Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 20

< 19 March	21 March >

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. A7 also applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HollandChina

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

Non notable company. DimaG (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (a7) the small amount of info has no encyclopedic value. If this company is notable, it can easily be rewritten from scratch. Dew Kane (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could almost have been speedy-deleted, since the article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 25 March 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. Listed for 15 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Clockwork Flowers

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

Not notable per Wikipedia policy. Band has not met any of the criteria for music or musicians listed on that page. XinJeisan (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band seems to meet WP:BAND criterion #9, "has won or placed in a major music competition." In Japan, the subject of this article won a nationwide music competition, Gaijin Sounds, which appears to confer notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. This article is a horror of poor grammar and odd capitalization, but is about a notable band, per A Stop at Willoughby. I'd like to see more sources. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 22 March 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. JForget 00:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Markoff

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

Contested PROD (and PROD2). Self-promotional autobiography. Poorly referenced and not wholly verifiable. Not clear that being 8th best at a particular trading card game confers notability. See the talk page for contesting comments by the author. He does not deny that it is autobiographical but sets out some reasons why he believes he should be considered notable. DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see forum posts and blog posts, but not the significant coverage that woul establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable autobiographical entry. --mhking (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [[1]] is probably a RS. I honestly suspect this guy is notable given the rather large coverage he does have in blogs and youtube. I also suspect he's got coverage in paper TCG magazines. But I'm not finding enough at the moment. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Most Google hits are not about this guy, but about an (apparently more notable) actor and/or a rap artist by the same name. Refining the search to add "warcraft" narrows the field but produces no reliable sources. BTW based on his comments on the talk page, the writer/subject seems not to understand that Wikipedia has standards. He takes the attitude that he should be able to write whatever he wants and if we don't like it, don't read it. He needs to read WP:N and understand that it's not a free-for-all here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 25 March 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 Keep - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Method

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

The article I feel fails WP:NOTABLE and is a WP:SYNTHESIS, using references which do not discuss the sinclair method, and acts as an WP:ADVERT for the sinclair method website. A search using quotation marks for "sinclair method" in pubmed turned up zero results. A single review paper does mention the method but it is written by none other than sinclair himself. The other references are either not relevant at all or by sinclair himself. The method has no mainstream acceptance that I can tell outside of Dr Sinclair's personal website mentioned above and apparently wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There does seem to be some acknowledgment of the method outside of peer reviewed research, in news papers and some low quality books. I think this is largely because of its mention for years on wikipedia's alcoholism article read by millions over the years and sinclair's promotion on radio. I shall leave it to the community to decide the article's fate. I guess the question I feel is, is it a notable fringe or minority theory or treatment worthy of a wikipedia article or is the wikipedia article a commercial advertisement?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be multiple sources for this. The article needs to be cleaned up, yes, but certainly not deleted. Sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Silver seren^C 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Hmmm, you have put a doubt in my mind now. Maybe I was applying WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY too strongly and jumped the gun? Perhaps it is notable enough to keep as an article after all. I shall wait for other wikipedians to weigh in. Why not vote keep as you think it should be kept Silver. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i'm also going to go and put those sources in as ELs. Silver seren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of sources about the article verify notability. Silver seren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I would like to withdraw this article from articles for deletion. Silver seren has persuaded me of the articles notability. I jumped the gun when I saw no pubmed hits and a not very professionally designed website, (I should have checked google books). Apologies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:41, 21 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schapiro Hall

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

Article about a non-notable building. Prod was declined four years ago. TM 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep because of the NYT article--the dorm seems to have had a particular significance outside the local student community. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established. I think that if Namiba want to establish a guideline or policy change regardng the coverage of dormitory buildings, we should have a well-publicized RFC at Wikiproject Universities rather that going through these AfDs. Racepacket (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with DGG. At least there was some mention in a major newspaper. PDCook (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is one of many, many college residence articles that User:Namiba has nominated, PRODed, or redirected. (There are more on the March 23 page.) I would hope that we could develop a generic policy at Wikiproject Universities instead of proceeding in this fashion. Racepacket (talk) 11:53, 27 March 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. A notable bus stop, go figure :) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore Road Satellite bus stand

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

Just a bus stand, doesn't appear to be notable in any way. Unreferenced. PROD removed without reason. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced now. This is one of the six major bus stations in the city of Bangalore (and the second to be built). And this is a city where bus services form the only intra-city public transport system at present. Hundreds (some days thousands) of buses operate out of this bus station (to give a size perspective). We have articles for Metro stations for all major cities. This should be considered similar to a Metro station in a city with 5 million strong population. Has good scope for expansion with images.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In a way, I agree with Sodabottle. To me it is a weak keep. thx.--kaeiou (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bus and train stations seem to be inherently notable de facto if not de jure --Nuujinn (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Just a bus stand" is notable enough. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough for wikipedia. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the nominator has misunderstood its notability from his own idea of what a "bus stand" is. I had expected to vote fro deletion until I read the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 25 March 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 iTunes Store. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Gift Card

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

I can't think of a single way this individual gift card is any different from the thousands of other gift cards out there. Although there is sufficient news regarding the 10 billionth download contest, I can't see how this is any more deserving of an individual article than any other gift card. This could plausibly be redirected to iTunes Store. —LedgendGamer 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with iTunes; does not have notability outside of parent topic. --21:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhking (talk • contribs)
Merge with iTunes Store. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 21:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to iTunes Store. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relationship between the 10 billionth download contest and the gift card is tenuous. If the prize had been cash woud this section be appropriate in the article about the dollar? Other than the contest, there is nothing which separates the iTunes Gift Card from other gift cards. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 27 March 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 Clear consensus for way too many reasons to articulate here. The position by Fiftytwo thirty provides the best summary. Thanks for doing that. Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd R. Woodson

