as a guest to the first annual Virginia Tea Party Convention alongside Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and many other Tea Party notables. If you guys say this guy isn't notable then you must be working for Cantor. I don't see you wanting to delete Rick Waugh, democrat's Wikipedia page and he is less notable than Floyd Bayne. J. D. Hunt (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake on Waugh's page the last time I checked there was no attempt to delete Ricks page. J. D. Hunt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Waugh. Location (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide informational sources? To delete a person (Floyd Bayne) who has attained significant media coverage, and who has the attention of thousands of people who Floyd has spoken too and the people who have sought him out researching who he is, in my opinion lessons Wikipedia's purpose. I understand Wikipedia not listing someone like me who has been covered and interviewed by the media many times. But Floyd Bayne could be the next elected Representative of hundreds of thousands of People. Plus there are only 12 more days until the Congressional Election. To delete Floyd Bayne now, put's his opponents with a higher advantage. Deleting Floyd Bayne could also be in violation of Federal Election Laws since Wikipedia could be considered, if it is not already, a news source which I believe would fall into the category of having to follow Federal Election Laws that require equal time and coverage for ALL CANDIDATES. Joe Cacciotti— 98.191.6.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

The equal-time rule applies to broadcast media; however, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or advertising platform for political candidates anyway. (See Wikipedia:Five pillars.) Location (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is arguing that Wikipedia is a soapbox or advertising platform for political candidates? We are arguing that he is notable. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the subject is notable is one thing; the argument that the subject must be granted "equal time and coverage" assumes that Wikipedia is a platform for election candidate biographies. It is not. Location (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This candidate is significant and notable. As a "tea party" type candidate who is challenging the 2nd most powerful Republican representative in the Federal government, Bayne has received a significant amount of coverage, and has drastically altered the political conversations in Virginia. His challenge to Eric Cantor, Republican Whip in the House of Representatives, has forced the incumbent to dramatically alter his plans for the election season, which were initially to promote his book and his party as he easily won re-election in his 70% conservative district. Instead the candidate has been spending resources and time to defend his seat. That means the dialog on the national level has also been changed by this candidate. There is ample and significant press coverage of this candidate to justify his inclusion in this category. Squ1rr3l (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was not. He is a candidate of the Independent Green Party and got on the ballot by petition. [41] --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is functionally the same as a merge - anybody who wishes to can merge from the article history. Discussions about whether an article should exist on its own tend to come here. And this one clearly doesn't. Ray^Talk 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, imo the person who does the redirect has the moral responsibility to merge the material before doing the redirect, particularly so close to the election date. It's disingenuous to the election date is immaterial in the case of election-related articles. At Wikipedia we Assume Good Faith, and that's part of it. Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Generally a candidate is considered non-notable if the only news coverage s/he gets is about the election, that is, the "horse race". But Bayne has been the subject of at least one in-depth article specifically about him, in the Richmond Times Dispatch, a Reliable Source. That kind of coverage is unusual for a third-party candidate and might push him over the line to notable. All the rest of the "references" cited are to his website, and I couldn't find anything significant at Google News. If J.D. Hunt knows of "many secondary source News Papers and Tv stations interviewing him", now is the time to show us links to those interviews. If the consensus is non-notable, then redirect per usual practice; that will preserve the article's history so it can be recreated if he wins or becomes more notable in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, the article is entirely in the context of the election. The headline is "Opponent criticizes Cantor's TARP support." For me, this is far below the bar of significant coverage required by GNG if a candidate fails WP:POLITICAN. Your mileage may vary, but I think this is an insignificant fringe candidate who's managed maybe one or two press writeups in a very political year. Ray^Talk 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray you are wrong this article does not qualify as non-notable 96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray do you know how to use Google? This candidate has gotten more than one write up in more than a dozen papers, as well as a write up in national, frequently sited redstate.com, and international press stemming from him being the only candidate for the Virginia Tea Party Convention with Lou Dobbs and other tea party notables. Dude I am trying to assume good faith, but you are not looking at proof of notability, which is leading me to think you have a dog in this race aka an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ray many have given links to many top TV Stations in the state that have covered Mr. Bayne.96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7. He will be notable if he wins.The Eskimo (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Delete and Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 7 under WP:BLP1E, the 1E being his being a losing candidate. Abductive (reasoning) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, he isn't a losing candidate the election isn't decided. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will bet you one miillllion dollarssss. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

