Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 7

< 6 November	8 November >

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong kong phonetic alphabet

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

Contested prod. Strange article that claims that (a) Hong Kong children are unusual in learning their ABC as "A for Apple" etc rather than the grown-up ICAO spelling alphabet ("Alpha Bravo Charlie") etc; (b) the particular spelling alphabet listed in the article is the preferred one in Hong Kong (e.g N for Nose, I for Ice Cream, X for Xmas); and of course (c) this is a notable fact that deserves an encyclopaedia article. Do Hong Kong kids call Christmas "Xmas"? Are all other children taught that X is for X-Ray - are the little brutes quite rightly forced to stick to NATO conventions? There are many reasons for deletion but let's start with WP:RS and WP:N - other reasons may suggest themselves to the discerning reader. andy (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D is for Delete I can accept that this might be an element of an alphabet song that Hong Kong students have grown up on (the link is to an exercise routine that uses the lyrics), but the idea that this is a how one communicates with the millions of residents of Hong Kong, or that it's an Alpha-Baker-Charlie for this former British colony... sorry, no. If someone wants to show the existence of a well-known children's song, write an article about the song. Mandsford 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C is for Comment I would hardly expect anyone to use the ICAO spelling alphabet in primary school... Hell, I remember my kindergarten teacher saying "A is for Apple" and I'm not from Hong Kong. I would be very surprised to learn that the Brits going through grammar school are forced to learn the NATO alphabet for their p's and q's. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D for Delete indeed. The article is totally invalid since I taught my kid A IS FOR APPLE like 4 mins ago. In Australia. Holding an apple. Dengero (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Now we can nominate the apple article. Mandsford 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor little mite! Xe'll never learn the lingo right with that kind of parenting. Tell the little feller: A is for arvo. B is for bogan. K is for Kylie. And W is for Westie. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And "X is for xe'll"... I know that was a typo, but I actually knew someone from Taiwan who would pronounce both "he" and "she" as "h-see", consistent with the lack of gender in pronouns in Chinese, and I can imagine spelling that as "xe". Coming soon, a pure OR article called Xe... Mandsford 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see that it's not just Andyjsmith who gets to be surprised with stuff that actually exists. wikt:xe#English. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The world is stranger than we can imagine. So are wikipedia editors. BTW X is for Unknown. andy (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is just complete rubbish on its face. Dr Gloria G. Rodriguez teaches "U is for Umbrella" in Texas. Sarah Louise Arnold was teaching "K for Kite", "O for Orange", and "Q for Queen" in the See and Say series in the 1910s.
And since when did Hong Kong lack the letters 'E' and 'F'? As M. Arnold will inform you, "E" is for "Egg" and "F is for "Flag". (ISBN 9781444641318 pp. 17)
Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My daughter had an Italian friend who told us in all seriousness that her countryfolk, young and old, use the names of cities to spell out words. I would rather like that to be true. andy (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's verifiable, from Proudfoot & Cardo 1997, pp. 437 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFProudfootCardo1997 (help) and Kinder & Savini 2004, pp. 227 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKinderSavini2004 (help) for starters, and you can make the encyclopaedia better by citing those sources in the Italian section of telephone alphabet. The wikitext of this page has the citation templates to use. ☺
    - Proudfoot, Anna; Cardo, Francesco (1997). Modern Italian grammar: a practical guide. Routledge modern grammars. Routledge. ISBN 9780415098502.
    - Kinder, John J.; Savini, Vincenzo M. (2004). Using Italian: a guide to contemporary usage. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521485562.
  - Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, that proves that almost anything strange is probably true. andy (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect ~~to NATO phonetic alphabet in the appropriate section under NATO phonetic alphabet#Additions in other languages~~ to Alphabet song indicating any sourced significant changes. (More appropriate once Andy pointed it out to me) Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? Merge a Chinese kindergarten song with the international alphabet used for aviation, police, military etc? Don't you think that's a tiny bit random? andy (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't say random, but rather not-the-best-fit. They both discussed the same topic, just different aspects of it (military vs. kindergarten). I made changes on my !vote based on your feedback. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (created by mistake anyway, originally I wanted to PROD it, but hit the wrong button). (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Eua Airport

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

no indication of notability Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the only airport of a populated island in the Pacific - airports are absolutely vital in this region - is an indication of notability. Both IATA and ICAO recognized airports. It's even received international coverage [1] and it at least did have commercial flights [2]. Consensus has generally found internationally coded airports to be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Commercial Airport, that happens to be home to one of the shortest domestic flights in the world. It is also the only airport on the island, this seems to meet the general notability criteria, WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry D. Hatcher

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

Unreferenced BLP, I can't find any reliable sources for this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 23:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, created by User:Hatchmania, and not to be confused with Teri Hatcher. Winner of several Missouri turkey calling championships isn't inherently notable, unless someone can "show me" that it is. Mandsford 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri is the "show me state". Bearian (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - winner of a state turkey calling contest is not a serious claim to notability. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, before Thanksgiving if possible. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 9 November 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 Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Lancer

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

Not notable - a minor licence-built variant of the Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama with small differences (two bolt-on rocket pods and an armoured seat) does not really justify a separate article MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Endorse nomination. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough differences for a separate article on the Lancer. Specific details on this variant can and should be covered in the SA 315B article. Looks like a a couple sentences will cover the details, plus about a sentence on operational use, with appropriate references. -fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough of a difference to justify a separate article, merge into Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. - Ahunt (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. I was in two minds about doing the same. In the end i chose the easy option as I wanted to get on with other things.Petebutt (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain it- It is a modified variant where the basic usage of the vehicle is changed. A clear example of a civilian product that is put to a dual use. Further it currently in mass-production where as the production of Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama have stopped years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.143.30 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — 59.94.143.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailte Kelley

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

Possibly non notable musician, passing mention in local news sources, no awards or song that have charted. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A google news search shows some concert announcements in local papers, but that does not establish notability. He has not signed to any major record label, and instead started his own, but has yet to put out an album of any sort as far as I can tell. The article makes the claim that the debut album will be cloming out in 2008. Well, that has long past. Checking into the site for his music publishing venture, it makes the claim that the album will be coming out in summer 2008. So clearly, that venture has gone nowhere. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 9 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oast Theatre, Tonbridge

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

I removed a bunch of copyvio from this a while back, but the fact remains that there seems to be no substantive, independent coverage of this building or the organization that performs there. Google News and Google Books turn up none; and although I haven't plowed through every Google Web link, I'm not seeing anything beyond the usual directory listings, local announcements of performances, and such. This appears not to meet the requirements of WP:N. Deor (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe I have addressed the issues in the nom. Theatre is notable as one of only two converted from oasts, and fairly long history as an independent provincial theatre run by a charity. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikiprojects notified Mjroots (talk)
- I have no desire to gainsay Mjroots's opinion; but lest it be thought that I failed to do my homework, my analysis of the sources currently in the article is that ref 1 is not independent ("Our current buildings [sic] status is a joy to us all ...") and refs 3–6 do not contain "significant coverage" per the GNG. I haven't access at the moment to the work cited in ref 2. Deor (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deor, you've nominated the article in good faith, I've attempted to improve it as best I can with the limited info on the net. The theatre has received extensive coverage over the years in the Kent and Sussex Courier, but that is going to take time to research. It may have received coverage in local history books about Tonbridge too. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is uk.castingcallpro.com not independent of the Oast Theatre? It covers all theatres across the UK, and the actors and actresses that work them. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The text on the Oast Theatre page at that site, which is what you cited as a ref, certainly appears to have been supplied by the theatre group itself, as indicated by the use of the first-person plural (as I quoted in my comment above). Deor (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah yes, seem to have been culled from the Theatre's own website. Whilst third-party sources are preferred, sometimes it is necessary to use first-party sources in the absence of these. I could expand the article from the theatre's own website, but that wouldn't address your nomination reason, would it? Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect ~~to Hildenborough, possibly the entertainment and dining section~~. There's no doubt this is a local landmark, but I can't find any evidence of notability beyond local interest. We could probably sum up all of the encyclopaedic bits in one or two paragraphs. If this theatre regularly receives professional productions, however, I will change to Keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Hildenborough? The theatre has a TN10 3xx postcode (Tonbridge), not a TN11 9xx postcode (Hildenborough). Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, looks like you were misled by incorrect info in the lede, now corrected. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay I'll take your word for it, merge and redirect to Tonbridge, Kent Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily on grounds of the extraordinary preservation of an historic type of building. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:14, 8 November 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan S McIver (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourced now (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Logan

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

Notability, no refs. The Eskimo (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe WP:BEFORE needs to be more prominently presented. First page of Google results includes The Independent and the BBC. Loads of Google News coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Prominent and well-recognised figure (as the term OBE should have indicated). The article was unreferenced, true, but took less time to reference than in my experience it takes to put an article to AfD. AllyD (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and kudos to AllyD for the referencing and expansion. Definitely notable, no question about it. Redfarmer (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is now well-sourced. The subject is not a close relative of mine. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Hightower Smith

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

Article gives no clues as to notability (if he is in the PDC as it says, where is the proof). A google search yields no related pages. —Half Price 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ——Half Price 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have acheived anything of note. Being a member of the PDC does not confer notability since anyone (of any ability) can join, and unless he has played in the latter stages of a major tournament – it appears that he hasn't got past the early rounds of the even most minor tournaments and his name only appears once on the PDC website having reached the last 128 in the JR & Vauxhall 128+ Classic – he fails WP:ATHLETE. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows evidence he's played at the fully professional level. Normally I would accept an organisation with the word "Professional" in the title, but it looks like this is an exception. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euan S McIver

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

Concerns about notability. Sources are a local newspaper, more about Duns and District Amateur Operatic Society than the person, who is only made mention of in passing along with other society members. FYI: Article was recently stub-ified as a cut-and-past from the subjects website. The Eskimo (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom says the only sources are from a local newspaper writing stories about the society -- I see nothing with substantial coverage of the person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to get annoyed by how much stage actors get overlooked, but then I had a look further here. Clearly this person has an agenda to promote himself as heavily as possible. Even established professionals tend to avoid self promotion to that extent on their own websites. Judging from the photos, they look like amateur productions. The list of theatre credits similarly looks suspiciously like it's glossing over them all being amateur productions (and maybe the odd extra in TV programmes). If I can be shown evidence of appearances in professional productions, that might change the balance. For the time being, however, delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Chris N-S about notability criteria for actors, but also that the evidence in this case falls short of any sustainable criteria such as a period of membership of a company notable in its own right. AllyD (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Pena