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

Same article that was already deleted. Nothing but POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors. Be prepared for massive disruption and accusations of conspiracy and bad faith, I urge people taking part in this debate to focus on the article being discussed and not other editors. Ridernyc (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed since the first AfD. WP:NOTNEWS still applies. The article should have gone to deletion review instead of being reposted, and it still remains substantially the same as its prior incarnation despite promises of enhancements and a raft of new coverage. There has in fact been minimal follow up coverage in the local media, just a handful of reports of his indictment and fringe coverage related to honouring of officers.
Further to the NPOV problems, for an apparently non-terrorism related incident, the word terror (including derivatives) is used an incredible 18 times throughout the article, 5 of which are in the second paragraph. This is clearly being used as a WP:COATRACK for other issues such as conspiracy theories about the authorities definition of terrorism. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To quote the deletion review page "Deletion review review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." As far as I'm aware no-one is disputing the original deletion or the decision reached so deletion review is not the appropriate venue. The article having been recreated G4 should have (and was) considered but, in my opinion, correctly deemed not appropriate as the article, having been improved, no longer met the "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" criteria and I also believe it was no longer "substantially identical" to the original. Both of these are matters of interpretation but per deletion policy "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" therefore I feel this article has ended up in the right venue. Disclosure: I removed the speedy tag the second time after it was inappropriately re-added as it had been removed by someone other than the page creator (i.e. at the time I removed it again on process grounds not on its merits). However I have also stated that I was not adverse to another AfD. My view on whether this article should be deleted is below. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E apply. While there is ongoing coverage it is, in my opinion, routine coverage of an ongoing judicial process and so still one event. If the subject gets substantial coverage that is independent of an event in the case then I may re-consider but while they continue to get coverage only when routine events in the case occur I do not believe it is sufficient to meet the exception in WP:BLP1E. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still stand by my delete vote despite the updates to the page. In my mind this is still one event (as everything that has happened since his arrest is a naturally following consequence). To meet the exception in WP:BLP1E I'd like to see some coverage of him not directly related to his arrest and what normally follows an arrest. As an example in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the introduction of full body scanners and other changes to airport security measures which were also newsworthy and which were as a direct result of his actions cross the line into making the event significantly notable that we should cover it. I except however that this is only one interpretation of WP:BLP1E (and by the looks of things possibly one of the more extreme ones) and respect that other people have different interpretations of the policy. With that in mind I would ask that people are more careful when making allegations (as several times below), a differing interpretation is not necessary clearly wrong. As far as I'm aware I've never interacted with any of the editors in this dispute before I stumbled across it because of the speedy tag. I have formed my own opinion with any pre-conceptions and my view of any editor has in no way influenced my decision. Dpmuk (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment If it's about the person, it's a clear case of BLP1E; if it'sabout the case, it should be moved. I think there should definitely be a WP article on this, however it be titled. I have no time to work on this right now, but will try and address Mather's concerns in a few days. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The overabundance and time-spanning news coverage indicate this event has moved beyond wp:notnews.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this. This is clearly newsworthy and encyclopedic. It was all over the news, and it will continue to be. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coment the people claiming this is and has been all over the news need to provide links because this [9] [10] graphically shows a small spike then nothing for 2 months. In other words the graphical representation of one event. Also please read the previous AFD before commenting since we went over all of this back then. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been fooled by gnews from time to time. A better measure of the most recent coverage, weeks after the initial event of his arrest, is reflected in a google search. Or take a look for starters at the refs at 9-10, 33-41, and 61 in the article itself, describing the weeks-later events of his indictment, the awards handed out to the police and store clerks, and the recent characterization by the Branchburg Police Chief to the arrest as being the most significant one in the department's history.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since eight of those sources were the same AP news release, it served no purpose repeating them, so I have removed all but one of them and reused a single instance. And in any case only one of your new sources is more recent coverage – that relating the to honouring of the officers. _wjemather ^bigissue 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While working off the same news release, they were not identical. No worries, though. For those who wish to see the articles that WJE deleted, which were printed in newspapers all across the country, in various RSs, weeks after the initial event (the arrest), about the subsequent indictment, you can find them here. The point remains the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were not working off the same release, they were identical, word-for-word. And having just finished wading through the other sources, it is obvious that the article has been over-referenced (if there can be such a thing) in order to exaggerate the scope of the coverage. Many of the references are duplications of the same newswire reports, just published by different media. For instance, as of this revision, refs nos 1, 9, 14, 29, 30, 33, 39 are the same Mulvihill authored AP wire story. _wjemather ^bigissue 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete !voters have not articulated any reason which requires deletion to solve: If there's coatrack, remove it through editing. If this should be titled after an event rather than a person, rename it. NOTNEWS should really be changed to NOTCURRENTNEWS, because durability in the news and a variety of media coverage are a strong indication of notability. The ongoing coverage demonstrates that V and N are met, and there's no compelling argument per NOT that this should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is really about the case rather than the person, so BLP1E is moot. Whether the article should be retitled is debatable - no obvious alternative title comes to mind. The case is clearly notable, and this doesn't fall into NOTNEWS either. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I struggle to understand. He has been covered for two months, by dozens of articles. How is that WP:NOTNEWS? And we didnt delete Abdul Mutallab or others like him because of WP:1E. Of course, Muallab is an extreme case with many more articles, but I hope I'm making myself clear.--Gilisa (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I slept on this last night to let my mind sort out the issues. When I first read the Woodson article, it struck me as perfectly notable enough. As I studied and studied it and further picked it apart with a critical eye, I started perceiving weaknesses in its notability. So I withdrew an earlier Keep vote, slept on it, and was coming here to vote regardless of how others voted. Here is my reason for voting Keep: As much as the nominator and his friend would like everyone here to focus only on the article and judge it on its merits (seems reasonable enough on the surface), the reall reason we are all here wasting our time on another bit of wikidrama is because a long running feud between three editors that continually results in edit battles, tags slapped on articles, and other things we don’t need on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, Epeefleche’s work keeps on being subjected to the critical eyes of this other editor and his friend (the nominator of this AfD). They somehow materialize to give Epeefleche’s work an exceedingly critical once-over (and twice over, and thrice over). I’ve seen the battles and and arguments and find much of it to be truly absurd. The simple fact is that this is all over a long-running feud and it is all needless. In my view, these three editors should be required—via ArbCom or an ANI—to stay away from each other and all will be much better. The Woodson article has 54 citations and is clearly the product of a great deal of work by Epeefleche. We shouldn’t have the hard labors of another Wikipedian be routinely assailed by the same pair of editors. If there are shortcomings in Epeefleche’s work, let the rest of the community weigh in and naturally resolve things in due course. To WJE and the nominator: I suggest you take Epeefleche off your watch list (or whatever else it is you do). With 6,889,607 articles on Wikipedia, it seems exceedingly unlikely that you two just randomly stumble across his work. If your answer is “I just look at New Article lists and call ‘em like I see ‘em,” then the simple solution is check the edit history and if it magically happens to be Epeefleche, just stay away. Wikipedia will be better off without all this needless wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, you have come here to support your friend, throw some more dirt at me because you are still upset that I raised issues with an article you started, and have no policy reason for your keep vote. _wjemather ^bigissue 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once asked Abraham Lincoln what religion he adhered to. He replied “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.” Same for me; I come to the defense of those who need defending—always. I suggest two things to you, Wjemather: 1) Please stop wrapping yourself in the banner of righteous indignation every single time someone criticizes your behavior on Wikipedia, and 2) Just stay away from Epeefleche and I’m sure peace will break out upon the land, crops will flourish, midwives will sing, etcetera. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As for your suggesting that I have no “policy” based reasons to vote Keep : 1) I second what brewcrewer wrote, and 2) I am mindful of Wikipedia:Harassment, which seems to be increasingly applicable with you and Epeefleche’s articles. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to further entertain your provocation and side-tracking antics here. Thanks for coming though. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator of the AFD the last time, nothing has changed. This is a one event type of person and all Bachcell seems to have done is just made the article bigger with more international sources. The creator seems to have gone to Google News, taken a bunch of Associated Press articles that stated the same thing, but were published by different news sources, and added them here. This method seems to be an attempt to say that it is covered internationally. Over a year ago, we had an incident nearby where a 13 year old helped kill his 16 year old half brother. I created an article, and a few months later it was deleted per one event. I accepted that with the intent of recreating it when the trial came around. When I was searching for sources for the article, I found many international news sources. I took some of them, but I focused on the local papers as they were more comprehensive. There was also a lower risk of me repeating my sources. I also think that the notability of this guy was a bit overblown. If I was to get caught with an arsenal that big with a turban, I'm sure the BBC would report on me because I had a turban and guns. We live in a culture where a guy with a gun and a turban seems to be construed as a potential terrorist. He's being argued for notability on that fact. If he had a ton of weapons or a turban, he would've just been another man. The fact that he had both has made people think that he is someone that we should worry about. So what, it really doesn't matter what he had. I don't see him being any different from the radical guy down the street who doesn't like the government. He is currently sitting in a county jail right now. To me, this means that he isn't considered that big of a risk. This also ties into his notability in that if he was of a higher security risk, he would probably be in a higher security jail as the government would be fearful of him being out there. He also didn't have maps or a plan, which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country. When all is said and done, he will probably get at least ten years in prison, and he will be forgotten about. In addition, this is neither an attack on the editors, nor does it represent my views of them. I respect all of the contributors of the articles, but I believe that their actions when trying to establish notability of Lloyd are done in a way which I don't approve of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin: You write, immediately above: "He also didn't have maps ... which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country." Actually, that's slightly short of being accurate. He did have maps.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the reasons stated above by others. SteveB67 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The various subjects discussed in the article have been covered extensively over the past two months by media across the U.S. (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, UPI, The Baltimore Sun, The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Forbes, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, The New York Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, USA Today, Associated Press, Asbury Park Press, Charlotte Observer, Daily Record, Fairfax Times, Las Vegas Sun, The Messenger-Gazette, Star-Ledger, Stars and Stripes, CSP TV, News 12 Networks, and WHSV-TV). It has also been covered by media in Canada (Canada Free Press and The Toronto Sun), France (AFP), New Zealand (The New Zealand Herald), Pakistan (Daily Times (Pakistan)), and Taiwan (Taiwan News). Wolf Blitzer and Rick Sanchez raised it on their national talk shows. Nor have these been passing references; the vast majority of the indicated refs focused entirely on the matters that are the subject of this article.
I agree with the consensus view expressed above that this is a keep. WP:NOTNEWS is wholly inapplicable, as many editors have already indicated. That is for items such as “routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities”. What we have here, in contrast, is dozens of articles in major RSs and across the world, over many weeks. Similarly, Wikipedia:Coatrack not only doesn’t apply to this article, it bears not at all on the issue of the notability of the various subjects discussed in the article, as JClemens points out. WP:BLP1E does not apply, as RSs here cover a number of events, including the background of Woodson, his arrest, his state charge, his federal arraignment, his state grand jury indictment, and related awards – and do so in high-profile national and international coverage, persistent over a number of weeks, in at least five dozen RSs reflected in the article and here (many of which were articles that appeared all across the U.S. subsequent to the close of the prior AfD). The comments by the minority of delete voters that “nothing has changed” is therefore unsupported by the facts, as a look at the many RS refs in the article and at the refs that WJE has deleted from the article (but which I linked to above), which were printed/reported after the last AfD, clearly demonstrate. Some of the minority delete comments contain synthesis, and/or mistakes (e.g., “He also didn't have maps … which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country.”), and/or irrelevant comments comments (e.g., criticism of the RSs for covering the subjects so intensely, guesses as to why they did so, crystal-balling etc.). For whatever reasons, the minority delete voters appear to be turning Nelson’s eye to the clear, notable, ongoing, high-level, national and international RS coverage here, which ineluctably reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, references were not removed – if they had been, that would be vandalism. There was a single AP story that you had retrieved from seven or eight different sources and scattered all over the article to try an exaggerate the coverage. There are several other instances where you have done the same thing, but I have not yet had the time to clean them up.
WP:NOTNEWS absolutely does apply. It is to be expected the there will be some coverage of his indictment and in the future his trial and sentencing. That does not make this notable, otherwise we would have articles on every violent crime (which this is not).
The only thing which marks this out is certain individual's desire to link Woodson to terrorism (preferably the Islamist variety), as highlighted by the giant coat that is the Investigation and intentions section. This intention has been made clear by the creator of the article (along with claims of a Wikipedia cover-up during the first AfD and elsewhere) and followed up by it's major contributor, with his insistence on links to and from entirely unrelated attack articles.
This incident has been discussed more here on Wikipedia than it has in the real world, which should tell you all you need to know. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Factsontheground (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has to be the most absurd nomination for a deletion ever on WP. The thing is huge with lots of international and national coverage BECAUSE it looks exactly like a guy with jihadist links about to attack an army base, and it has to be deleted because 1) it's just one event 2) it looks like a conspiracy theory 3) it was deleted before? It's ridiculous to claim an event with this much coverage as one event, and there's not reason this MUST be deleted because it's harmful, not notable, or pure nonsense. The people who keep on promoting AFD's like this are clearly promoting one POV and supressing another POV. NOTNEWS is simply silly, otherwise you might as well get rid of the Fort Hood Attack since it's all about news about one event, never mind the article on this fellow covers his entire known life, as well as the officers involved. "This incident has been discussed more here on Wikipedia than it has in the real world, which should tell you all you need to know." There is nothing in this very large and detailed article that has NOT come from real world coverage, and that should tell you nothing with THIS much coverage, including many, many links to terrorism from the people doing the investigating in mainstream news sources needs to be deleted unless it is surpressing a POV. There is not just one individual "desiring" to link the incident to terrorism, but several WP contributors who have had to fight against a number of WP editors evidently determined to censor any evidence or incidents that could be associated with Islamist terrorism (witness that Fort Hood Shooting STILL enforces a ban on a terrorism category, largely because of the same crowd advocating the deletion of this article) NOTNEWS is not a reason for deletion of an article, especially one this extensively covered by national, international sources over this long a period of time. Could somebody correct my impression that NPOV means airing (not deleting) ALL notable points of view? Where does NPOV state that any obvious POV should be deleted rather than balanced? Bachcell (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: Where does NPOV state that any obvious POV should be deleted rather than balanced? Sweet. I agree. I’ll have to remember that one. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article that I mentioned above that I was involved in has 3,240 Google hits. Lloyd has 1,990. My page was deleted for lack of notability and it was also internationally covered. Not every article with over a thousand Google hits is notable by our standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring argument, the inverse of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As that guideline suggests, an argument to avoid at an AfD discussion is "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this"--which is precisely Kevin's argument. I doubt many editors have the interest in checking that article, and what its other problems may have been, etc., and as that guideline suggests it would be a diversion from the issue at hand. I'm confident that many more articles could be reflected that have lesser RS coverage than the article here, but that would move us away from focus on the pertinent point. Notability under wp policies is evidenced by broad, national and international coverage, on high-level and many different RSs, and national talk shows, as we've seen in the dozens of refs (and deleted refs) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, many duplicate references placed to exaggerate the scope of coverage. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epee, I wasn't arguing the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thing. I was talking about Google hits, not that. Don't warp my argument when I clearly wasn't using that at all. I was arguing that hit numbers aren't necessarily pertinent to the notability of an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I misunderstood. I read your comparison of the number of ghits that another (deleted) article had to the number of ghits that this article has, as well as your prior discussion of the deleted article, to be a comparison between the two, with you suggestingart that since the other article was deleted this one should be as well. Actually, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'm not sure what relevance your discussion of the other article has to this AfD. Anyway, I'm willing to walk away from this aspect of our discussion, since I believe it is distracting from the pertinent points. Best..--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying that Google hits don't necessarily make an article notable. My article had more hits and it was deleted, even though I sourced it well. Oh well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bachcell has made no effort to hide his opinion that Woodson is a Islamist terrorist planning a jihadist attack, despite there being absolutely no reliable evidence to support that view. He clearly sees the article as a key component in his personal fight against terrorism and what he sees as censorship or a cover-up by the authorities and fellow Wikipedians. He has even accused other editors of being terrorist sympathisers for pointing out the problems with his synthesis. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WJE--you miss some points. First of all, if RSs all across the country report a matter, that constitutes widespread coverage in RSs of the matter. It matters not a jot whether they worked off the same AP article. The point, which you fail to appreciate and would appear to perhaps seek to obfuscate, is that the matter was reported extensively all across the country in all manner of RSs. That is indicia of reliablity. Even apart from those refs, we have over 50 others, from all manner of RS, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Again--those are indicia of notability. Finally, your personal attacks above on what you construe as Bachcell's personal viewpoints do not detract in the least from the valid points he makes. For all I care, you could be a ___ (fill in the blank with the most odious personality you can think of), but if your points are valid, I will accept them. Bachcell's are. Yours, as reflected in a number of responses on this page ... not so much. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleasant. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand how this would not be newsworthy! How can we call Wikipedia an encyclopedia if we do not include an individual who has received such national media attention. We also cannot just delete this because it's in a state of disrepair; if you don't like it, then fix it! Don't take the easy way out and just wipe the article away. It would be absolutely absurd to delete this article; I can't find a single piece of criteria that it fails to meet! I saw somebody above mention the fact that over time, the article's hits on Gnews have decreased. That is a ridiculous chart to use as evidence, but if we are going to set the precedent that decreased coverage on Google News means the article is unremarkable, then I suggest we delete the article about the 9/11 attacks. [11] –BLM Platinum (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying it is not newsworthy, but that is what wikinews is for. This however is an encyclopaedia and long standing coverage or impact is required to warrant inclusion, and this event does not have that. I must also say good job so far in improving the article. _wjemather ^bigissue 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, what I ment to say is "notable", not "newsworthy". –BLM Platinum (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@WJE -- Posh. Long-standing extensive coverage has clearly been demonstrated. The level of this conversation is deteriorating when assertions like that are still being made in the face of all that is reflected on this page and in this article.--Epeefleche (talk)