How was this deleted there were more keep (no deletes) than deletes.This is supposed to be voted on. the ones with the most votes wins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.59.55 (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann catch phrases[edit]

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

Classic WP:ISNOT, Transwiki what can be to wikiquote but delete this as it is not encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as aggregation of trivia. Inherently POV-laden and sure to open up the floodgates for other collections of political blather if allowed to stand. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unencylopedic collection of point of view information. --Crunch (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiQuotes. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite and Crunch.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olbermann's repeated contributions to common American English speech patterns deserves front line exposure. Certainly he is notable and his nearly thirty year history of contributing to the language is also notable. The word "political" and "POV" exposes the intent of the opposition here. Because Olbermann is currently a major political commentator with a daily national TV show, he will attract his enemies who wish to see his perspective minimized (or can I better word that as censored). It is because of that exposure that also makes his catch phrases so commonly repeated, thus a popular subject to be covered in an article. Almost half of this article are what have become common sports phrases which he is credited as originating, which he has now adapted into his political oriented commentary. While all of my contributions to this article are sourced (obviously there are other people recognizing the significance of the subject), it is the unifying effect of a WP article that brings the divergence of this subject into coherence. I have transferred the content to the far less noticed wikiquote site, but that still serves to diminish its ability to be improved by other editors. Sarcasto (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds after posting the above, I was warned for WP:AGF. I don't think there is any clearer indication of the political intent of this nomination than that. Above I am clearly pointing out the political/POV nature of the arguments against. They used the words. Sarcasto (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm well to Olbermann's left. I just take NPOV very seriously and understand that allowing this to stand will provide a rationale for similar pages for every right wing mass media wingnut that comes down the pike. I can appreciate where you're coming from, it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please Assume good faith as the nominator I can say it's not about Olberman's Polictics, This article is an Original Synthesis with no WP:RS thus failing Verifiability The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are eleven sources to the article, though several are heavily relied upon. There is no synthesis in the article. Aside from the lede, no conclusions are drawn at all. Its a list; with, as noted, sources that corroborate Olbermann as the origin for these usages. Sarcasto (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as to not take up unnessecary space here i have added my reasoning more in depth to the talk page of the article The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at 19 sources and counting--including the NY Times. Sarcasto (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is you have only verified he has used catch phrases as every TV personality does none of those source specifically cover his use of catch phrases other than in passing. Every quote you have there is so poorly sourced I am unsure if its a BLP violation to carry them. Its not the number of sources that matter its the quality an content of the sources as 13 of those 18 are clearly not Reliable in any capacity while 3 more are of questionable reliability The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). One of the two main sources, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CountdownWithKeithOlbermann, does not appear to be a reliable source, and the other is also questionable: http://www.sportscenteraltar.com/phrases/phrases.asp As others have said above, this is trivia. Will Beback talk 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not encyclopedic; more appropriate for WikiQuote, perhaps not even there. While Olbermann may be notable, these phrases are not. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. No reason to retain. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a paragraph to Keith Olbermann, Delete the rest. The sources used in an attempt to establish some sort of notability [42], [43], [44] & [45] show there is a gap in wikipedia's coverage on Olbermann. However, the sources aren't specifically about his catchphrases and would be better incorporated into the Olbermann article. The sources then used to cite each quote are, to be honest, an embarrassment – sometimes I'm glad my real name is not linked with wikipedia! Sources such as facebook pages, TV trope wiki pages, urbandictionary.com and the user-generated sportscenteraltar.com all fail WP:RS and cannot indicate notability. There is also the previously mentioned trivia issue. Bigger digger (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. This is for Wikiquote. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Olbermann is known for his commentary and his politics, but that does extend to notability for his word choice. No reliable sources dedicate substantial attention independent of the purpose of those words in a wider context. And as a means of judging the Wikipedia community standard for this topic, even the use of language by people who have been remembered for it for decades -- Yogi Berra, for example -- doesn't rise to the level of a separate article. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran a bunch of these individual quotes through Google, there are a lot of repititions and references to them. The overwhelming number of references by less than reliable sources should count for something. One or two might indicate weakness, but dozens to hundreds of them? Seriously. Olbermann is a hot subject for the blogs, his phraseology being attacked or praised. He is currently political in nature, but does show a 30 year history of this kind of thing. It is an important element to his style and a proper adjunct to his main article. I would also allow Merge as an option, as was suggested has been done to the opposing political viewpoint with Rush Limbaugh. As I searched, this is the only congealed collection of all, or what purports to be all, of his catch phrases on the internet. It would be a shame to lose this work. OsamaPJ (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is just a directory of catch phrases made by Rush Limbaugh. No sources discuss them in detail. The article has not enough content outside the catch phrases. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It purports to be nothing more than catch phrases, its a list. That's what a list is. It sure seems like he, Keith Olbermann not Rush Limbaugh, has a legacy of creating such catch phrases. The sources, many of them credible sources, do make mention of these catch phrases. Its not the primary subject of the articles, but the articles revolve back to the same subjects. NY Times article, I'd call that a reliable source, is all about the lingo. Spin magazine is a major publication, the catch phrases get several paragraphs. The Saint Petersburg Times, again a reliable daily newspaper, hit the best quote in their article.