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

Contested WP:PROD, fourth-choice goalkeeper for AS Roma with no first team appearances throughout his career, he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ATH, as well as WP:GNG. And no, four appearances in a u-19 youth team do not really represent enough for notability. Angelo (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He clearly fails all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:40, 11 November 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) 04:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El-hadhiri

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

Article has been tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person since December 2008. I have been unable to find any sources to support the article. Another editor has also looked. This appears to be unverifiable. Plad2 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I had a go at trying to source this and ran up against a wall of zero sources. I am simply unable to verify that this person exists on the Parliament. I understand that this person would meet the WP:POLITICIAN guideline but we need to first get over the hurdle of meeting the core policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY. I will happily change my !vote if sources can be found. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thanks to Msrasnw for finding the sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have added a ref from the African Union listing [3]. I think members of the Pan-African Parliament are judged notable according to our normal criteria. (An alternative transliteration of his name is : Hon. EL-HOUDERI Mohamed Elmadani [4] )

This page [5] lists him as Hon. Mohamed Elmadani El Houderi Chairperson of the Committee on Education, Culture, Tourism And Human Resources

Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Agree that this is now a Keep. Thank you for providing help with the transliteration--Plad2 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found by Msrasnw. Edward321 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Sokolik

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

Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've removed the Liverpool Senior career entry from the infobox, because he only plays for the reserves. I can also find no evidence that he has played senior football for FC Baník Ostrava. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth player, never played senior football for a senior professional side so fails NSPORTS. only general nature sports journalism coverage. Was WP:G5 speediable as article by sockpuppet of banned user. --ClubOranje^T 09:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:29, 10 November 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. Tone 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hajdu

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

Contested PROD; non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reserve player only. No evidence he ever played a senior pro game for MTK Hungária FC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and again... Youth player, never played senior football for a senior professional side so fails NSPORTS. Only general nature sports journalism coverage. Was WP:G5 speediable as article by sockpuppet of banned user. --ClubOranje^T 09:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: has not yet played in a professional match. Note that creator has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry: long history of creating articles on Liverpool youth players similar to this one. Top Jim (talk) 16:53, 12 November 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. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Lagoon (play)

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

No notability as well as no sources have been noted for over four years since this article was created. User who created article not active since article was created. Rivertown (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information on the play is impossible to locate via Google searching. Absent of reliable sources, deletion seems the only likely route. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been deleted earlier. Must have been missed for some reason. Msw1002 (talk) 01:38, 14 November 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) 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need You (Travie McCoy song)

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

Disputed redirect per WP:NSONGS. no indication that the song is notable outside of the album noq (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Are you serious? I'm not a big fan of Travie McCoy, but this song is a charted single. Where in WP:NSONGS did you miss this? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do people read WP:SK before saying it? What number applies? CTJF83 chat 04:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NSONG, charted. CTJF83 chat 04:36, 10 November 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. Tone 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hillary

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

Autobio article on non notable musician. His big claim to fame is founding an apparently non notable band. Only references are self published sources WuhWuzDat 16:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find objective refs on Google. JNW (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If all we have are sources from the subject, then - given that this is a BLP - we need to delete. Might be different if there were proper, independent sources, but I can find none. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I did find one good reference here. Several more like that would be a different matter, but I don't think one is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a positive reference, but I don't think it looks like a reliable source--appears to be a blog for a music venue, kind of promotional. JNW (talk) 18:42, 8 November 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) 01:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Beagle

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 16:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like many articles on Wiki this one could use more sources, but it already has one secondary source so it is better than many. Though the subject may or may not meet the letter of WP:POLITICIAN before he takes office, he almost certainly meets the WP:GNG and would be notable even if he did not take office for some reason simply by the event of not taking office after being elected. Given the lack of contentious material in the article now, I see little reason to delete it just to recreate it in January. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - he's a state legislator-elect; he's going to be notable, and it's just plain absurd to waste the effort already put into creating this article for a person who is notable under WP:POLITICIAN. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 9 November 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) 01:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Manning

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a clear case where someone will become notable by virtue of an office to be assumed, unless she should die between now and then, and even then I'd still argue for notability as the winner of an election to state-level office. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:37, 8 November 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) 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank LaRose

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

politician, non notable before election, and has yet to take office, so has done nothing notable in office WuhWuzDat 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd just have to re-do the article in two months anyway; not sure what deletion would accomplish, exactly. Subject is notable under our criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been elected to statewide office which makes him automatically notable. The fact that he has not actually assumed the office yet seems like quibbling; as Ultra points out, he will certainly need an article come January. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 14 November 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. Tone 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Supreme (G1)

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

This article appears to fail WP:FICTION as sources appear to be about the Transformers toys and comic strips in general rather than demonstrating that this fictional character is notable in their own right. Content is similar to http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Omega_Supreme_(G1) but I find no independent matches in Google Books to demonstrate notability and general searching finds similar fan sites (for example http://goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=936591 has some of the identical text and pre-dates this article by over 2 years). Appearances documented in the Popular culture section do not substantiate substantial impact or independent notability being one appearance of the toy in a comic strip and the film Ninja Terminator is not intended to be the same character. Previous PROD removed, so raising for wider discussion after independently failing to find better sources. Fæ (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Omega Supreme which covers the topic more widely and is the more common name. Presumably it's the G1 distinction which is giving the nominator trouble with his searches. I have no trouble finding sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- from a cursory inspection it would seem that this article is substantially a duplicate of Omega Supreme. There's nothing to merge because it's all already there. Reyk _YO! 05:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fork of Omega Supreme. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as redundant content fork. ----Divebomb is not British 13:48, 11 November 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 Ulam spiral#Sacks spiral. Redirect, as the content is already there Tone 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks spiral

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

The article appears to contain original research. It cites a web site, which is apparently maintained by someone who actively studies this topic, but there are no references to published sources. (An arxiv article is cited, but it does not seem to have appeared in a journal.) I was unable to find an independent, verified account of the invention of the Sacks spiral using Google; most hits are to material derived from the Wikipedia article, or to the aforementioned sites. Will Orrick (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you this was not original research on my part (if indeed that was what you were implying), it was something I ran across and thought was interesting. I agree that the article has not significantly improved since my version in May 2007 nor are there additional references that have come to light since then. So I dont oppose deleting this. dm (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't meant to imply anything like that. It's clear from the page history that you and the other main authors of the page are major Wikipedia contributors without any vested interest in this topic. The two major external sources of information on the Sacks spiral are Robert Sacks' own website (now commented out in the Wikipedia article) and the naturalnumbers.org site. The latter is promoting a certain point of view about prime numbers which, as far as I can tell, is a bit out of the mainstream. I recently deleted some material that seemed to derive directly from that page. Overall, I agree with your observation that no new references have come to light since the original version. Without additional, disinterested sources of information, it's going to be hard to improve the article or to add context. I agree with the suggestions of Reyk and Xxanthippe below that some of the material in the article be merged with Ulam spiral. Will Orrick (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep as interesting but not widely sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Ulam Spiral. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or merge, but it would be nice to keep the diagram. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge I went ahead and merged the text from here into the Ulam Spiral article. It only neeeds redirecting. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I like the diagram, bothered by the lack of any additional info. It is not at all obvious to me whether or not the curves in this Saks spiral are isomorphic to the lines in the Ulam spiral. Are they? Aren't they? linas (talk) 22:49, 13 November 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) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wright on Health

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

This blog does not appear to meet notability guidelines, nor does the blog's author. Notability claims are insufficient: "award-winning author" seems to refer to winning an essay prize (link is dead, so I'm not sure) and "student of noted health policy expert" refers to someone with a red link. The blog does not appear to be mentioned by independent sources aside from other non-notable blogs. The only claim that might confer notability is "Wright on Health articles are slated to appear periodically on the popular internet news site The Huffington Post", but I don't see how this alone is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Peacock (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It might qualify under WP:WEB #3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". The article hadn't been updated in over a year; it said the blog was "slated to appear" at the Huffington Post starting in August 2009. Well, the blog actually does appear at HuffPost nowadays [6]. I am saying "weak" keep because to me, being a regular column at HuffPo does not convey much notability. Neither does an occasional mention of this blog at other blogs such as [7]. But WP:WEB seems to say the HuffPo connection makes it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 30 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, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article that was just created Brad Wright (blogger). The new title may have to be moved to something more appropriate, but I found that if we fixed the "Wright on Health" article, it would end up being a WP:COATRACK for the author who is the notable part of this. The new article could also use some cites if someone wants to take some time with it? I'll add some more to it later. Pmedema (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC) (Comment for clarity: Pmedema is the creator of the new article about Brad Wright. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I disagree; it should the other way around. The newly written Brad Wright (blogger) article should become a redirect to this one (if it is kept). The blog may meet WP:WEB, but Brad Wright does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC or any other notability criterion that I can see. The only references provided at the new article about the author are self-referential. The fact that he has had a few articles published in medical journals does not make him notable. And all the outside sourcing I can find is about the blog - not about him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - to be published in The American Journal of Public Health and also to be featured in the "Encyclopedia of Health Services Research" shows that he has been WP:Published and considered notable by these journals. Along with that, to search the web, I'm finding an abundance of other less notable publications of him and from him... not self published... - Pmedema (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that there is something unusual about the American Journal of Public Health, so that every single contributor it publishes is automatically notable? Or is it your opinion that anyone who has ever had any research published anywhere is notable? (I'll give him credit for 3 publications - recently published in Health Service Research, Time Is Money: Opportunity Cost and Physicians' Provision of Charity Care 1996-2005.) That is not in line with the notability requirements at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, which make it clear that merely getting published is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone, but the recognition from multiple sources to publish him and on a subject that influences government policies in my opinion puts him over the edge into notability - Pmedema (talk) 23:45, 1 November 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, Davewild (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olin Eugene Armstrong

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Person is only notable for getting taken hostage and getting killed. The sources and article only mention the event of his capture and killing and not the person in question. It was also created by User:Soledad22, who has since been permanently blocked. TM 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:VICTIM. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 16:48, 7 November 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 already speedily deleted by Nikkimaria. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Maker

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

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability coi editor, no reliable references and nothing I can find on Google. Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 refrences there now. Actual subject was put on this site because there was nothing on Google. But many people know about it through YouTube and Sonic Retro. The refrences DO come from my braitn as a matter of fact, since I created Sonic Maker, but it can still be linked to some sites in Sonic Retro that I cant get to yet, since the site is down. I take it I am talking to real people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicMaker (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Wikipedia:RS. Reads like an advertisement. Then there is WP:COI, which probably explains the first two problems. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No Wikipedia:RS, "my brain" seems particularly unverifiable, spam, non-notable, COI... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Normally I don't !vote strong delete, but considering that it isn't a notable game and the editor full-on admits that s/he created it (which, given that his/her name is User:SonicMaker, goes without saying anyway), this is a blatant violation of WP:MADEUP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this should be speedied now because the creator has been blocked. I'll tag it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:23, 7 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On-Line Picasso Project