I, and others, still view this as nothing more than a news story. News stories such as this quite often extend over a period of time as the wheels of justice move slowly. However, there is no long term notability in this incident that I can see. _wjemather ^bigissue 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am counting correctly, 3 others agreed with you, largely either before the article was filled out, or with no or questionable analysis, while 10 think it should be kept (though there may be some discussion as to form). If you read the criteria, this clearly meets it. Mischaracterizations and deletions of weeks-long coverage across the country, on national news shows, and outside the U.S. do little to aid in us reaching a proper conclusion at an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed counting correctly. I’m not seeing the vaguest hint of a consensus here that the article’s “…title … seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter” nor that the article “needs rescuing” nor that it needs “deletion” from Wikipedia. There is clearly no need for any of the three tags on the article. When this AfD is over, all three shall be removed from the article. If you, Wjemather, want to keep harping about the article and want to enumerate all its shortcomings, you are perfectly free to do so. But you can do so without tags that force people to interact with you so their hard work doesn’t look all crapped-on.. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are both aware that this is not a headcount. Nor is it a discussion on the article title, which will be had should it survive this process. It is also evident that I am not the only editor who can see that problems exist with the article, since Epeefleche saw fit to flag the article for rescue. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: …this is not a headcount. Ahhh…yup; aware of that. It’s the tiresome refrain that the loosing side digs up when they don’t like the results of AfDs and RfCs. According to Wikipedia policy, “consensus” is as much about the weight of the arguments as it is the headcounts; they go hand in hand. Lucky you; if it was solely based on the “weight of the arguments,” then this would have been over as soon as it started. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Not to let wikilawyering get in the way of common sense or anything like that… It’s clear using—you know, common sense—that Epeefleche put the “rescue this article”-tag there as a strategic counter-ploy to counter your “delete, nuke, and trample with a team of horses”-tag. You know: as a community alternative. I have little patience for playing wikigames. The article is clearly in no need of being rescued; that much is clear. As I mentioned above, this is all a bunch of wikidrama you and Ridernyc dragged everyone into because you two have a long-running feud going with Epeefleche. I have no patience for it because it clearly took him huge amounts of time to put together that article and cite the living crap out of it. It took you and Ridernyc mere minutes to slap your tags to force debate and a showdown. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice is you could possibly contribute in a constructive manner, instead of continuing your smear campaign. The only one playing games here is you, Greg, and it's about time it stopped. How about allowing everyone to discuss the article instead of trying to discredit other editors with phoney claims of feuds, drama and showdowns. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That little ol’ Bat-mirror of yours won’t save your skin here. You’ve had a long-running feud with Epeefleche and this is simply part of it. If you’re smart, you’ll make this your last encounter with Epeefleche, otherwise the community will have a long, hard look at whether your activities simply amount to stalking and needless conflict. Wikipedia is far and away large enough of a place for you to find plenty to do without worrying about Epeefleche; the rest of the community is perfectly capable of protecting itself from him without your “help.” By the way, quoting you: Nor is it a discussion on the article title, which will be had should it survive this process. Nope. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for you to exploit at every turn in order to drag out your issues. Common sense will be the basis going forward from here. This battle of yours will end even though you could technically find still more {I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags to force debate and drama. The tags have been there at the top of the linked article for all to see throughout this AfD and it’s clear the consensus is that the title of the article is no concern to anyone else but you two. No one else here thinks an article titled “Lloyd R. Woodson” is really about Mickey Mouse. Unless you can show a consensus here agreeing with your allegations, all the tags go. Period. Greg L (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing yourself no favours having apparently this discussion with a clear objective which has nothing to do with the article under discussion. Shame. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above again, my friend. You’ll *get it* eventually, I suppose. In the mean time, my above posts are for the benefit of the rest of the community; they *get it.* The only part of your post I agree with is that I have a “clear objective;” you got that much right. It is to expose and circumvent your Professor Marvel-style “Pay no attention to the chronic edit wars I’ve been engaging in with Epeefleche behind the curtain.” I’m pulling back the curtain on you. And I won’t bother posting a gigantic list of linked diffs here on this page to counter your absurd denials that you haven’t been throwing up obstacles to Epeefleche at every possible turn; that will wait for the inevitable ANI if you persist at what is becoming increasingly clear is nothing more than a personal vendetta.
I quietly watch how you operate, Wjemather after I was myself a beneficiary of your special attentions to my hard labors. You appear to carry grudges and relish revenge. Only hours after User:SteveB67 voted (here) against you and opined that Cobalt (CAD program) was notable, you went to CNC Software/Mastercam—an article you never previously showed an interest in—and deleted this section. Not cool. It is abundantly clear that you went to SteveB67’s Contributions history, saw that he specialized exclusively in those CAM articles, and used that information to take your revenge; a little “Take THAT” for his having the hubris to state his honest opinion (in defiance of your position). It doesn’t matter if you can cite a guideline that says your edit was OK if the edits you make are really about creating still more conflict. This is called stalking and is not allowed here on Wikipedia.
I suggest (again) that, after this, you steer clear of Epeefleche’s articles and stop creating wikidrama like this page. The consensus here on this AfD clearly shows that your wikidrama is nothing but a big waste of everyone else’s time as we (*sigh*) and hop through the hoops you set up for us all. Wikipedia is plenty big of a place for you to keep yourself busy actually improving things if you set your mind to it. Greg L (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete or Keep, it's clearly got WP:NPOV/WP:COATRACK issues. Studerby (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a non-notable event that is overblown by the press, it's getting as much or more hits than other terrorism related articles, nearly 500 per day for a topic that's supposedly dead. For comparison:

434 hits lloyd r woodson 31 Joseph T. Thomas (convicted of terrorism in australia, overturned) 512-5000 Colleen LaRose (jihad jane) 341-1400 Anwar al-Awlaki No charges or arrest on terrorism, but on US death list as threat to US 12-64 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting Admitted to jihad motive nearly immediately,

now claims direct ties to Al Queda. Bachcell (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While entirely agreeing with you, Bachcell, that the article is perfectly notable, one can't base much off of daily hits because when an AfD is ongoing, there is a lot of clicking on the article by Wikipedians and that will inflate the hits that Lloyd R. Woodson receives. If one were going to judge notability based off of hit counts, then Bart's Comet (a whole article about the 14th episode of the 6th season of the animated cartoon series The Simpsons) would be toast. Why? Well, it receives a median value of only about 72 hits per day. So as you can see, really, really (insert your superlative here) notable and encyclopedic articles like Bart’s Comet might only receive a limited number of readers even though they clearly are deserving of being in any fine encyclopedia. <grin> Greg L (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See top: 'Same article that was already deleted. Nothing but POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors. Be prepared for massive disruption and accusations of conspiracy and bad faith, I urge people taking part in this debate to focus on the article being discussed and not other editors. Ridernyc (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

Comment Oh… come on, Ridernyc. Who are you trying to kid? You and Wjemather have had a long-running feud with Epeefleche; don’t try to pretend that you two just stumbled across yet another article of his by pure accident. The rest of the community is getting tired of the conflict you two create because you three don’t play well together. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it the people who do the accusing are often the ones guilty of doing something? This deletion process is the POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors, in contrast to editors who have consistently added well-researched and balanced material to articles regarding the topic of violence motivated by politics and religion. The article presents a balanced presentation of notable opinions and facts, including FBI initial conclusions that it is not linked to terrorism, and other pieces of evidence which fits a pattern of similar attacks or threats on US bases, mostly linked to Islamism. It is not the same article, it has been updated with new information, which further shows the notability and importance of the topic, and suitabity of the article earlier is a different argument later in time. The contributions of those who continue impede improvement of these topics and incorporating new and more complete information is characterized by charges of promoting conspiracy theories merely by including notable statements from RS mainstream news sources, and characterized by unconstructive reverts and deletions rather than balance. The belief that the Woodson as individual and incident must be completely deleted from WP is completely counter to the principle of neutral point of view, as it deletes rather than presents all points of controversy. Bachcell (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is pure deletionism in it's most extreme form. The guidelines set forth in WP:ONEEVENT are exactly that: guidelines! Monica Lewinsky, is she not known for only one event? What about Zacarias Moussaoui? ONEEVENT is clearly meant to prevent, for example, the woman who was killed by a whale at Seaworld about a month ago, from getting a biography on Wikipedia. The woman received significant coverage from every single major news outlet: BBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the AP; but does not have an article. People in this discussion are misinterpreting ONEEVENT. Woodson fits just about every single guideline or rule you can throw at him. –BLM Platinum (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I completely agree with you. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the two incidents—Woodson and the woman at Seaworld—is that the incident involving Woodson comes in a post-9/11 environment with heightened sensitivity to anything even suspected to be related to terrorism, whereas there does not seem to be a larger trend of killer whales attacking humans. Also, the killer whale, Tilikum, does have have its own article (although it was involved in more than one event).--Supertouch (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't debating whether or not the Seaworld thing should have it's own article, I was saying that WP:ONEEVENT was meant to prevent events which received a total of around two days of press coverage from having articles; and that well-sourced articles about a major terrorist plot which are still getting attention are not ruled to be inappropriate for the encyclopedia by ONEEVENT. –BLM Platinum (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Were it not for the notability of the subject, an article of this size with this many references simply could not have been written.--Supertouch (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could see why someone would argue One Event but Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) could be read to keep such an article. There has been tons of coverage on this. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope." There has already been a large amount of coverage from sources around the globe. It is safe to assume that we will see some continued coverage as the proceedings progress. Renaming it to the People v Dude might seem like a cop out on our part but the case does not fall under BLP1E and meets the GNG. And we do not know what the impact of this will be. Renominating this for deletion so soon seems premature without more time allowed to gauge ongoing coverage. All of the coatrack concerns should be addressed through general article clean up. So keep and maybe rename for now (state case seems more notable than the federal case). If there really are zero additional sources in the future consider revisiting it.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, duly noted in my files as as "good guy" Bachcell (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have given the article an extensive rewrite. I would ask all to please consider the article in light of the changes. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now immeasurably better thanks to your efforts. Good work. _wjemather ^bigissue
Nice work! If there is one thing that having this article on AfD has accomplished, it has forced us to make measurable improvements. You may have saved this article. –BLM Platinum (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has to be the most edited article to have ever had so much effort devoted to its deletion if it's a topic that nobody should care about Bachcell (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snide gratuitous comments like the one above are totally unhelpful. And hard to take that you are acting in good faith in light of comments like the one further above. Just because you don't think this article should exist doesn't mean there will be consensus to delete this in any form - any deletion must follow the strengths of the arguments. Anyhoos, this won't be the first time for me, if this does get deleted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius, have you confused Bachcell with someone else? He voted Keep. Nor do I detect anything gratuitous in his 05:44, 23 March post; with his “keep” vote, he clearly wasn’t being facetious. Greg L (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject seems encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been meaning to read through *all* of the Items related to this article. After doing so, I have come to the conclusion that this is a bunch of Wikidrama which the real underlying issue is whether this article should titled the person or the event. A few observations:

WP:GNG - This has coverage in many sources, and satisfies the requirement for references, because it has significant coverage in Reliable, indpendant sources.
WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT - States "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." I point out that there is no "neither" option. There is no article about the event itself, so this article serves as the event article, which makes BLP not apply here. Whether or not this should be an article about the event or about the person is debatable, but an AfD is not the place to do that.
WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV - WP:SOFIXIT.
WP:Notability (events) and WP:Notability (criminal acts) - Deep and lengthy coverage from a variety of sources, some international. It will probably have some lasting effects, especially coupled with events such as the Fort Hood shootings.
WP:NOTNEWS - This clearly has surpassed "indiscriminate information" stage and has blossomed into a encyclopedic article. Not News can apply to the latest tabloid movement of any celebrity, or a paragraph blurb in a newspaper stating that Jane Doe was killed in the 100 block of XYZ street. This is more relevant and Notable than that. For those who say that the readership statistics are declining, that is very normal once one gets out to the mainstream media. But I guarantee that someone will mention this guy in a book about government plots ect. and that constitutes "Long term Notability"

I see no reason to delete this article due to its passage of multiple notability guidelines. For all of those people who are making this drama, I would say that there are much bigger BLP problems than this article. If the title of this article needs to be changed, then lets discuss this on the talk page, not this AfD. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

ALL: At 13 in favor of keeping and 4 in favor of deleting, the odds are astronomically improbable that the consensus will reverse itself here. Accordingly, I move that we fully apply WP:SNOWBALL (and its call to use common sense) to this AfD and all related issues, including the tagged concern that “The title of [the] article seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter”, which is a concern that is clearly not shared by the consensus here. To second the motion, please contact an administrator of your choosing and have him or her mark this AfD as closed and delete two of the three tags from the article. I also motion that we allow the shepherding author to delete the “rescue” tag himself, as that was placed by him—apparently as a strategic counter-ploy to this AfD. Greg L (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion sub-thread pertaining to name of article moved to Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson#Inappropriate article title.

If consensus is to keep for now, then so be it. However, notability is not temporary and I still fail to see anything in the article that suggests that this will be notable in a few months let alone any greater length of time, despite Fiftytwo thirty assuring us via his crystal ball that it "will probably have some lasting effects" and "that someone will mention this guy in a book". As I have suggested previously, discussion on the name should be conducted on the talk page of the article not here, should it survive this process. _wjemather ^bigissue 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Robert Eric Wone was similarly renamed, although the real desired outcome was to remove any mention of the person or incident, some said one of the persons involved may have been the main editor behind the AFD. The real motive was to promote / supress a POV, rather than any lack of notability or BLP problems. The real problem appears to be a small minority of editors who have determined that the press has overblown the indident, and too many WP editors are promoting a conspiracy theory by bringing in quotes from mainstream press sources which push this unacceptable POV. Now as far as I am concerned, it's not about what the editors (especially wjemather) think, it's reflecting what the RS think. If these editors think it's an overblown ridiculous conspiracy theory that should be quashed, by all means go to Al Jazeera or HuffPo and quote people that believe that, but that belief should not translate into a deletion of a topic with this much obvious interest and coverage. Not every topic needs to hvae a lasting effect, but for WJE to maintain the incredible position despite the plethora of sources and notable opinions published I believes reflects poorly on the ability of WJE (and others) to make positive contribitions to these topics. Bachcell (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(@ WJE) While my comment might have been a little crystal-ballish, the point is, with any terror plot, news spikes, and then recedes. Finally, truly analytical commentary comes out about it. I think that the point that this article and the breadth of coverage by RSs has gone beyond that of "indiscriminate" or "passing mention" into various conclusions being drawn to Obama's and the Government's Handling of terrorism, especially when combined with the Fort Hood and underwear bomb plots. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WJE: You have totally misinterpreted what “notability is not temporary” means. It means that once a topic has been judged to have, at some point, achieved sufficient notability (due to widespread, persistent newsworthiness, yada yada), the topic “does not need to have ongoing coverage [to maintain its status as notable].” The guideline does not mean a “consensus of notability is temporary.” The policy provides the caveat that editors may, at sometime in the future, revisit the question as to whether a topic had ever properly achieved notability in the first place. But it then cites a common reason for such a need: This can sometimes happen when notability was not discussed earlier in its history or was discussed but there was no clear consensus. That’s clearly not applicable in this case given the thorough and thoughtful discussions that have now transpired. I see it was near midnight, your time in England, when you wrote that post. I suggest you take a fresh read of the policy tomorrow.

To the others here: It seems like it’s time then, for someone to call in a sysop to close this out, delete the tags, and continue civil discussions regarding the article’s name (though no one has offered up a plausible alternative to the present article title). Bright ideas welcome.

To the closing sysop: See the four points, enumerated above in my 22:38, 23 March 2010 post. Greg L (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- WRT claims of blp1e -- (1) Woodson deserted in 1989; (2)' was first arrested in 1887; (3) rearrested on weapons charges in January 2010; (3)' was foud to possess multiple assault rifles, withe bullets suitable for peircing bullet proof vest, his own bullet prooof vest, a map of Fort Drum, and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher; (5) the weapons he possessed triggers widespread press speculation that he planned to attack Fort Drum. How many events is this? Multiple. At least three. It makes me cross when deletion arguments call on blp1e for individuals notable for more than one event. Additionally, consider poor old Richard Jewell. If he had been briefly recognized as a hero, had received a handshakes from the mayor, and had been forgotten, he would not merit ocverage. It was the media storm that brewed up when the FBI dropped broad hints that he was their prime suspect that made him notable. It doesn't matter whether the media storm that surrounded Woodson was baseless, just as it doesn't matter if the one that surrounded Jewell was baseless. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Woodson deserted in 1989 - so what? it's like tax evasion - hundreds of people do it; (2) was first arrested in 1887 if it were true, it would make him the oldest and longest living criminal in the world; but no. it's another 'so what?' - thousands of people get arrested every day (3) rearrested on weapons charges in January 2010- strike three, I'm afraid (3) was foud to possess multiple assault rifles, withe bullets suitable for peircing bullet proof vest, his own bullet prooof vest, a map of Fort Drum, and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher - so what? his ex-wife said he collected these things; many of them are perfectly legal to own (5) the weapons he possessed triggers widespread press speculation that he planned to attack Fort Drum. How many events is this? Maybe one, maybe. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I just read this discussion more thoroughly, and see others already pointed out the absurdity of blp1e claims. I'd like to address the claim the article focusses too much on his weapons' charges, and not enough on his early life. I wrote an essage to address this issue, on a scholar who wrote about 1000 years ago -- known only as "false Geber". In the days when books had to be copied by scribes he attributed his work to someone famous, so it would be more likely to be copied and distrubuted. Other people, mainly kooks, did this. But "false Geber" was not a kook. He was the first person to publish the techniques for perparing sulfuric acide. Isaac Asimove listed him as one of the top 1000 scientists in world history. Biographical details? None. We don't know his eral name real name, where he lived, when he lived, his real job, religion. Individuals can still merit articles in that total absence of biographical details. Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you perhaps suggesting this guy is on the same stratospheric level? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear

All: As I understand it, only an admin may formally close this AfD. If I am wrong about that, someone let me know. Irregardless of whether or not this AfD is still running, editing progress need not stop; not when a consensus is clear. Per Use common sense and Consensus, it is obvious what the community consensus is regarding the notability of this article; that much may be SNOWBALLED. What has transpired on this page was obviously not just a tabulation of votes in a chart, but has been a venue of sharing views and vigorous debate. At 14 to 4, the consensus is that the article is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and shall be kept. ~~Accordingly, I will shortly take the liberty of removing the two tags from the article.~~

I trust (hope) that editors who disagree with the consensus view will refrain from editing against consensus. Editing against consensus is one of the elements of disruptive editing.