"Olbermann and Patrick wrote a top-selling book, The Big Show, and their catch-phrases became instant classics, repeated the following morning around watercoolers across the country."

It couldn't be said better. Even the National Review takes issue with the names Olbermann is calling. Its a note-worthy subject. I think this much material will make the main article too long, so I strongly suggest we keep this article instead of merge. Trackinfo (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But we need sources for his catchphrases, which are generally not available in WP:RS. Merging a paragraph into the main article will not make it too long. Bigger digger (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from some of the sources, that MSNBC posts a transcript of each show. Do they do that every day for a daily show? If he uses the phrases regularly, that should be documented in the transcripts. I would assume MSNBC to be a reliable source. Since he works for the (major) network, would that be considered self-published? How much volume would be required to show regular or repeated use of a particular phrase. The article claims that the better documented sports phrases have carried over into the political show. That should be able to be documented by such transcripts. It certainly appears that the less than reliable sources itemize and repeat things he has said. Does that help draw additional attention to the importance of each phrase? As opposed to the other regular, "and's", "the's" and other common English language words he would use in every day speech. Certainly the fact that it is being repeated in blogs does emphasize some notoriety to each phrase. How much of all this stuff is really needed just because this is a proposed AfD, as opposed to the sourcing on a normal article (which is generally much less than is already present in this article)? Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of them from the MSNBC transcripts. From the rough sampling, these appear to be available there. Trusting the blogs, if challenged, I believe the majority, if not all, of these items could be sourced from the transcript. WP:RS is not justification to delete the article. Trackinfo (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the argument is whether he said them, it's whether they're notable. Transcripts don't prove notability, they just record what was said, and no editor is suggesting he didn't say these things. Find sources that comment on them. The current article is a complete mess, but I'll have a better look closer to the close to see if the sourcing establishes that Keith Olbermann catch phrases are notable. Bigger digger (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring some phrase to be a "catchphrase" and notable simply on the basis of its appearance in a transcript of the man's show is original research. In order to meet WP:RS without being WP:OR, you'll have to find reliable secondary sources that analyze those transcripts and declare the phrases to be "catchphrases" or otherwise notable. A Wikipedia editor cannot take it upon themselves to declare something a "catchphrase" simply because it is pithy or used repeatedly. You have to show cultural context, and that is done through secondary sources. That's true whether this is a paragraph, an article, or a list. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki - there is no content except his quotes. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life in USA[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. No links, and apparently no Ghits to "The Big Movement" which it is assumed to be based on. Is 'said' to be in pre-production.Too many unknowns:

... is unknown when are the references were made.
It is not known...
...is said that it might be produced
…is an upcoming animated series

Although this is about a TV(?) series, I suggest that either WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALL, or both, applies here]] Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Disney darlings Demi Lovato, the Sprouse Twins and Selena Gomez on a NICK show? Sorry, will never happen, and George Lopez is exclusive to Turner so he can't do anything with them either. Complete bollocks. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good nomination with decent BEFORE. Project covered only in Wiki mirrors. It definitely smells of WP:HOAX... and at the best, it fails WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the same user also created two articles, Nickelodeon Marathon and Cartoon Cartoons the Movie, which I've prodded for the same reasons. In the absence of any verifiable evidence of notability (or even existence) in reliable sources, all three articles are quite clearly sitting somewhere along the line between WP:CRYSTAL and outright WP:HOAX. Delete this too. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear hoax. A majority of the listed actors are currently in production of other full time shows, and as was mentioned above, there are contract issues. Also, the combined price to cast all these people makes the show economically improbable. Too many clear issues. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ok, this one gets the hat trick. Delete per consensus, delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP, delete per CSD A7 as IoS is not asserted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Urwin[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable high school athlete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't crack the Rivals.com top 150 list [46], no need to drag this out. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE etc. The user who created this article is clearly Urwin himself, and there isn't anything of substance in the article other than unsubstantiated puffery and self-promotion. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete per the above. Likely self-promotion. Location (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons In Violence[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. despite the claims in the article, nothing in gnews [47]. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source in the article is a start but they lack the coverage needed for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BAND or WP:GNG, axe the page. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE Alexf^(talk) 18:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adams (Actor) (News Professional)[edit]

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

1. Individual is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Google seaerch turned up nothing, nor did an IMDB search. The only resource listed it the person's website. 2. The editor who created the page is "ActorMedic", which leads me to believe that this is the same person and created their own Wiki page. Neonblak ^talk - 01:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - db-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear A7 speedy, tagged as such. Secret ^account 17:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus here that the sources provided by Cirt are sufficient to establish notability. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rodriguez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially the subject of the article received passing mentions in the press in the summer of 2005 for her appearances with Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. The coverage was more or less celebrity gossip stories which mention her briefly with no significant coverage about Rodriguez. At the time, Cruise and Holmes were being discussed widely in the media. Otherwise Rodriguez's name appears occasionally in press release type statements as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology. Again, there is no real coverage of her in these news articles beyond mentioning her name in passing. I was ready to speedy delete the article because I don't really see a claim for notability. But I noticed that it had prior Afd. So here we are.... FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to searches for "Jessica Rodriguez" [48], and "Jessica Feshbach Rodriguez" [49] [50], there are WP:RS sources under other search terms, including "Jessica Feshbach" [51], and "Jessica Davis" [52], and additionally received coverage in meeting as official representative of Scientology organization, for example when celebrity member Larry Anderson attempted to request to get his money back [53] [54]. I will get started on improving the article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Improvements to the article currently ongoing. I will post updates here. Will start by going through some source research, and probably do a rewrite using WP:RS secondary sources, from scratch on the article page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing exists, although I wouldn't be opposed to an editorial merge to a list of scientology officials. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen a source that does more than mention her in passing? And have you found a reliable source about her status as a high official in Scientology? The Fox News article couches their claim by saying it comes from unnamed groups that monitor CoS. That is hardly a reliable source for documenting someones position. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 03:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the page to "Jessica Feshbach" from "Jessica Rodriguez", it seems per most recent WP:RS secondary source coverage that this is the name used for this individual [55]. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, I have expanded and sourced the page a bit, see changes - compare prior version before sourcing efforts [56], and current version, post research and expansion [57]. Still in the process of doing some additional research on the subject. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cirt has addressed any doubts as to notability (even if overkill), though perhaps original article was questionable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the complaints in the nomination have now been thoroughly addressed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosgeologiya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. NOTE: This is a relisting, the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya. That was closed 'No consensus', but should almost certainly have been closed 'delete' and the closing admin agrees here, but we felt relisting made sense due to age of that, and the changes in AFD rules. Chzz ► 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are enough sources[58][59], so it's clearly a real and serious proposal. But WP is not a crystal ball. We should create the article after the company has been created. (Which will apparently happen in two years.) Offliner (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If sources exist demonstrating notability of this proposal then there is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that precludes our having an article about it. There are plenty more potential sources here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. It's too late for me to get my head around my very rusty Russian tonight (I haven't used it in anger for over 30 years), so I'll leave it for now to others to evaluate those sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Russian, and if sources back things up, sure, great; I was going by the comment on the previous AFD, really, stating True crystal; as of June 16, 2010 there were vague plans to form it "within two years" (in Russian). Just another govt scam. East of Borschov 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Chzz ► 05:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the article for now and wait until the company is created or until its creation draws nearer. Proposals can change fast, and there's a big risk a little known article like this will at some point just end up containing obsolete info. Offliner (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 October 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) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an officially announced project, with dozens of good references available in G News from reliable Russian newspapers and trade news sources. The extent of mention can be seen via Google Translate. Among the best ones are [60], [61], and [62], with very full details to expand the article. ROther good ones are [63],[64], [65] ,[66],[67] -- I've checked these, & they are substantial, though there's some duplication. Why should people assume Russian sources are unreadable even by English monoglots? DGG (talk · contribs) 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLxER[edit]