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

I prodded this because it had no third party sources that establish notability. The prod tag was removed by a SPA and no sources were added, so here we are. This is an academic project / website, which seems to have no independent sources of note. It does get a few hits on google scholar, but those which are non-trivial mentions are by those that run the project, particularly E Mallen. As such the topic does not meet the general notability guideline and the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Picasso, to the Commemoration and legacy section. He iro 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, everybody interested in reliable and comprehensive information on Picasso uses this academic information site, notably galleries, auction houses, academic institutions, and, yes, some people working for Wikipedia, including me, for referencing works of Picasso. It is already the main refererence with respect to Picasso, being the most complete, in addition of being free and illustrated. Deleting this project would just prove ignorance on the side of those who propose to do so. It should not be mixed up with Picasso himself, having nothing to do with him. However, there should be a reference to this article in the Picasso lemma, of course. It might be augmented, though. For example, it is interesting that Picasso's heirs tried to stop this academic project for copyright reasons by the end of the last century, which immediately resulted in a big online supporting action for reasons of informational and academic freedom. Finally, after a year or two, the case was settled out of court. I'm just recalling from memory, so this is not ready for inclusion yet.--WernerPopken (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is a valuable resource, but we need to be able to write a verifiable article about it for it to be on Wikipedia. If there are no sources, we can't do that and we should delete it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 26 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, 31 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, Davewild (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Untill some sources come uo and demonstrate notability then I would say delete. If some can be prodiced backing up the claims then it woujld be keep. the Ball in the defenders court.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head (Lotion song)

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

Non notable song, fails WP:NSONG. Cute cover though. Nelson58 (talk) 23:40, 30 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) 12:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Untill some sources come up and demonstrate notability then I would say delete. If some can be prodiced backing up the claims then it woujld be keep. the Ball in the defenders court. There is a single source, but more then this is needed to demonstrate notabilitySlatersteven (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolo Na Tumi Amar

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

Prod contested. Not as per WP:NF - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help those of us who don't read Bengali if the nominator could give an overview of what is in the sources referenced in the article, and why he considers them insufficient for notability. This is the best source that I could come up with in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I am Bengali people and my mother tongue is Bengali. I am also admin in Bengali Wikipedia and member of WP:Film in this wiki. Bengali film have to Industry one in Calcutta,India and another in Dhaka,Bangladesh (called Dhallywood ). The above film is Bangladeshi Bengali film. But I can't find any good reliable source. The article was started by a Sockpuppet (called Dhallywood ). And above link is about India Bengali film. It is not about this film. Thanks.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but what about the Bengali sources in the article? Could you please give us a short summary of them? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Summary of [8] (The Daily Janakantha report): it is a short note saying that this movie is being released today (22 Oct). The actors are so and so, the director and the producer are so and so, etc. The movie was filmed in Bangkok. That's about it ... 8 sentences in total. Can't access the Daily Prothom Alo link now ... but I guess it's the same press release. --Ragib (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:N and WP:NF. --Ragib (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note An anonymous IP has removed the AFD tag from the article about an hour ago,[9] and I have just reverted.[10] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 6 November 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) 12:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems highly unnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 7 November 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 Marasmusine (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia (online game)

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:N: non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third-party, published sources. All of the current sources are primary sources, press releases, unreliable wikis, and fansite-quality material. Nothing I can find meets the WikiProject Video games list of recommended sources. The custom WPVG Google search returns a lot of hits for games with a similar name, but nothing reliable for this one. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[11]] review for game here, is this acceptable?. Additionally Utopia, along with a sister game won the title "Peoples Voice Winner" under the Gaming section of the Webby ( http://www.webbyawards.com, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webby_Award) awards in 2002 and 2003 (http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2003.php, http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/winners-2002.php) under the old web address of www.swirve.com - this has since been changed to www.utopia-game.com --Runawaybishop (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about OMGN here. The site is getting better, and they even list their editorial staff now. Back in 2006, however, anyone could apply to be a reviewer, they didn't publish any of their editorial policies, etc. This review, in particular, seems to have quite a few amateurish mistakes, so I don't think we should include it here. We also don't count voting/people's choice awards in most cases because it means little more than "Publisher X can get more of their fans to vote repeatedly than Publisher Y". Even a Webby Award given by the judges is a bit of a sham, since publishers have to buy the nomination to be considered. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback, i'll see if can find anything more reliable --Runawaybishop (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reviews from there http://www.gamefaqs.com/webonly/916589-utopia/reviews are reliable? Procariot (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources, we should only trust GameFAQs for release dates. Pretty much anyone can write a review, so it's not a reliable source. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How abot this book? Procariot (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC) http://books.google.com/books?id=kfuWSQAACAAJ&dq=browser+game+llc&hl=en&ei=uxXQTObzCs74sgbTivXyAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg Title Browser-Based Multiplayer Online Games: Multiplayer Browser-Based Games in 3D Gameworld, Runescape, Kingdom of Loathing, Hattrick[reply]

Author Books, LLC

Publisher General Books, 2010 ISBN 1155981812, 9781155981819 Length 478 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procariot (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books, LLC is a company that takes free (and not-so-free) content from Wikipedia and other places and publishes it on demand when the book is purchased. So no, it's not reliable in any way. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll try to find another sources. Procariot (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this http://archive.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=49 article? Procariot (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. It's an amateur article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, published sources. No bias against recreation should usable sources pop up, however. --Teancum (talk) 13:56, 5 November 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) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the amount of effort made to find a sources it seems there arnt any.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found reviews at more reliable resources than OMGN and GameFAQs yet. Procariot (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuold you find any RS establishing notability then of course my vote would change to Keep.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wiki's reliable resources aren't interesting of text-browser games at all.

Notability... What do you mean? May be this: http://charts.thedragonportal.eu/History.html The column WoL plus BF - this is number of users. In 2003 at this text-based game played simultaneous more than hundred thousands people. The game is playable around 12 years. Procariot (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if RS don't care about the game you will not find RS establishing notability (I.E. third party RAS have shown some interest in it as an item). Something can only have an articel on wiki if its been demonstrated that it has reviced significant coverage in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia, along with a sister game (Earth 2025, which is closed now) won the title "Peoples Voice Winner" under the Gaming section of the Webby (games.swirve.com at [12], [13]) awards in 2002 and 2003. Procariot (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also covered above. We value sources written by journalists, not popular votes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jolt Online Gaming#Utopia. Per WP:NOT, we don't need all the gaming details. However, I do find the history of the game itself interesting. One tidbit though that jumped out as a glaring... error... in the article - Utopia claims to be one of the oldest oneline games, yet was released in 1998. I guess they never heard of MUD, which came out 20 years earlier. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect That seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, sure, MUD is older. Second, it is written on the official site "Utopia is one of the oldest running online games". Third, it is written "Utopia is one of the oldest running online games". So, it is no errors here. Procariot (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better than deletion Procariot (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - Bot found 2 articles about Utopia dated from 2007 on Swedish and Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procariot (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some information from fan pages Procariot (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About notability: [14] from GameZone News: "Jolt Online Gaming proudly announces the release of Utopia Kingdoms, the successor to the legendary Utopia online game." Procariot (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's a repost of a press release, which cannot be used. --Teancum (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jolt Online Gaming#Utopia --Teancum (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, or delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - already deleted three times and salted as Brian Dekkers, and deleted four times and salted as Brian D. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dekkers(brian D)

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

Contested PROD. I cannot find reliable references that verify the notability of this musician. Twice A7-d as Brian Dekkers(Curacao Singer). Article, as Brian D, has been created and then speedily deleted four times in November 2010 As always, more than happy to be shown to be wrong. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing there to show notability, so far as I can see. When tweets are given as a ref, it means one of two things: either the author hasn't read WP:RS, or there is nothing better. (Possibly both, mind you.) One of the two main editors of the article (if they're not one and the same...) blanked this discussion page - also not a good sign. I'm now expecting a flock of sockpuppets to appear singing the praises of the subject of the article. Take my advice - don't bother. Spend your time finding some solid references to show something more than that this chap has been trying to promote a record. (Look at WP:RS and WP:SPAM too while you're at it.) Peridon (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to feel that salt might be needed... Peridon (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and chuckle at attempts to use myspace and twitter as reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spedily deletion recreated many times with many names Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also salt see Brian Dekkers or other pages. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of rulers of Kenya

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

I can't see how a list of lists is encyclopedic. Access Denied – talk to me 10:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. It could fit into the history part of Outline of Kenya (current title holders are already there). Or it could make a fine navigational template (but the same presidents already have a sea of templates). Both alternatives have their opponents, and for a good reason. East of Borschov 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope lists of lists aren't unencycloaedic! Category:Lists of lists.—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BEANS! East of Borschov 17:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why it's unencyclopedic. The index volume of an encyclopedia isn't much fun to read out loud, but it's necessary so that one can find articles in the rest of the encyclopedia. If Heads of State of Kenya, Heads of Government of Kenya, List of Governors-General of Kenya, Colonial Heads of Kenya, Colonial Heads of Mombasa, Rulers of the Masai, Rulers of the Nandi, Rulers of Pate, Rulers of Wanga, Rulers of Wituland were all one list, it might not be necessary to assist someone in finding the articles; but it would be what we call a B.F.L. -- a big list. Mandsford 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Clicked through expecting... well, a list of rulers. This is, more properly, a list of jobs held by rulers. If the actual rulers were here, or if this actually explained which jobs were significant when, maybe this would work. For now, though, I think the merge proposed by East of Borschov is worth considering. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful navigational aid to help our readers find what they are looking for. (And, please, before making a vague wave towards WP:USEFUL, read that essay to see what it actually says). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I wouldn't know of the existence of lists of rulers of the Masai, Nandi, Pate, etc., nor associate those with Kenya, and I'd say that's true of most persons. Despite having a President who might have been born there, I think that most Americans know very little about Kenya, so it's a logical navigation aid. Mandsford 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Access Denied – talk to me 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palo y hueso