Regarding what might be the most approriate title for the Lloyd R. Woodson article (and mindful that editors here have so far been at a loss to advance a better one), it has been agreed, without objection, that the wisest path forward is to delete the tag and continue civil discussion on the Woodson talk page. If an editor feels the current title is misleading or otherwise inappropriate, I suggest that he or she open the subject for the community to civilly discuss and debate by starting a talk thread on the Woodson talk page and advance a title you think is better and is most likely the the text string our I.P. editors would type into the Search field if they wanted to read up on this subject. Greg L (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Wjemather prefers the tags remain. (*sigh*) An admin will have to close this AfD to be done with this. Greg L (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

Keep for these reasons: (a) there is continuing coverage of the crime and the defendant - more than one month; (b) the alleged crime has become notorious; (c) it made National news for more than one "news cycle"; and(d) there are plenty of cites in the article. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion regarding article title

Notice The article in question is currently tagged with something reads “The title of this article seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter.” A discussion regarding whether the title of the Lloyd R. Woodson article is appropriate is ongoing at Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson#Inappropriate article title. Comments from interested editors are most welcome there. With any luck, when this AfD closes, a consensus will be solidly evident there on that issue too. Greg L (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The clear consensus was that the article’s name is fine and the {name} tag was removed. This is not to suggest that debate on that issue is over; others may still join in. Moreover, consensus can change. However, since there is currently a clear consensus after six days of debate, the tag is no longer on the article. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 26 March 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. I withdraw due to Left's sources and the other delete vote is changing to keep [12] (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stonefunkers

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

NN Band no G News CTJF83 chat 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, also, most of the sources seem to be affiliated with the subject. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY Written by GeneralCheese 20:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page. Stonefunkers were one of the early bands from Sweden that played "urban" or African-American inspired music. I have tried to use some other resources the the ones I first used.VsanoJ (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the band doesn't meet the notability guidelines for an album. CTJF83 chat 06:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They've actually attracted quite a lot of press, but it's obscured in a sea of bare URLs. Editing the references now to make it easier to see the outside ones.Yngvadottir (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Stonefunkers has had three albums and two singles chart on the Swedish Singles Chart ([13]) and therefore meets WP:NM. In addition to this, the band has received lots of coverage: [14] (Svenska Dagbladet), [15] (Expressen), [16] (Svenska Dagbladet), [17] (Aftonbladet), [18] (review in Aftonbladet), to name a few. The leftorium 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust your judgment on these sources that I can't read, so I'm willing to withdraw the nom, due to these sources. CTJF83 chat 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found to meet the general notability guidlines, and have been in the charts to meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Quantpole (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found although the nom has agreed to withdraw. fetchcomms☛ 14:48, 24 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azulon Dolmayan (album)

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

NN Album, neither the album, or him have G News results CTJF83 chat 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any reliable sources. Probable hoax. Clubmarx (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage in reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Metacritic reference flatly contradicts the claim in the article (not only is this album not the 12th highest rated of all time it appears nowhere on the list). The other two links are broken. Looks like a hoax. SQGibbon (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I'm not sure if this is a non-notable artist or a hoax. However, the reviews were forgeries: the Metacritic reference related to a White Stripes album, and the Jim DeRogatis review was actually of Chris Brown's Graffiti. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax.Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azulon Dolmayon

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

NN person with no G News or IMDB results...I don't think it quite meets WP:A7 CTJF83 chat 19:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any reliable sources. Possible hoax. Clubmarx (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:PEOPLE. No relevant Google results for "Azulon Dolmayon" or "Azulon Dior Dolmayan". — Rankiri (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't verify any of the claims or find any information on that name. SQGibbon (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Although the article makes assertions that suggest significance or importance, no secondary sources have been located to verify them. I agree that it could be a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more and more it's a hoax, since it appears that somebody has taken to creating a blog today to attempt to show outside sources: [19]. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails A7 Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 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. Tone 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalton (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject might otherwise satisfy the GNG. Poorly sourced, devoting much of its text to the subject's non-notable career as a petty criminal, mostly domestic violence. (As the relevant discussion here [20] sets out, the "multiple years" portion of WP:PORNBIO was not intended to be satisfied in a case where the eligibility period for awards varied, but the nominations were made for the same release.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage. CTJF83 chat 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes PORNBIO as currently defined. This has been raised as an artificial test case (see diff) as a means of circumventing a proper consensus process for this personal interpretation of the notability guidelines. Ash (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that due to a change in the disambiguation part of the article name, this is actually the third nomination for deletion of the article, see:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (porn star) (second nomination)
- — Ash (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ He fails WP:PORNBIO because the 2002 Grabby Awards were held in 2003 [21], so he hasn't received nominations in multiple years. His only piece of non-trivial reliable independent coverage is about his conviction, which isn't quite enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? He appears to pass 1,2, and 4. CTJF83 chat 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which award has he won and which mainstreams films has he been in? Epbr123 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 2 awards here, and he has coverage in Dallas Voice, Playgirl, I'll have to check the others later to see how trivial they are. CTJF83 chat 21:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article clearly states they were just award nominations. Pornbio 4 means that someone has to have performed or modelled in mainstream films, TV shows or magazines; it doesn't refer to mainstream news coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        2 says "received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years" and if 4 means what you say it means, PORNBIO needs to specify that. CTJF83 chat 06:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've already explained why he doesn't pass 2. Epbr123 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to keep now that further sources have been added. Passes GNG, although the article has far too many unreliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve sourcing, especially of the arrest/alleged criminal information. Subject meets GNG between his modeling, porn, the award nom, the arrests, and the Playgirl listing. Per BLP we should work to source all the alleged criminal bits and let the sourcing state what he did, not us. -- Banjeboi 21:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some to alleviate the concern. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Screen Door Jesus may be his non-porn debut. It was shot near his home between arrests but It can't tell if it 's the same Mark Dalton who plays Duane. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject meets requirements 1, 2, and 4 of the PORNBIO guideline.
Keep, subject is one of the most highly notable (and popular) queer porn actors; if the article is lacking more on that, then more work is needed and more sources should be sought. "non-notable career as a petty criminal, mostly domestic violence" is a disparaging comment and harshly POV. The only reason those news items exist is BECAUSE he was a notable porn actor.Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.21.253 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines

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

The movie described on this page, is not notable. It is a political spam page for the organizations promoting the bogus "Aerotoxic Syndrome," it violates the NPOV policy, there is no WP RS to support the claims. EditorASC (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may or not be RS to support the film's claims... but Wikipedia is not making any claims, though the film itself might, and Wikipedia is not about judging the film's accuracy, as Wikipedia is not censored. One of our most basic core policies states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". We are not an inquisition set to judge the film's content. We can only decide whether or not the film itself being itself covered in sources might or might not show the film as notable... no matter the film's content. The article is not about whether or not flying on planes might or might not be toxic, as that is where we might find OR and POV. The article is about a controversial film, and the film's notability or lack comes from the film itself being covered or not in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since opining above, I have revisited the article and performed some cleanup to neutralize POV, improved sources to show meeting the GNG, and removed some unneccessary ELs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's improvements. There seems to be adequate sources to pass WP:N and no substantial POV problems. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google News search at the top of this AFD. Plenty of notable news sources review the documentary. Dream Focus 00:59, 24 March 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. Now that apparently adequate Turkish souces have been found, the only remaining reason for deletion is the spammy tone, which can be addressed through editing. Sandstein 06:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AgroEurasia