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

Unreferenced, promotional article for a non-notable piece of software. Few reliable sources cover the significance of this software. I've already deleted one section of the article which was confirmed as a copyvio. Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from the talk page of the article creator, User talk:Gianlucadelgobbo, it looks like an article with an identical title was deleted in July? (The current article was created 4 October). The article creator also has the same name as the creator of this software. I see some references to the software on Italian-language sites, but as it is, this article is just a piece of promotion that should be deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written as an advertisement. And while, as Milowent mentioned, there are a few Italian news results, being that they are not in English, the validity of the sources are difficult to gauge. But in the end, an ad is an ad.--Hongkongresident (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional tone, conflict of interest, and notability not shown. Peridon (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austrains[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, fails criteria WP:CORP. Aside from advertising material and discussion forum talk, no online references Alcofan (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconhouse School System (Pakistan)[edit]

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

the notability of this organization is questionable, if not nonexistent. this directory of locations definetly doesn't need its own article. see also the organizations other two articles which have been nominated for deletion as well. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I pointed out at the deletion discussion you started for the main Beaconhouse School System article, this organization's notability is easy to verify. And I strongly recommend that the main Beaconhouse School System article be kept. But I'm not sure the Pakistan branch needs its own article here. It could be useful as a separate article, but at present it's barren. The list of addresses is pointless and should be removed, whether the article stays or goes. I'd be happy to try to add some third-party sources if it looks like this article is going to be kept. AtticusX (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i still maintain my position of delete on this page as per WP:NOTDIR. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I have copied the small amount of salvageable material from this article to Beaconhouse School System's "Pakistan" section, which is probably where it came from in the first place, in preparation for the possible disappearance of this article. The material does work better as part of the main article than in its own article... there's just not enough notable material at present for a whole article about the Pakistan branch of BSS, once you remove all the directory crap. This article space probably should redirect to Beaconhouse School System, especially as BSS seems to have its largest presence in Pakistan. AtticusX (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I realize now that wikipedia is not a directory and such content should be avoided. There is no use for this article. Only a few campuses should be named in the original article which are notable and cited with reliable sources. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 10:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:the main Beaconhouse School System article should be kept. however, wikipedia contains many absurd articles, much worse than this one, which is merely an organization's campuses in a country. Organization's notability is NOT an issue, though. I agree with Farjad --Umar1996 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , but remove the directory information of street address and phone numbers--I started doing this. Combination articles are the way we handle primary schools--and I note the many secondary schools listed here will be individually notable, if anyone cares to make the articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated this when it seemed to be part of a number of spammed articles. redundant articles have since been deleted and some work has been done on this one since with information from the others merged here. my original reasoning for deletion has been satisfied. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lake of Stars[edit]