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

Includes no assertion of notability. Because it's listed in IMDB it probably fails A7, so I'm nominating here. Access Denied – talk to me 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The best thing possibly would have been to redirect to List of Argentine films of 1968. Note though there are quite a lot of short Argentine film stubs. Most of them originally began as redirects tothe lists but I started adding a little to them to fill them out. Unfortunately the task was too big for me and I gave up. Ideally the lists need filling out completely first and then those films which cannot be expanded should be redirected, though I would say that most of the articles could be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources and great additions by Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable movie by an acclaimed Argentinian director. I have added some content with sources. Much more is available. I recommend that the nominator withdraw the nomination to avoid wasting any more editors' time. To be fair, the version nominated was a trivial stub. But this is a very well-known movie. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements since nomination that show that notability... and notability in Argentina is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. And yes, the nom should consider a withdrawal since others were able to improve what he could not. Big kudos to Aymatth2 for his diligent efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinkle oatmeal fruit

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

Contested PROD. Recipe for porridge with fruit, deletion proposed as per Wikipedia is not a guide. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let's hope Wikipedia never turns into a recipe book. ~dee^(talk?) 09:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is an original research recipe that fails a number of other policies. This should be snowballed as i don't think there is any Speedy Delete that could be used for this. - Pmedema (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original research recipe, per WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jeffrey Beall 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Mmmmm, can I have a WP:BITE? Welcome, new contributor to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the encyclopedia that anyone can edit does have limitations on its content, and one of the provisions is called WP:NOTHOWTO. Harsh, perhaps, but when one thinks about all the recipes out there, it's necessary to keep out such articles. Mandsford 22:50, 7 November 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 Timeline_of_Shakespeare_criticism#Twentieth_century. Consensus is for deletion, but since we have the material already, a redirect is reasonable and also allows for the history to be preserved should more sources be found Black Kite (t) (c) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy on Shakespeare

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

Unnecessary and gratuitous fork, used as a coatrack to hang a long Tolstoy quote upon. Orange Mike | Talk 09:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely with O.M. on this one. Timeline of Shakespeare criticism#Twentieth century has this already... Tolstoy is notable, Shakespeare is notable -- but Tolstoy on Shakespeare is a footnote. Mandsford 22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford, Sadads (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles on every combinations of writer A's opinion of writer B is unworkable. Tolstoy's opinions on all writers can fit perfectly well in his own article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any chance that anyone could look at the results of the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed above? All of these comments have the appearance of guesswork rather than of being based on any examination of the readily available sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny that it's a valid section in an article on Tolstoy, Phil, maybe even in an article on criticism of Willy; my position is merely that there is no evidence that this is an encyclopedic topic an sich. There's a published essay by this title, and of course it's referenced by writers on one writer or the other; but that doesn't justify an entire separate article in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's a 120+ page essay published by one notable author about another, and has been referenced by other writers, I would think it satisfies requirements for notability, at least under criteria #5 for WP:BK. JNW (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what this article failed to mention is that Tolstoy on Shakespeare isn't just a foobar combination but also the title of an essay he wrote, which has a better claim to notability. However, whilst it makes sense for criteria #5 of WP:BK to apply to every book a major author has written, I don't think it makes as much sense to apply it to essays. In this case, it's been used as a reference by other writers, but I didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself. Academics have papers and essays cited all the time, and I don't think it's practical to include every essay of the major writers. So unless someone points out signficant coverage that I've missed, I suggest we transwiki the excerpt to wikiquote (or wait until the 20th November for copyright to expire and then transwiki as much as you like to wikisource), and merge the rest to Leo Tolstoy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice when (if?) you read the article that George Orwell wrote about the essay itself? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read the article, insinuations like that don't help. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "I didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself" then it's pretty reasonable to assume that you didn't read the part of the article that says that Orwell did exactly that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my search of Google Books, which didn't turn up anything more than citations. Yes, it would have helped if I'd addressed the Orwell Essay earlier, but you seem to be insinuating that I didn't read the full article as if that invalidates my point of view, and your attempts to justify your earlier stance aren't encouraging. Can you please assure me this isn't what you meant? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was what I said, i.e. that your comment that you didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself demonstrates that you didn't read the article properly. That's not a hanging offence, but it is pretty obviously true, just as it is obviously true that the nominator and the first three other people to comment in this discussion made no attempt whatsoever to base their opinions on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Groan*. There's a whole world of difference between "reading the article properly", and "reading the article properly and proving it by addressing every single sentence that others may deem evidence of notability". I don't suppose it's worth asking how your posts square with WP:NPA or WP:AGF? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following up on my comment above. If it constituted a few passages, a few pages, or even a chapter as part of a larger publication then it wouldn't merit an article, but 'Tolstoy on Shakespeare' was the title of an independent publication, and is part of the author's bibliography. JNW (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Air

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

Proposed airline, with no definite start date given. Only source is self-promoting website. I could not proof the existence of this airline through any other sources. Therefore, it is at least not notable per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they've had enough time to move from 'proposed' to actual. - Francis Tyers · 12:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:41, 8 November 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. Someone can create a redirect if you believe it is necessary. Courcelles 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airlink Zambia

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

No reference to be found that this airline ever existed. I suspect it was just a marketing name for certain South African Airways flights, but no source for this, either. Anyway, there is no sufficent, reliable third-party coverage, so the airline fails WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Airlink: From the little that I can find on the internet, I'm gathering that this is a subdivion of Airlink and as such has no particular notability on it's own. Any info that is missing can be placed on the Airlink page. Travelbird (talk) 17:36, 9 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle seat height

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

A list of motorcycles by seat height smacks of something that would be useful in a trainspotters wiki - something like Wikia - but a large unwikified and mostly unreferenced list is of very limited use. As a frequent contributor to motorcycle related articles I really don't get the point of this article and suggest it should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. The only hope this ever had was that the table would be deleted and some encyclopaedic prose added explaining why different seat heights were used. This was suggested but never happened. Even then, it probably wouldn't merit its own article although a section on the subject would be OK elsewhere. There has been little work on it for almost a year. As it stands there is nothing much worth merging elsewhere. I guess the lead paragraph could be reused but even that is unreferenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seat height is undeniably important to motorcyclists. (Source.) I can well imagine that a motorcyclist who wasn't very tall might use this as a search term on Wikipedia, and I think it would be best if they found something a bit more helpful than a redlink. While this content would undoubtedly be helpful to some people, I agree that this isn't encyclopaedic and I'm also concerned that the article as written is WP:OR.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seat height is a standard parameter in {{Infobox motorcycle}}. Usually it is taken from the manufacturer's specifications. Given its easy availability I don't see the need for an article focusing on just this one aspect of motorcycle measurement. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seat height is important, but treating it as if it were this important, by creating a table that essentially ranks motorcycles by seat height, is highly prejudicial and misleading. The reason is that inexperienced, short riders in fact need motorcycles with some combination of narrow width, low seat height, and/or ergonomic body position with respect to handlebar reach and foot peg position. It's not one dimensional, and experienced riders, even short ones, often disregard seat height altogether. A nuanced, contextualized explanation of seat height belongs on pages like Motorcycle saddle, Motorcycle components and Motorcycle design, but a list of this nature is inappropriate. --Dbratland (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic and random. — Brianhe (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can we please base this discussion on whether this subject is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources rather than vague subjective opinions of importance? I've just spent a couple of minutes looking for sources and have found this book that says that this is "perhaps one of the most important size requirements", this one that explains how it is relevant to shorter riders, along with other factors that need to be taken into account, and this one that explains how excessive seat height contributed to the commercial failure of the Meriden Cooperative. There is loads more coverage found here. Yes, we should get rid of the long list of models, which could potentially be expanded to include every motorcycle ever produced, but the topic itself is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is not that it fails notability or that it fails verifiability. It passes those criteria. The problem is that the existence of the page has no point because it treats a single statistic in isolation. It would be like having a page for Motorcycle engine bore. Is bore important? Yes. Do many sources discuss engine bore? Yes. Should we have a single page about motorcycle engine bore? No. (And yes, Bore (engine) and Stroke (engine) should be deleted because they violate WP:NOTDICT and only repeat a subset of information taken from Engine displacement and Otto cycle respectively, minus the context.) --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 8 November 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) 01:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Hall (soap opera)

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

Likely a hoax, with no evidence whatsoever for its reality. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/powershotphotography/4180074108/ for a picture of what appears to be the same building as in File:Commonwehall.JPG, identified as being on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University, which is definitely not in Egypt. A closer inspection of File:Commonwehall.JPG shows what appears to be a composite of two images from different sources, rather than a screenshot.

See also some of the material in previous revisions of Commonwealth Hall, which looks similarly suspicious. It might be worth investigating other edits made by the contributors to both articles. The Anome (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Fails WP:V, at best - no reliable sources, and none found. Anything I find by searches seems to be a mirror. There are no actual common contributors to this article and Commonwealth Hall, but IP contributors to both trace back to swan.lon.ac.uk, which seems to be London University student residences. Most of the supposed cast have Facebook or LinkedIn entries, but no reference to being actors. I think this was a student joke. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 8 November 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) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob L. Mey

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

Bio of non-notable academic Orange Mike | Talk 08:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is problematic as it has been created by someone with likely COI issues. However Mey has a respectable publication history and his credentials can be checked on University websites. I find his book 'Pragmatics: an introduction' cited by 829 publications on Google Scholar. Considering the article was created yesterday, I would suggest there is every reason to expect the criteria of WP:Notability (academics) to be satisfied in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding a possible claim to notability under WP:PROF, criterion 8, would come from the subject having been chief editor of the Journal of Pragmatics. I'm uncertain how to rate that, not being familiar with linguistics as a discipline. However, I note that the journal has an impact factor of 0.798, giving it a rank of 41 out of 93 indexed linguistics journals in the Journal Citation Reports. The open source SciImago ranking [15] ranks it 43rd out of 258 indexed journals. It's been around since 1977. What say we? Does that count as "major, well-established journal" in the area? I'm hesitant to apply personal judgments, coming as I do from another field, here. Ray^Talk 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites 929, 110, 42,40.... with h index= 13 good for WP:Prof#C1 plus editorships. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: Message about this discussion posted at WT:WikiProject Linguistics#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob L. Mey. Favonian (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 Nov 2010 Jacob L Mey is also the editor of RASK: international Journal of Language and communication. Jacob L. Mey had a chair of linguistics at Odense University. He published with John Benjamins, Mouton De Gruyter, Blackwell-Wiley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.177.117 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. He was Professor Emeritus or professor at several major academic institutions. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke's Quest: Prisoner of Time

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

Spam for non-notable self-published book by non-notables. Orange Mike | Talk 08:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews, nothing... Publisher's website tells you that you can publish your own paperback/hardback for less than 600 bucks. --Crusio (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crusio. This is a hopeless case. I would have let the prod stand, quite frankly. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably could have been speedy deleted as spam. Nothing notable about book. It appears to be a vanity publishing project.Shsilver (talk) 16:52, 8 November 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 The Damned Things. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline but a redirect to the group is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've Got A Situation Here