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

Only one source, the fair's organisers, so nothing independent. One of millions of trade fairs held around the world. Creator is one G Engun, which is the name of the event's press contact see [22]. In other words, this is spam. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neither the creator's COI nor that fact that other articles don't exist is a legit reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, the reasons for deletion are lack of notability, absence of independent sources and promotional tone. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sources available that are third party with a quick search. Agree with JzG that author's COI does not invalidate the article's notability. SGGH ^ping! 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "BMK" and not "JzG". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all track back to press releases from the promoter, it's a generic trade show so this is not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of this discussion have been left with the following WikiProjects: Trade and Agriculture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage I could find using a cursory Google News search of "Agro Eurasia" were these [23], [24], [25]. The first seems to have nothing to do with this particular entity, the third is a press release. Only the second one is an actual article about the article's subject. One article doesn't represent significant coverage to me. In other news, Google Translation is really helpful. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second is also based on a press release, but from an exhibitor rather than the organiser. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, Google News only holds articles in its database for a limited time, although I cannot recall what that time period is. Since the last AgroEurasia was held in December, it's possible that any other articles about it, if any, may have cycled off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: this is not a sexy trade show, like COMDEX, taking place in a media capital, it's an agricultural trade show held in Turkey. Expectations of the amount of media coverage need to be adjusted accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My search was of Google's News Archive, on which I've found sources as early as 1906 (for papers that have since been digitized). While Google is by no means the only place to look for sources, it's the most immediately helpful one and hasn't really turned up anything. It is up to those who wish to keep the article to find sources and incorporate them to satisfy the GNG. If anyone can find at least two reliable sources (not press releases or ads) covering this trade show then I'll change my vote to keep. I'd like to keep this (after all, I did take the time to actually look for sources) but only if it satisfies our guidelines for inclusion. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I had forgotten about the archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and there just aren't sources. In order for us to have an article, there must be independent media coverage, and there simply isn't. AniMate 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being one of the the largest agricultural exhibitions in Eurasia, it should be notable. Sources can be found somewhere. Dew Kane (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but until they're found we don't have anything... I've done my bit to find sources. Maybe there are some articles in Turkish newspapers or trade journals or something that aren't online. Like I said, if they can be found this discussion will be moot. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - note that the exhibition is better known by its Turkish name, "Avrasya Tarim". Turkish sources such as 'Avrasya Tarım 2009' fuarı açıldı and Avrasya Tarım 2008'e 50 bin ziyaretçi bekleniyor seem to establish ample notability. Note that the second link discusses an expected visitor count of over 50 thousand people to the 2008 exhibition. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbitrarily0's sources from Turkish newspapers; it appears to be independent news coverage. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 28 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omen (band)

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

This article was previously deleted after a proposed deletion, but was recreated on March 11th. Since that time, the article has not improved and the notability of the band has not been demonstrated. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and no evidence has been provided that there are multiple significant, reliable, independent reivews of the band or its albums. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to go with deleting this one. The sources currently in those article look pretty shabby. Since when did we use MySpace as a means to prove notability? It doesn't appear that even a single member (current or past) is even notable. The band looks to be so "indie" that it hasn't even built a name for itself in the indie-music world. What I can find doing simple google searches doesn't turn up a lot of helpfulness either. Most of the information in the sources appears to be basic (Omen was a band...). It doesn't run very deep as far as notability was concerned, and I even found out that at least half a dozen other bands have used the name "Omen", and no word on whether this "Omen" is more famous than those. I'm not seeing a reason for this band to have a page if we cannot even determine if it's worthy of a page (and no, just releasing albums doesn't make one worthy). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple albums on Metal Blade and Enigma Records allmusic discog and bio. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Duff.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - Coverage on Allmusic is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; multiple reliable, independent reviews are required, and these do not appear to exist. Neelix (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you nominate, that is already counted as a vote, so to avoid the appearance of double voting you may wish to change your heading to "Comment".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability as it verifies multiple albums on both Metal Blade and Enigma Records, each satisfying criteria #5 of wp:music. In additions to multiple reliable, independent reviews on Allmusic Omen have recieved coverage in Dallas Morning News (Jun 20, 2008), Los Angeles Times (Jul 26, 1987) and Volume 4 of The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Author Colin Larkin, Editor Colin Larkin, Edition 2, Publisher Guinness Pub., 1995. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is not counted as a 'vote' because deletion discussions are not votes. As the guideline states, "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." Please be careful when arguing that "coverage on Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability"; just because a band is covered on Allmusic does not mean that it has released albums on major labels; major labels are what criterion #5 entails on Wikipedia:Notability (music). Does anyone have the complete citation information for the Dallas Morning News and Los Angeles Times articles so that I can locate them? Title, author, and page number should be sufficient for me to find them through my local library. It is worth noting that the official Metal Blade Records website does not list Omen as one of their artists, current or past. Neelix (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a !vote, if you will. The same point stands. Per convention (which, if you doubt, I urge you to check at other AfDs), unless you wish to mislead the closer and others reading this page, I urge you as the nom to not create a false impression of consensus by headering your comment "Delete", and to change it to "Comment", so it is not mistaken as a second !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read what I wrote again. no suggestion of major labels. criterion #5 also allows for important independent labels. the allmusic discog link verifies releases on two such labels. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PERKINS PALACE MAY RISE AGAIN, Los Angeles Times, Author: JEFF SPURRIER; STEVE HOCHMAN, Date: Jul 26, 1987, Start Page: 92. Dallas Morning News, HIHGLIGHTS OF THIS WEEK'S LOCAL SHOWS, Publish Date: June 20, 2008, (May just be a gig listing). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Allmusic coverage is substantial enough to constitute significant coverage in a reliable source - both the bio and reviews, and the band also has a bio and discography in The Great Metal Discography. Their latest studio album was issued by Crash Music ([26]), and here's proof of inclusion in The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music for those who are still doubters. Their (many) albums have been released on Metal Blade and Enigma/Capitol - this is easily verified from sites such as Amazon ([27], [28], [29]). Notability is clear here and we shouldn't waste time discussing it further.--Michig (talk) 22:00, 22 March 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

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

Non-notable indie film. This article was previously up for AfD and the decision was to userfy, so that the original author could fix the problems. He has posted the article again and unfortunately, the fixes do nothing to change my mind that this is a small, locally-produced mockumentary that has received scant attention outside of Cork. It has been viewed at one local film festival, and while it was well-received there, that apparently is it as far as viewings. References have problems: three are from blogs and therefore not reliable, and three more are to publications that have no online link to the article, and therefore cannot be easily verified. In particular, Hot Press has an extensive archive but only turns up a passing mention of it as "Steamin’ + Dreamin’, available locally on DVD." Everything given seems to point to this as a local phenomenon, which is fine for notability of people and places, but not films. This still comes across as something that primarily exists as a means of promoting a non-notable film (even if it is not being done by someone directly connected to the film, as the author claims), and none of the changes since the first AfD have convinced me otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This article was deleted through an AfD in November 2009, and there has not been a deletion review to reconsider it. Move to speedy delete. You know, I thought we had already hashed this out before, but I couldn't find the second AfD until Twinkle popped it up when I put up this AfD. Sorry. Admins, take it from here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hotpress.ie/archive/6300692.html is the link to the article as found in the cited edition of Hot Press. Feel free to subscribe and check it out for yourself. The wiki article does not promote the film, it acts as an objective account of its production. It in no way tries to market the film as a product. As I've said before, national coverage on screen and in print are considerably more than "scant attention outside of Cork". Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck. User moved the article to userspace and then undid it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The undo was over the course of four months. I had forgotten the second AfD until Twinkle found it in the process of initiating this discussion. I think both the main space article and the user space article should be deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article and salted it for a year. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 21 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizzard of Krudd

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

Non-notable short, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of this article had only two other contributions, one of them being a recently deleted hoax article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Brown and Charlie Bucket. As with that one, this is a remarkably good hoax (as measured by its staying power for almost a month). Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:24, 25 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (The Devin Townsend Project album)

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

Too few sources: fansite & primary sources. Wait a while. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal CTJF83 chat 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. PK T(alk) 12:53, 23 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Z² (album)

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

Minimal sourcing; forums and primary source. Way too soon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal CTJF83 chat 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like WP:Crystal. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. PK T(alk) 12:52, 23 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstruction (The Devin Townsend Project album)