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

nominating this article to bring attention to it. only the times online ref meets WP:RS, and it could be considered a rather vague if not completely trivial mention at that (most of content refed isn't supported by it). believe article should either be merged as per template on the page or deleted altogether. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect You beat me to it working from the NP backlog. If I had come across it first I would have unilaterally merged and redirected it. It doesn't really need a discussion here :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, you were likewise beating me to the punch on many articles in the NP backlog. by all means go ahead and perform your actions, i will withdraw my AfD. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i withdrew my deletion nomination of this article when the other user said they were going to work on it, it has been many days and no work has happened. the article in its current form is worthy of deletion. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - several good arguments by respected editors go every which way, and I don't see any consensus developing soon. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of African scientists, inventors, and scholars[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list that would run to thousands or tens of thousands of entries. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I also add that this is orphan, unmaintained, has only 2 significant editors (both inactive I think), including the creator who nom'd it for CsD. Parts could perhaps be rescued to seed other, more selective lists, but most of that is already in cat-land. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep A solid aggregation of otherwise standalone articles. I now know some African scientists. Excellent!. As regards the idea that it could run to housands or tens of thousands of entries is fallacious. I'm doubtful if it would run to several pages, but even if it did,it could be categorized and indexed, making it easily manageable, like any other large lists. Clearly notable list, worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 20:06, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
Weak Keep I am not certain that this is a useful reference work, but it is largely harmless. Racepacket (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these scientists, inventors, and scholars don't really have anything in common other than being African; I don't see the point of listing them together in the same article—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. It's exactly as discriminating as everything in Wikipedia. I think the list should be divided , when we have more articles, but it's a start. What it does need now is either alphabetization or careful chronological arrangement. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 17 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The list is not indiscriminate, but I think it would make more sense to divide it in half, with one list for scientists and inventors and the other for scholars. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Done properly this is an unmanageably large list. Done like this, it is woefully incomplete. Really, does anyone think that a comprehensive listing of "scientists, inventors, and scholars" for any one country is possible — let alone an entire continent?!? Carrite (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While not enthusiatic about lists that are created from the top level of aggregation, I can see a case of having a list restricted to the times preceding current African nation states. Many entries in the list already date back that much and in that case also 'scientists, inventors, and scholars' may make sense. Most modern science bios are categorized more rigorously by field and/or nationality leaving out the continent level altogether, so even if you want to have lists this would not be a good starting point.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate. if you want to keep this you'll want to List of European scientists, inventors, and scholars. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Insect[edit]

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

I can't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this artist. Hirst and Banksy have verifiably shown interest in his artwork, but this in itself does not confer notability. The article has references; however,

Ref 1 is a passing mention in The Daily Telegraph;
Ref 2 is an en.wikipdia article;
Ref 3 is a passing mention in The New Statesman
Ref 4 is a self-published primary source;
Ref 5 is an en.wikipdia article;
Ref 6 is a Facebook profile;
Ref 7 is a self-published primary source;
Ref 8 is a passing mention in The Guardian;
Ref 9 is a directory listing;
Ref 10 is a mention in another artist's personal website;
Ref 11 is a mention in another artist's personal website.