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

New recording from a "supergroup" who just released their first album; no hint of notability from reliable sources. Orange Mike | Talk 08:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NALBUM guidelines. Fæ (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Damned Things until such time as there is enough sourced material for an article.--Michig (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NALBUMS. Also per wp's naming guideline if the article is ever created again it should be done so under the name We've Got a Situation Here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging Sign

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

I made this a redirect, but creator keeps reverting; fails WP:N. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jewellery Quarter (album) and protect. The sources in the article are primarily about Jewellery Quarter (album) and the band. Encouraging Sign is not independently notable. I request protection due to the repeated edit-warring and undoing of the redirect by the creator and IPs. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article name is not commonly searched. Who knows if they are looking for this song, anyway? Its no where near as notable as many other songs which have no individual pages. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The incoming links, when you remove deletion-related links, are from the band and the album - and that's all. So a redirect is somewhere between 6/5 and pick'em. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per the practice that album tracks that don't chart as a single are non-notable unless there is a good reason otherwise. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facemelter (film)

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

fails WP:N; a home-made, independent film. I can't find any coverage. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: absolutely no third-party coverage, no one notable attached to the film. Fails WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- absolutely no third party coverage, and even the film's own homepage is broken/under construction. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 12 November 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necrophilia in popular culture

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

Unsourced for 3 years, nothing but minor/trivial references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article that could be improved. Ironically enough, I might love it better if it was dead. Mandsford 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poorly written articles on real subject can always been improved. A good place to start is with the 5 books listed in WorlCatand the discussion of the individual authors. The list is quite incomplete: for my favorite examples of whats's missing , there's King's Gerald's Game, and Waugh's Vile Bodies DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's disgusting, but it can be sourced and is notable. See DGG's citations. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example of why we should stop restricting such articles to "popular" culture. There are plenty of references to necrophilia in unpopular culture. I know this isn't the right place to discuss this, and I can't really be bothered to start a site-wide discussion, but I would be in favour of renaming every "xxx in popular culture" article to "xxx in culture", which would go a long way towards presenting Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia rather than a repository for recentist fandom. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the academic name for the concept is normally "Influence of ...." , but the term "Popular culture" is not derogatory--there are academic departments by that name, PhDs are awarded in it, and there are several serious peer-reviewed journals with the phrase in the title. More generally, Wikipedia has the potential to be both a serious encyclopedia and have a concentration of recent popular topics. It might be hard to do in paper, but ... DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least move to ~~Necrophilia in culture~~ or better yet Necrophilia in fiction and cut all the unsourced cruft. For example, "In the last episode of the anime School Days, Katsura Kotonoha is last seen hugging the head of her deceased boyfriend Makoto Itō on her yacht," might be an interesting entry in Hugging dead people in popular culture but certainly needs better sourcing for an article about necrophilia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection to separating into the three articles "necrophilia in fiction", "necrophilia in fiction", and "necrophilia in fiction", as there will be quite enough material to add. But I do not think this is necessary--it is not yet too long for a single article. FWIW, if the anime School Days is important, I think the listing is perfectly appropriate. It is in fact sourced to the individual episode. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugging a deceased person is not necrophilia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete this bad capitalization, I have redirected the "correct" version to North Texas Fresh. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick jay bowdy

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

Non-notable jock; article created by his team's press agent. Orange Mike | Talk 07:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBASKETBALL: note that he plays in the new ABA, not the original. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. WP:COI evident from creator User:Ntfreshmedia. Previous attempt Jay Bowdy, created by another WP:SPA User:Northtexasfresh (might they be related?) was redirected to North Texas Fresh: no point in redirecting this one as well. Top Jim (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviewing admins, please note subsequent creation of duplicate Frederick Jay Bowdy just before editor was blocked for spamusername. I've redirected it to the bad-caps title in this AFD, but if this does survive AFD then both should redirect to Jay Bowdy in any case. Top Jim (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to North Texas Fresh as this person's minor notability is as the owner of the team, not his minimal professional career as a player. Relevant biographical details appear verifiable from sufficient reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the page has been protected against creation and can no longer be created under this name. –BuickCentury Driver 10:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codendi

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

Article for the same piece of software that has been deleted twice by AFD. –BuickCentury Driver 06:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete and salt; this isn't really significantly different from the previous versions that have been deleted after full discussions; minor trade awards do not confer notability, and this does nothing to address the issues the last several versions had. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJAB Networks

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Have to agree with the nom here; I can't find any sources. Fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may be non-notable as it's not a huge corporation with worldwide press recognition, all companies started somewhere and have significance in their own markets. If size and popularity are factors in articles, how do we reason the existence of an article for insignificant places like Unger, West Virginia? MFTU 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTU (talk • contribs)

Comment – The basis for inclusion in Wikipedia is that establishment of the subject's Wikipedia based notability. Size and popularity are not factors in that criteria. The existance of another article has no bearing on this article, each article must stand on its own merits. Unless you can show how this company meets the criteria in WP:COMPANY, it is likely it will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I honestly don't have time to read through a multi-page guide on notability, so in my speed-read it looks like what Wikipedia wants is to be able to find the company in sources such as newspapers. Many companies don't make newspapers or other sources, that doesn't mean they're non-notable. MFTU 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTU (talk • contribs)

Comment – Those companies that do not have adequate newspaper or other secondary sources coverage are not notable from the perspective of Wikipedia. If you are not willing to take the time to read the criteria, then it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's silly. It's not like the article takes that much space or bandwidth. Also, I keep putting the four tildes at the end and it says I'm not signing it. ...And then it has the nerve to message me and tell me I'm not. MFTU 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment – It is really not silly. Setting criteria such as that helps create a quality encyclopedia. My guess the reason your signature is not recognized is that it is not formated correctly in the preferences section. It appears the link to your user and talk pages do not work. ttonyb (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless proper third party references are added. See WP:PSTS. The only reference present is from the organization's website itself. That too was incorrectly cited. мαуαηк·αвнιѕнєк ^{talk · contribs} 05:07, 12 November 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. Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.itcwelcomgroup.in/Hotels/itcmaurya.aspx and http://www.itcwelcomgroup.in/Hotels/itcmaurya.aspx?CS Davewild (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Maurya

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

Failes GNG, not really important, seeming advertisement. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have thousands of articles about luxury hotels on Wikipedia. I live near San Francisco, and there are dozens of articles about hotels in that city alone. This particular hotel in India seems indisputably notable and is in the news worldwide right now but the article needs to be purged of copyvios. Cullen328 (talk) 05:21, 7 November 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 Curl (football). DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivela

AfDs for this article:

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

I would merge to Curl (football), but I'm not sure there is anything worth merging. Note a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside curve (slice) (Football) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was there a first nomination? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was not. I assume that the nominator (User:Dwanyewest) for the 2nd AfD considered it a 2nd nomination since s/he had previously PRODed the article. Whwya (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there is found to be anything encyclopaedic here that is not already in the Curl article, which I very much doubt, otherwise delete. Is trivela a term in use in English anyway: as an English-based follower of the game for 40years, I've never heard it before this morning... Kevin McE (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Kevin McE. Giant Snowman 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. This term is used in the UEFA web page so it does at least exist. I'd say a merge and redirect (Trivela is still a useful search term) would probably make sense, but I don't know if this can be considered a curl - that's something for football experts to answer. If a merge doesn't make sense, that I'd clear out the original research and keep this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect into Curl (football) - obviously there's no doubt that this is a genuine term but there's no point having two articles describing the same thing. The term 'Trivela' is pretty much unknown in the English-speaking world, and seeing as this is the English language Wikipedia, the English term should take precedence. Bettia (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wall (photographer)

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

Unremarkable photographer (see WP:GNG). Sourced only to IMDB and own website. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable. No real sources. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's verifiably a still photographer for movies (see e.g. this), and some still photographers for movies are notable (though very rarely for this part of their output). But I can't find any discussion of him. His website requires a plug-in that I don't have, and offers an HTML-only alternative that turns out to be blank. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 9 November 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. There is no consensus here on whether this is a notable topic or not. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Heels

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

Unsourced article about, well, shoes with clear heels. Fails WP:GNG and many, many more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If you could find a reliable source, some of the information might be included in Shoe. Bielle (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NEO, WP:N; no sources tendered, reliable or otherwise. The creator - whose short tenure on Wikipedia can charitably be described as "stormy" - deleted my prod without explanation. Ravenswing 05:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references or sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 07:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is what one would expect for a novelty fashion item but there is enough out there that we can make a reasonable article. I have made a start, in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added show notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those of you who try to delete something, please click the Google news and Google book search BEFORE you make a decision. Ample results for both appear. Dream Focus 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into high heels. It's a notable aspect of high heels; however I'm not sure it merits a standalone article. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now passes notable, is sourced with significant sources, and has an original image. Clear heels are an important subset of high heeled footwear. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources that have been used to prop up this piece of trollbait do not actually contain the facts they are alleged to cite. I replaced a few of them with citation needed tags, but my changes were reverted by Colonel Warden. I won't bother to fix it since this isn't worth any more of my time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm with Delicious on this one. I just went over each and every one of the "sources" that the Keep proponents now claim show notability. Not a single one of them discuss the subject in significant detail. Heck, only two use the neologism "clear heels" at all, although another uses the words "clear" and "heel" separately. I also strongly suspect bad faith to be at play. Let's go over the sources one by one.

1) The Insider web article cited is about shoes, yes. Clear heels are not depicted (and are only mentioned the once) in it.

2) The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel article which inclusion infers it's about clear heels isn't; there is no mention there.

3) The third item attributed to Tracy Hoskins is a blog entry about dressing generally that has the single sentence "And if you have a pair of clear heels, save them for “play” time at home."

4) The fourth entry is another blog that does not mention "clear heels" at all. It does have a single sentence referencing "perspex-heeled shoes featuring neon lights or filled with roses, glitter and pearls."

5) The Laughing Mad book has a single parenthetical expression "to don part of the stripper's new uniform - clear heels" in a nearly 300-page book.

6) The Detroit News article is not about clear heels either; it's about the running back John Fuqua, and I'll pop into the BPL tomorrow to see whether it says at all what the editor claims it does.

7) The Prince article (oddly attributed to the UK Sun, when in fact it's the Baltimore Sun) doesn't say what is claimed here.

This is a heap of BS and chaff thrown up to distract us. The GNG holds that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." What in the hell, did the editors frantically trying to save this article hope no one would bother to check these "sources?" Ravenswing 03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear heels are clearly mentioned and depicted in The Insider article. As there seems to be something wrong with your browser or vision, we need waste no further time on the rest of your complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Insider article has two references to different types of shoes which have "clear" heels, and that's all. In neither case does the article discuss the heels themselves, or why it's important for those shoes to have clear heels - the only reference is in describing two unrelated types of shoe. OK, so it shows that clear heels exist, which is fine I guess, but it does absolutely nothing to show significant coverage of the subject. That source does absolutely nothing to support the statement it references in this article. The other sources are similarly flawed, as Ravenswing indicates - the articles do confirm that something known as "clear heels" exists, but none do the slightest bit of work in describing what clear heels are, exactly, and why they are notable or significant. There may be a useful redirect target here, but what target that should be is unclear; something for the closing admin to bear in mind, I guess. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Insider source does more than indicate that clear heels exist. It makes the point that they are associated with "strip joints and bedrooms" and so are unsuitable for wear elsewhere. Other sources make similar points and so the matter seems well documented. Other sources provide other information and so the topic develops in accordance with our usual practise. Note that the article is still fresh and it does not seem that you or other editors have done the work which is required by our notability guideline: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.". All you seem to be doing is throwing inaccurate abuse at the work done so far. What we have here is just the start, not the last word on the topic. I found another good source in a brief search this morning and my general impression is that there's more to find. In such cases, our editing policy clearly indicates that we should retain the article for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am unsurprised that you cut off your quote there before reaching the sentence "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The article's notability has been challenged, and I hope that the closing admin looks at these so-called "sources" before making a decision. Not a single one of them discusses the subject in much of any detail at all, let alone "significant detail," and our usual practice is to delete all such articles. I'm frankly wondering what Colonel Warden's agenda is here in hotly defending an article with such threadbare sources. Ravenswing 14:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you quote is not relevant because this is a new article which is not yet a week old. It is our clear editing policy to nurture such weak starts rather than to delete them. The list of sources is not yet complete and I have now turned up quite a good one: Walter E. Cohn (1969), "The Transparent Shoe", Modern footwear materials & processes: a topical guide to footwear technology, Fairchild Publications. This definitely discusses the topic in significant detail, discussing the technology and styling of such heels, and so our policy of giving topics the benefit of the doubt is vindicated. As for my agenda, I was asked politely if I would help rescue this article. I like to respond positively to such approaches and, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And unsurprisingly the vast majority of keep votes come from users affiliated with the "Rescue Squadron". I wonder if that counts as some sort of canvassing? WikiuserNI (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to High heels, obviously. This is just a content fork. There is nothing so notable about "clear heels" that they need their own article. Just like there is nothing so notable about Red heels or Black heels or Pink heels. They are all just variations of High heels. I can probably find eight dozen newspaper articles that mention "Red heels", but that doesn't mean an article devoted to them is necessary or appropriate. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pe.com/sharedcontent/southwest/azfamily/style/trendspotting/KTVKTrendspotting20040311.76de22f0.html "lucite heels", if you do a Google image search, are transparent heels. It is the clear winner for fashion apparently. Searching for "clear heels" and "fashion" got some results saying clear was big. [16] Dream Focus 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for "red heels" or "black heels" or any other relevant adjective plus "heels". That doesn't mean we need a separate article on them. In fact, "clear heels" only gets 34k Ghits, whereas "black heels" gets 367k and "red heels" gets 219k. According to that logic, Red heels and Black heels should exist before this article does. SnottyWong ^talk 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they get the same kind of coverage, then yes, they can have their own articles also. And it doesn't matter who got an article first. Whether something exist yet or not, has nothing to do with whether another article should exist. Dream Focus 03:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great little stub on a topic that seems noteable, though admitedly I wasnt able to evaluate all the sources as one of them seemned to try to infect my Windows 7 notebook. Grrrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would lean towards "merge" when this article was tagged deletion.[17] but this article has been extensively sourced now. What a great job folks. Okip 22:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Snottywong. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What information would you merge? High-heeled footwear is long enough. Should each type of heel get three paragraphs? Do you mean replace article with a redirect and that it? Dream Focus 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the article consists of 3 short paragraphs of 2-4 short sentences each. I don't think that merging that material to High-heeled footwear (which really isn't that long) is going to be problematic. SnottyWong ^spout 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Of the 4 types of heels mentioned in the "high heeled footwear" template, only stiletto heel seems to have enough information to be able to stand on its own (and since most of that is completely unreferenced, perhaps a closer inspection will trim it down to a size comparable to the other articles). So I see no problem with adding the notable information to High-heeled footwear and turning this one into a redirect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Snottywong's suggestion. It's just a shoe. Is there a separate article for every type, color, or material of high-heels? Eastcote (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER There is no shortage of space on Wikipedia. If there are enough reliable sources for the article's subject, then there is no reason not to have its own article. Dream Focus 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at best deserves a one line mention at High heels un der materials used or styles, not notable enough for its own article. He iro 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to high heels. Even if we've got sources saying that clear heels are popular, that doesn't mean they're notable. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 08:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Not every google search deserves an article. In order to be suitable for an encyclopedia article, the subject has to have received sufficient notice in reliable sources as a coherent topic. Nothing about "clear heels" is distinguished enough from any other kind of heel in the sources. Quale (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They clearly exist, there seems to be enough interest in them specifically to warrant a distinct article from high heels. In particular, high heels is mostly about the wearing of them, and the cultural implications of that style of dress. Clear heels (and if we wished, the cork wedges of the 1940s) are instead a topic for shoemakers on the history of fashion, materials and design. A niche interest certainly, but that's what we do here. Just from the polymer science aspect, I'm now fascinated by the manufacturing of clear heels and I'm wondering just how far back they date. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have the article you are imagining. We have an article about shoes for "strippers and sluts" created by someone who appears to be enjoying the Pavlovian responses of some Wikipedians. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Wales, not Las Vegas, so we have neither of those locally. Shouldn't we be judging AfD on the basis of the article's scope and potential, rather than combative edits in one particular version of it? My comment was mostly in response to comments for a merge in this AfD, on the basis that there was no distinction between heels and clear heels. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced that we need an article on every material used in high heels. How about stainless steel heels? If this is notable rename to Materials used in the construction of heels for shoes. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the information in the article and more importantly the numerous sources listed, the topic is significant and noteworthy. And yes, if the topic of Stainless steel high heels was as extensively documented and popular as Clear Heels, then it should have an article too. Fundamental Error 1985 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a good time to note that the creator of this article -- User:Carolyn Baker III -- has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and is blocked as a sock puppet, Confirmed by yours truly. –MuZemike 09:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what does this have to do with the article itself? We're not here to discuss the user, but the article. Dream Focus 11:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some people like to know when they are being played for a fool. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant costume and cultural phenomenon. The New York article is an adequate reliable source. As for others, a quick look at google books [18] gives, in addition to the expected fiction, quite a few other sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 14 November 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 snow keep. The spirit, if not the letter, of WP:SK ground 1 is met because the nominator has been indeffed as a bad faith editor and nobody else thinks this material ought to be deleted. Besides, this debate has attracted more than enough attention for a clear consensus to emerge. I hereby explicitly invoke WP:IAR to perform an early non-admin closure irrespective of whatever guidelines tell me I shouldn't.

If a good faith editor would like to raise a fresh AfD for this material, then there's obviously no problem with that at all.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rio Tinto Mines

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

I am nominating all articles in Category:Rio Tinto Iron Ore, save for Hamersley & Robe River railway

Entire list: Brockman mine, ~~West Angelas mine,~~ Channar mine, Eastern Range mine, ~~Hope Downs mine, Marandoo mine,~~ Mesa A mine, Mesa J mine, Mount Tom Price mine, Nammuldi mine, Paraburdoo mine, and Yandicoogina mine.

I believe they should be merged into a list (perhaps titled List of Rio Tinto mines) with a table listing the following pieces of information: the owner of each mine (some mines are owned only partly by Rio Tinto), the production capacity of each mine, whether the workforce is on a Fly-in fly-out roster, when each mine began operations, each mine's precise location, and a column for other notes. The other pages should be deleted.

Rationale These pages are basically duplicates of one another, only differing in their production capacity, year that operations began, and where the main workforce resides.

All articles begin: X is an iron ore mine located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia... The mine is fully-owned and operated by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and is one of twelve iron ore mines the company operates in the Pilbara.
In the overview section: Rio Tinto iron ore operations in the Pilbara begun in 1966. The mine itself begun operations in X. The mine has an annual production capacity of x tonnes of iron ore, sourced from open-pit operations... The mines workforce is on a Fly-in fly-out roster.

These mines are not notable in themselves, so a list would be the best course of action. Whwya (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As a general rule with mining articles, individual mines on Wikipedia have their own articles rather then being grouped in massive lists. As to the said twelve articles, I think those mines are very notable as they contribute large amounts to the world iron ore production. As to the similarity of all twelve articles, they are still in the process of expansion, as you would expect with articles created in the last 24 hours. While User:Whwya spend his time Wikihounding me (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding by User Whwya) and nominating those articles for deletion, I was actually working on them and expanding them. Calistemon (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that "individual mines on Wikipedia have their own articles"? Rather than sending a WP:VAGUEWAVE, why not lay out reliable sources that have significant coverage of these mines? Almost all of these articles are sourced to the Rio Tinto website. Whwya (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were already in an expansion phase at the time of your blanket-deletion proposel. Brockman mine and Channar mine undergone expansion with reliable third-party resources ( The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian) by the time you tagged them. Your actions show your true intend, to target me, not the articles, as you paid no attention to the already carried out expansions when you nominated them all for deletion! Calistemon (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Brockman mine, the third-party sources are [19] and [20]. The first source mentions a quote from a spokesperson "Channar was shut as part of our reduction in Pilbara production … just as Brockman 2 was shut" – the fact that Brockman mine was closed briefly does not confer notability. Likewise, for the second source, the upcoming mine "Brockman 4" does not confer notability.