I admit I am a Street art and Stuckist fan. Please prove me wrong here. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Statesman and Telegraph articles have more than a passing mention, and the SF Chronicle one given by Phil is entirely about him. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't give an opinion above about the disposition of this article because I took the nominator's analysis at face value. I now see that the Daily Telegraph source is far from a passing mention, so along with the San Francisco Chronicle source that I linked above we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think the consensus is that we do not usually keep article on local organizations like this; the references are not substantialisting DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesters Care for Kids[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. absolutely nothing in gnews [68]. 3 of the sources provided are its own website and thus are not third party. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 October 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, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not really convinced either way here, but I was able to find some coverage in something called the Pattaya Mail [69] and a preview of one of the Pattaya People articles already mentioned in the article. There's also a bit on Google Books, which probably doesn't constitute significant coverage but could still be useful. Overall, maybe just the right side of WP:ORG. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill local charity. Meager sources say nothing encyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abductive; doesn't seem to have any non-local coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G&K Services[edit]

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

Non-notable local company; minimal coverage in local paper's business section does not satisfy WP:CORP. Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage to confirm notability.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked this yet in detail but it does not seem to be a mere local company. They're hundred years old with several thousands of employees and seem to be traded at NASDAQ.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete, weakly. This business apparently makes workplace uniforms. There is a fair amount of business page coverage found by Google News. But going through the first several pages of it, all I saw were routine announcements of personnel changes or acquisitions, environmental and labor litigation, or regurgitated press releases. Nothing I found suggested that this business has the sort of historical, cultural, or technical significance needed to sustain an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G&K is not a local company, it is large publicly traded company which operates a national network of industrial laundries as well as manufacturing uniforms. Almost 1,000 hits at Google News archives; the first one is a 1988 profile in USA Today.[70] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:36, 12 October 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) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep long established publicly traded companies are notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Burnett (actress)[edit]

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

Another apparently non-notable subject deprodded by User:The De-PROD Meister - I see no notability here, so bringing to AFD. Michig (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are third-party references in the article covering the subject. Please explain why these doesn't constitute notability. patsw (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ummm ... did you look at those references, or did you just presume "Hey, I see references listed" and leave it at that? Subject fails GNG and WP:N. Ravenswing 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and WP:ENT. The "sources" are links to IMDB, promotional sites and a couple of her commercials and do not establish notability. A Radish for Boris (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 October 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) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close: she's appeared in a handful of television episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panel Edge Staining[edit]

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

A article with no third-party references to assert notability. Wizard191 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I have no doubt that the phenomenon is real, I can't find any evidence that this term is used to describe it in the industry, nor that it's notable. Pburka (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing vote in light of the references found by Colonel Warden and Phil Bridger. Pburka (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is easy - see Corrosion of aluminum and aluminum alloys, for example. The rest is a matter of editing in accordance with our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a loss, I don't see where it says "panel edge staining" in that source. Wizard191 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source talks about the weathering of aluminum siding which is essentially the same topic. Note that it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we cover topics based upon their meaning, not the exact words used to describe them. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about the topic vs. title, but how do we know that "panel edge staining" is the proper term for this phenomenon if we don't have a RS? This definitely doesn't fall under common knowledge. I'm cool with merging the topic into anodizing or aluminum based off the ref you supplied (probably the former more than the latter). Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 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) 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty more coverage of this phenomenon in the book Staining of facades. The main objection to this article seems to be its title, which can easily be changed to something more descriptive such as "Aluminium panel staining". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya CMS[edit]

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

Contested prod. A quick search returns no third party sources. Spiesr (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches reveal no significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- THENEWMONO 23:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources listed, could find none through search AlgebraT (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it It's the CMS of choice for quite a few websites of large institutions. Google lists > 42,000 hits. The latest major version update was covered on the most important German news website, heise.de: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Papaya-5-0-mit-mehr-Performance-und-verbesserter-Skalierung-842907.html 87.78.216.224 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Perhaps the delete-voters don't understand German, but the 3rd party sources are clearly present. Among the 3rd party sources are printed books that are indexed by google and a scientific paper (the later found through google scholar). If you disagree, please explain why you think those are not valid 3rd party sources. RandomUserName (talk) 22:21, 13 October 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) 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources in german to support notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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