For Channar mine, the third-party sources are [21]/[22], [23], and [24]. The first three are insignificant coverage, but the fourth could make Channar mine borderline notable since it was China's "first ever investment in Australia". Whwya (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no hard and fast rule regarding notability of individual mines, I have never seen one deleted, either by AfD, or by speedy deletion (with the exception of some that had nothing but an infobox, which were eventually restored and expanded).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all with the exception of maybe Nammuldi mine. A simple Google News search brings up multiple article specifically about each mine (with the exception of Nammuldi mine, which might take some more digging). Personally I don't like articles entirely sourced with company information, but as shown there is other information out there. Personally I think a little bit of investigation should have been taken place prior to mass nomination. Calistemon should have probably completed his expansion before moving to article space.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brockman mine has only 1 result, which is unrelated to the mine.
West Angelas mine – I would be amenable keeping it [25].
Channar mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Eastern Range mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Hope Downs mine – I would be amenable keeping it [26] [27].
Marandoo mine – I would be amenable keeping it [28] [29].
Mesa A mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Mesa A mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Mount Tom Price mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Nammuldi mine – I see no results.
Paraburdoo mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Yandicoogina mine – I see only [30] or [31] insignificant coverage.

In summary, Brockman mine, ~~West Angelas mine,~~ Channar mine, Eastern Range mine, ~~Hope Downs mine, Marandoo mine,~~ Mesa A mine, Mesa J mine, Mount Tom Price mine, Nammuldi mine, Paraburdoo mine, and Yandicoogina mine should be deleted for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Whwya (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only carried out searches and expansions on Brockman and Channar, but have found a number of reliable third-party sources for both mines, related to the mine. It appears, Whwya, you are not looking in the right places, or don't want to look. Calistemon (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on your expansions on Brockman and Channar above. I am looking in the right places, mind you. Your continued crybaby attitude does not help your case; I suggest you grow up. Whwya (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing a bit tired of your personal attacks against me, please cut them out. Calistemon (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? Whwya (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one right above, calling other editors names is a bit juvenile, don't you think? Calistemon (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not juvenile when it remains within reality. Whwya (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I would rather see these being rewritten and expanded than simply deleted. Ng.j (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too would rather see these expanded than deleted, but unfortunately, how would they be expanded with the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources? Your WP:NOREASON is unconstructive in this debate. Whwya (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The articles could each use some additional specific information but all are noteworthy. Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy? I also agree with the juvenile comments being completely unnecessary.--Hughesdarren (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a policy supporting your words. Whwya (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles comply with WP:NOTE as outlined in my inital comment. (or if you were alluding to the juvenile retorts part then WP:CIVIL would be the appropriate policy to refer to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesdarren (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 November 2010

Another WP:VAGUEWAVE. Tell me how the above articles (unstruck ones) satisfy WP:GNG – "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

WP:CIVIL is a joke. Whwya (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each is a different mine, in a different location, with different start up dates, that produces a different output to each other. As I had written earlier Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy? It is these key pieces of informaion that allow each article to satisfy WP:NOTE. --Hughesdarren (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each mine being different does not warrant standalone articles.

To answer your question ("Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy?"): No, it wouldn't. Where did 10 million come from? 10 million is an arbitrary number chosen tailored to this situation to support keeping these articles. Whwya (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 million tonnes is an enormous ammount of Iron Ore, 100,000 tonnes of product would probably make a mine notable and this is 100x larger. The large scale is a point of notability, not just a magic number. At somewhere between $80-100 per tonne means that each mine is worth about $1 billion per year to the economy, I'm not saying that $1 billion is a magic number of notability either but many articles exist on millionaires who are worth alot less. Do you believe that each mine is not notable?--Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do (the unstruck ones), or I wouldn't be nominating them for deletion. You're spitting out arbitrary values again. Where does it say that "100,000 tonnes of product would probably make a mine notable"? Your WP:OR is not based on policy and thus will be given less weight than supported statements. As for your comments about millionaires, that's irrelevant; see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Whwya (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue in circles, if you think that 10 million tonnes is insignificant and not notable then you are entitled to your opinion. It is unfortunate that a policy stating how much tonnage makes a minesite notable doesn't exist but if it did then wikipedia would have more policy statements than articles. We have a difference in opinion, the policies are unfortunatley subjective and open to interpretation. You and I have obvious difference in interpretations and, even more fortunately it seems that a consensus view has been formed WP:CONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesdarren (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 November 2010

Since it's subjective, your comments not supported by policy hold no weight. What is important here is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant coverage" is pretty damn clear. I'm seeing no significant coverage.

Consensus has not yet been formed because some are trying to railroad this through. Most do not cite policy, but those who do have flawed arguments. Whwya (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You agree the policies are subjective, but everyone elses arguments are flawed? --Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rational people would conclude that a consensus has been reached--Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is a joke? Interesting point of view. --Hughesdarren (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the uneven way in which WP:CIVIL is applied to common editors versus its application to admins. Whwya (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy should apply equally to all, from what I see on this page only one person has failed to comply with it.--Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be, but unfortunately, we've got some who call others "wankers". Whwya (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, on this page only one person is in clear violation --Hughesdarren (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have violated no policy. Whwya (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are global scale mines and are individually notable. –Moondyne 05:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a policy supporting your words. This is just another WP:VAGUEWAVE. As an admin, you are expected to understand policies and understand how to provide a constructive rationale at AfD. I've never had any expectation that admins understood policy. This vote confirms my beliefs. Whwya (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Per above --Matthewdavies (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? Are we playing follow the leader today? Whwya (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Based on the vindictive statements by nom throughout, and the incredible number of edits by them to this AFD, nomination was clearly bad faith. Someone has an axe to grind, and this is how they're trying to do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very poor rationale. Not based remotely on policy. Whwya (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, check out WP:SIG. Whwya (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These are mines of worldwide importance, and each has the potential for having a good stand-alone article. As far as scarcity of 3rd-party sources, it is just a fact of life for many articles on mines or mineral deposits that what is known about them depends on information directly or indirectly from the company or its employees. Many one-day-old articles are less than perfect, and these are no exception. However, this proposal for deletion appears to be nothing more than the vendetta of a single editor. Plazak (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but take a look at the following re: Whwya: [32],[33],[34],[35] and [36]. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as this was clearly a thoroughly bad-faith, pointy nomination by the since-indef'd Whwya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is most likely a sock of a previously indef'd user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - on the basis that most mining operations in Western Australia for a start are sufficiently variant in conditions - and can require significant annotation - due to a range of issues about conditions, enabling acts, infrastructure and transportation issues. As to the participants of this Afd being hounded by a now blocked user - it does not help the afd proposal one iota. Satu Suro 14:51, 7 November 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: non-admin close because AfD wasn't the proper venue. The tag was already replaced on the article with {{merge}}. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of last surviving Canadian war veterans

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because I am planning on combing the last Canadian, U.S., and Mexican war veterans into one page and title it "Last North American veterans by war". This page has been "abandoned" due to no editions nor updates. Sources are not properly cited and their is too little information. By combing a bunch of countries under one from one continent (similar to Europe), the article will be larger and be more widespread. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see a problem with merging these articles into one - as such, instead of deleting this article just be WP:BOLD and make it a redirect to your new consolidated page, as a viable search term... - Pmedema (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a simple way of merging? Can it be done by a bot? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple way of merging is just copying the content over into sections labelled USA, Canada, Mexico. Remember to leave edit comments saying what page each section was copied from, and at those pages mention that the contents were merged to whatever your list name is. If you plan to do more integration than that... you would need to write your own bot, since this seems like a very specific task that needs custom coding. But doing the simple merging, is possible by bot... if such a bot exists. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Merging will tell you what is necessary. An AfD is not required for a merge. Reso lute 05:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested merge and nothing happened. Reasoning was stated, and I put it on both of the pages that would have been affected, nothing for over one week.

I posted it again. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nick, maybe I'm repeating what you already know, but you should probably go ahead and do the merge yourself - WP:BOLD. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 8 November 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 List of supercentenarians from the United States. The edit history is still there if anyone wishes to merge anything, just remember to attribute it. –MuZemike 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of American supercentenarians

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

I am nominating this article for deletion due to this article being on Wikipedia twice. List of supercentenarians from the United States is the primary article and is the "favorite", due to it having way more edits. Only WikiBots have edited List of American supercentenarians for the past 6 months. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If we have two duplicate articles, then a merge would be in order, and that doesn't require an AFD. Once merged, I believe that this title should Redirect to the other, both for search purposes and because the List of American Supercentenarians still has a lot of incoming links. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Frank | talk 01:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fork of the older article List of supercentenarians from the United States. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge straightforwardly; was going to propose similar myself upon seeing we had both titles, but now with this page I don't need to take time right now to determine which. WP:CFORK. JJB 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Merge the fork into the original article. David in DC (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Same article, never should've existed to begin with. Someone made a list for just those from the state of Kansas, and then when someone replaced it with a redirect, went and copied the entire other article over to here. There was already consensus on the talk page to merge, so not sure why that wasn't done months ago. Dream Focus 12:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haredistan

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

Non-notable neologism/slur —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term is a neologism used in a single column by a single author. It's not the name of an actual place or the name of a place that anyone is calling for the creation of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above and also original research. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Only source given is an Opinion piece; entry needs more third party sources (ie: bonafied news articles ) if it is to stand on its own. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. The source is just one opinion piece. Google search doesn't bring much more. A source that shows that this term gained currency may be more convincing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Criticism of Judaism because this is a valid issue and fear among secular Israelis, although the term may be new. IZAK (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIZAK is right about the attitude, but I disagree about merging this new unWP:V term.--Shuki (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.sonic

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

Non notable product. Matt J ^User|Talk 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a list of brand names. Unless there is something notable about this MP3 player out of hundreds of others it should not have an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly2

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

This is a plot element, but in a non-notable game. Checking Google etc, I do not think that it realistically can be claimed to be notable , If there's no justification for an article about the actual fiction--this sort of subarticle is not supportable. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary in-universe information. Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 07:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite DeleteSadads (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too obscure, even for my tastes. Don't redirect.--hkr (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Cruickshank-Hagenbuckle

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. I can find plenty written by the subject but nothing about the subject. This unreferenced WP:BLP does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because not notable. Schoolstage (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Negrin

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

This article was recently deleted under CSD A7 but I talked the deleting admin into restoring it because I felt there was a weak assertion of significance. However, the subject may not be notable so let's see what the community says. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ron, you've stumped me. As far as I can see the assertion of significance seems to be that he was on the production team for Kevin Pollock's web chat webtv show, and the show (not Negrin personally) won one of the 35 webtv show awards made in 2010 by a website called streamys.com. What am I missing?
Incidentally, while I was researching I found and watched this 2-minute video clip by Negrin (definitely him--you can see him, he's in it), and I thought it showed a bit of talent. With any luck, one day there'll be a proper biography in this space. But I don't see that he's over the bar for notability now.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the assertion of IoS on this is very marginal. It's one I probably wouldn't have tagged on my own but wouldn't contest if tagged. However, the deleting admin asked me for my opinion and I gave it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say that apart from a Steamy (and is that even notable) there seems to be no evidance of notability and none of coverage. I would waite to see if any of those who work on this page can come up with any sources if not then this should be deletedSlatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 November 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ǝɥʇM0N0 04:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Son of Neptune

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

Violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perseus!Talk to me 22:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unpublished novel such as this should be subject to a very high threshold of notability. This article should be deleted and recreated only if the book is published and is reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The novel in question is part of a series, where every single novel has been on the NYTimes best seller list at #1. His previous book The Red Pyramid, is still in the top 5 after 26 weeks. I believe this should sufficiently cover the debate about its notability. As of this time, The previous book, the Lost Hero is ranked #14 overall on Amazon. This article has been changed so that it no longer violates WP:CBALL. Preparation for the event, the publishing of the next book, is already in progress, and this is evident by the last page in The Lost Hero. I see no reason as to why this article should be deleted. Cullen328, "if the book is published and is reviewed in multiple independent reliable sources," look above at my previous statements, there is no doubt that the future publishing of this book is of great notability. See Rick's Site with the Son of Neptune another fact that this book is going to be published. Seeing as it is customary for Rick to release information well before publication of his books either unofficially on his official blog, or an officially through his publisher, this page will be needed to keep track of the updated released. I agree that WP:CBALL policy should be followed and this article is not violating WP:CBALL. Jab843 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article may have a bit of information, but I have changed my vote to keep, as the site, at any time, may have more information. Also, on his blog, he said that he has done his research for the book. Perseus!Talk to me 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Heroes of Olympus. Perseus!Talk to me 19:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may have more info on it.Elektrik Band2:01 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Redirect search-queries at this time to The Heroes of Olympus (per suggestion of Perseus above). Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Jab843, I think that this novel's article needs to exist now because it is part of a notable series. Although I would like to point out that this article will exist later whether or not we decide to delete it now. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 20:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Winner 42 The book will be released sooner or later, so it pointless to delete it now, because soon new information will available. Breawycker (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubatewe should incubate it and see if more info becomes availeble.if not, delete it.Elektrik Band6:24 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Disney Treasures

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

Little indication of encyclopedic notability, no sources. Elassint (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then what happens with the rest of Category:Books about Disney (there are several one-liner articles for at least 3 more books) ? If they are notable then so this is, if not this becomes a bunched AfD nomination. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure we have one-line articles about lots and lots of books, not just these. But we're just looking at this one, for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 1 November 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, 7 November 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 longer totally unreferenced and consensus seems clear that notability can be established Davewild (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Villalobos Ferrer

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

Unreferenced BLP since early 2008. I found only one source, and the guidelines require multiple ones for notability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Spanish language article has his name as Nelson Villalobo Ferrer, and a search for 'Nelson Villalobo' did find some potential sources, though in Spanish, so could do with a Spanish speaker to evaluate them.--Michig (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, was a mis-spelled last name. A very notable Cuban artist. If you check google books you will see various books mentioning him.Callelinea (talk) 20:00, 3 November 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After wading through many scrambled and useless mentions on lots of websites, I did find some seemingly good solid references, mostly in Spanish. It would be good if a Spanish speaking editor could add reliable references.Cullen328 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Spencer (writer)

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

Notability query, and was previously created and deleted as Nigel Spencer, per this query copied here from User talk:Anthony Appleyard: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. An article you previously deleted in 2008, Nigel Spencer, on grounds of notability has been recreated under slightly differentl title Nigel Spencer (writer) by apparently the same editor using a slightly different User Name. Appears to be a clear conflict on interest and misuse of multiple accounts. Just wondering what the next step should be? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His translation work has garnered him two Governor General's Awards as verifiedby this and this meeting the first criterion in WP:ANYBIO. The article could use a good dose of copyeditting, but the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Governor General Awards are notable and verified. I'll take on the copy editing in the next day or two. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 6 November 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the same man as is described in page Nigel Spencer? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without doubt. RashersTierney (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of us have worked on copy editing and the article looks much better now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Penthouse (2010 film)

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

Ok. This movie surely exists. In my opinion that is the only reason it isn't tagged with speedy-deletion. Note that its pure existance doesn't fulfill any criteria of WP:NOTFILM. No reviews, no awards, no wide distribution, no major breaktrough in any work of any cast. The article itself is hardly expandable. Low budget production with B-list actors. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film has numerous third-party references with a simple Google search. Additionally, it's cast and crew make the movie notable, even though they are mostly B-movie actors. A serious effort to improve and source the article should be made; it doesn't need to be deleted. HeartSWild (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did the search but no un-commercial third party professional REVIEW came up (and we need 3 of them)! And WP:NOTFILM states that if it could be included in the notable actor's biography (if it adds valuable information to it), than it should be moved there, but not to a separate article, because a movie page like this one isn't notable, just because of its actors. Serious efforts to any D-list movie with F-class actors could be transformed into an article to seem(!) like a notable one, but it's only the looks. At least think on a Move (to actor's bio) vote...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expansion should fulfill the criteria.Sith Lord 13 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Low budget production with B-list actors"?? Wikipedia is not about only big-budget blockbusters with A-list actors. Notability is found through coverage, and it was not difficult to immediately find a review at Monsters and Critics. Let's find more. Contrary to the nom's opinion, expansion and improvement appear do-able through regular editing. So let's work on this new article, rather than toss, shall we? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experience 7

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

fails WP:BAND. could not find any coverage. [37]. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps my own musical ignorance is showing, but I have never heard of the Kadans genre of music which this band plays so I'm assuming based on my own ignorance that this genre is not mainstream, and would not have the coverage one would find for something like pop music. They have been covered in this book and this book describes the band as one of the best-known from Guadeloupe, both published by the University of Chicago Press. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 28 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, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by Whpq, especially the second, demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 8 November 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 as speedy G4, already deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Puig (note different name, "different" creator). Fram (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio del Puig

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

Article claims this poet to be "one of the most important writers of the late XXth century" but it's not really backed up by the references. Essentially a sentence introduction with a list of publications, it's not clear how this person might meet WP:AUTHOR. References provided are difficult to verify. External link to Spanish Ministry of Culture does produce lots of hits but this validates that he is a Spanish author who has published books but not much else. Google web and news searches bring up little on the name. Google scholar and books brings up only items written by this author, no citations or mentions by other others so there doesn't appear to be any critical review of his work. RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 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, 31 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, 7 November 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. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Charter Service

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

Non-notable company, vague content ("offices all over the world"), even fails the extremely low inclusion criteria for airlines (as it doesn't operate any aircraft). Furthermore, the article is lacking any reliable sources, the website as the only given reference won't load with my computer. Thus, it is unclear whether this company is still around at all. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:06, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs expansion and possibly rewrite, but a quick search comes up with articles from Forbes, Sunday Times (among 100 best companies}, The Guardian (mention), AME, Cargonews Asia, Private Jet Daily, Tour Hebdo, etc. ~dee^(talk?) 11:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Vardar

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

Non-notable airline, was only around for some months and there is no reference (at least I couldn't find one) that any flights were operated at all during that period Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: According to the only source of this article, the airline "never entered service", so It clearly fails notability per WP:CORP. I had brought forth the matter at the expert place, but got no resonance. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:34, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails notability. No sources whatsoever to back it up. ~dee^(talk?) 12:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Air

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

Non-notable failed airline project. There are no reliable sources, no aircraft, no operated flights... This airticle fails WP:CORP, it is pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ORIGINAL Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 17:28, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Proposed Iranian airline, is no grounds for an article and fails notability for sure. ~dee^(talk?) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 8 November 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. The consensus from the more established editors, which favor retention, outweigh the commentary from the single-purpose accounts. –MuZemike 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Smathers

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

One time event, WP:BIO1E; Only notable for the one event, does not meet notability requirements, WP:N JsinWP (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended:

One time event, WP:BIO1E Only notable for the one event, does not meet notability requirements, WP:N

7 year old event does not define the subject of the article.

Comment The subject itself (Jason Smathers) may not be completely defined by the event, but the event itself was certainly very notable and warrants inclusion as an article. See here] for examples of coverage. Perhaps rename the article to AOL email theft Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The event itself doesn't need it's own page, it is already mentioned on the AOL page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JsinWP (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, one-time event, does not warrant it's own page. RazorsKiss (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)RazorsKiss[reply]

Comment Agreed, delete page per WP:BIO1E and WP:N policies. ISpurgeon (talk) 23:42, 3 November 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this discussion time concludes, remember the burden to keep the article is high. "in the absence of consensus to retain, Wikipedia may be best served by defaulting to delete the article."^[1] We must follow the Daniel Brandt precedent and delete this page.^[2] JsinWP (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (because other articles link to it for elaboration on the case) or merge and redirect to either 1) America Online#Controversies, 2) Spam (electronic)#United States, or 3) CAN-SPAM Act of 2003#Criminal enforcement. This article already links to the first two, and there are sources stating that this was one of the first cases prosecuted under CAN-SPAM. I'm not sure what has attracted the attention of SPAs, but there are sufficient sources to support that the event is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the application of WP:BIO1E to people who have received significant coverage in reliable sources for serious criminal acts isn't appropriate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Treating as uncontested PROD. Courcelles 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoot fm

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

Unremarkable radio show, seems to fail WP:GNG. Unreferenced. Acather96 (talk) 10:31, 31 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, 7 November 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 The Park Theatre. –MuZemike 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jez Bond

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

Non-notable director, sources given have little or nothing to do with the subject, possible WP:COI. 2 says you, says two 14:31, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Park Theatre, unless someone finds third-party sources covering these productions he's directed. Even a redirect is pushing it, as the notability of this theatre is itself questionable, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt because, since The Stage has written about it before it's even opened, I'm assuming it will attain notability once it opens. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twist (from Life Is Peachy)

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

Fails WP:NSONG - it needs to have charted as a single, or received some award, or some similar notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 31 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Not sure the title, as it stands, would make a good redirect to the album - but no objection, if that seems appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really see anyone searching for "Twist (from Life Is Peachy)" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 12 November 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 Nanyang, Singapore. No argument that this can meet notability guidelines and a redirect is usual for primary schools Davewild (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xingnan Primary School

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

Unremarkable primary school. No basis in policy or guideline for inclusion. See WP:OUTCOMES. ^Bongo_matic 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nanyang, Singapore, the locality where this school is located, per WP:OUTCOMES. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 03:37, 1 November 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, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyinMind.com

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

Company which may not meet the criteria set out at WP:CORP Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. bd2412 T 16:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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) 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable at all. –BuickCentury Driver 06:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:01, 8 November 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Borderline_biographies

[2] ttp://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001214.html

[1]

[2]