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

A little too nebulous. Sources are dubious at best: forum, YouTube, fansite, primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No G News hits and per wP:Crystal CTJF83 chat 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This will most likely warrant an article once the album is released (or shortly prior), but it's premature to write one now before we even have quality sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. PK T(alk) 12:52, 23 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Rico Castro

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

Previously WP:PRODded, now recreated. The subject is a player for Real Madrid Castilla (Real Madrid reserve team), playing in a non-fully professional division (Segunda División B), and with no competitive appearances with Real Madrid's first team. The subject therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATH and, as far as my searching can tell, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, since he doesn't play in a fully pro league, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and I can't find any significant coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 22 March 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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown and Charlie Bucket

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

This appears to be a hoax -- at least I can't find any source to confirm it. Can anyone else confirm or deny this is a real cartoon show? Warrah (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a blatant hoax. No ghits outside of Wikipedia. If Johnny Depp was supposedly appearing in an upcoming Peanuts television special, there'd likely be something else out there by now. Even on the very slim chance this isn't a hoax, the article still does not cite reliable sources to prove the existence of its subject. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very elaborate HOAX, but a hoax nonetheless. The author's first creation, "The Wizzard of Krudd", apparently seemed real enough that nobody has yet nominated it, and even this weird "Charlie Brown and the Chocolate Factory" story apparently seemed real enough that people weren't sure. My hat is off to Edd Maker. Mandsford (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. CTJF83 chat 19:25, 20 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Beauty Products

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

Non-encyclopedic essay that seems to cross into original research territory. Warrah (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Violates WP:NOTHOW. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly non-encyclopedic, and close to CSD G11 as it's kind of advertising a few links. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Irredeemable WP:NOTHOW. — Rankiri (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CTJF83 chat 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a guidebook RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 20 March 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. Now cleaned up in response to this AfD and appears to be a useful dab page Black Kite 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar (disambiguation)

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

Invalid disambiguation page, per guidline WP:DABNOT#Partial_title_matches. This applies to all entries except Interstellar (film), which again is only a redirect for a not-yet-existing movie. -- Theoprakt (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Theoprakt (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Now Neutral with a weak tendency towards delete: it's a close call, but the new version seems to be a valid disambiguation page. However, both main entries are still not articles, but only a redirect respective a very short mentioning of the term in another article. -- Theoprakt (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since none is a complete match. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stellar delete The sole reason for this appears to be to call attention to a movie that may or may not come out in 2013, may or may not have that title if it does, but hasn't merited its own article. For now, "interstellar" means only one thing, which is "between two stars". Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several other possible targets: Intastella should be added to the list (and should have an article), the band having had four top-75 singles in the UK in the 1990s, appearing on national TV several times and releasing 2 albums, one on MCA. There's also an album called Intastella by Trevor Loveys, who appears may be sufficiently notable for an article. There is also Intastella Records, the label run by the Goa Trance group Dimension 5. All of these are plausible results for a search on 'Interstellar'. I'm not sure there's a better way of linking to these despite the different spelling.--Michig (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Interstellar' is also the name of several albums, by artists such as Vitamin String Quartet, The Super-Phonics, Molecule, and there is also Amin Bhatia's Interstellar Suite.--Michig (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up (done) and Keep -- I removed the partial title matches and added in the entries suggested by Michig that had Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only two seemingly acceptable entries, and neither has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the delete !voters: If this is deleted, how do you propose we deal with the situation where someone types 'Interstellar' looking for, say, the String Quartet album or the band Intastella? One option would be a very messy dab hatnote on the main article, but would that really be better?--Michig (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is that #1 would be caught by the text search, and #2 does not require any dealing, because "intastella" is not "interstellar". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But disambiguation should be there to help someone searching for the band but typing 'interstellar'.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. A disambiguation is a precising definition that extends the lexical definition of a certain word. A word with another spelling is another word, and it is not the job of an encyclopedia to help people get their spelling right. That's what a dictionary does, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Theoprakt (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of disambiguation pages and hatnotes is to help the reader find the article that they are looking for. Simple as that. That's why we need a disambiguation page.--Michig (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB sums this up nicely: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."--Michig (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the partial title matches are actually, complete title matches, since "interstellar" can mean "interstellar medium" and "interstellar space". They should not be in the see also, they should be in the regular section. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2

"interstellar" does not mean "interstellar medium". "interstellar" means "between the stars", period. It does not mean "interstellar medium" or "intersteller space", just like "cheesse" does not mean "cheese grater" and "bull" does not mean "bulldozer". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:23, 27 March 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 both. WP:CSD#A7 - no credible claim of significance or importance - and WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schuyler Feigen

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

Unremarkable musician. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only included reference is to a music sales site. Google news search brings up nothing, Google web search brings up primary sources such as Facebook. RadioFan (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following album article on this artist:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Invincible (Michael Jackson album). per WP:NSONGS (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable (Michael Jackson song)

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

Article fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promotional release only. Not released as a single in any country, did not chart in any country Paul75 (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Mild notability. More references are needed though. IJA (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-charting song, no sources. Why argue "more references are needed" if you can't be arsed to try and dig any up, hmm? It's always somebody else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG. As already stated, the song did not chart, and I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this song. Google searching turns up lyrics, downloads, and videos, but no significant mentions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:19, 20 March 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. Maybe some content can be merged back to Wilhelm scream article, if there are any volounteers, let me know. Tone 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of media that employ the Wilhelm scream

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

This list appears to be a response to the removal of uncited examples fomr the parent article, Wilhelm scream. Virtualy none of these are cited, and many of those which are turn out to be based on sources which are speculative or unreliable. What encyclopaedic purpose is served by saying, without sources, that a particular sound effect was used in [an unspecified number of episodes of] a TV series? It's an indiscriminate collection of almost entirely unsourced information on an completely arbitrary intersection between a sound effect and other media. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No way could it ever be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced original research. No encyclopedic value. — Rankiri (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Screaming merge back to Wilhelm scream, from which it was spun out on October 29, and where it continues to exist in historyspace anyway. At some point, a list may be perfected to the point that it overcomes the problem of unverifiable and difficult to explain even when it is verifiable (to its credit, it does pretty well by describing a scene in some of the films). Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It really isn't possible for this information to be cited since no production team is going to blatantly advertise the use of it. However, it serves as a useful tool to highlight the popularity of the Wilhelm scream. I really don't see the harm in keeping it - I don't see any blatant instances of people adding nonsense to the page and the majority of recent entries have included detailed entries on where in the movie/feature the scream has been employed. ῤerspeκὖlὖm^{in ænigmate} ^{( talk )} 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to merge all this original research RadioFan (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must say that this article was a very interesting read for me and a friend of mine. I believe that the specific references to the scenes in the films is a good source, too. I mean, this doesn't come from anyone else's research, as do websites. It's pure original. These references cannot be unreliable. Besides there are so many films, TV shows, games, etc. that employ this scream that I believe it is a necessary article. Thanks and God bless! Master Frederique (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cant keep articles because we like them or find them useful. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. There are other places that are more appropriate for this.--RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a bad example of a list being used as a platform for original research. Lists should not be based on hearsay, speculation or unreliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure either way if this is not up to Wikipedia's standards but I remember using this specific article in the past. The Wilhelm scream is notable in my opinion (as you can see by the numerous references in film, etc). Such a large list could not easily be merged into an article. Keeping this list as its own article is the best suited placement. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and impossible to source, almost every entry is original research. While the scream itself is certainly notable, every use of it isn't. Rehevkor ✉ 03:14, 27 March 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 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AL (actually laughing)

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

Deproded. A non notable neologism. "external" links aren't really persuasive either Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any references for this, or any mentions in the external link(s). Seems to be a made up word, which isn't in common usage (per the article itself). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM that irreparably fails verifiability. I can't find any reliable sources for this neologism, and I doubt that we will be able to find any. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defense against deletion Because of how recently AL has become a part of everyday lingo, there has not been much research or academic study on "AL" YET, therefore there are not very many credible sources for its legitimacy, that much is true. The UrbanDictionary external link has been added, which states blatantly that in 2004 someone, other than myself, stated that AL indeed does stand for "actually laughing", and that its use does in fact match up with the use that is described in the Wiki article. This article definitely does not deserve to be deleted and is a work in progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. I'm concerned that you're a brand new account after another brand new account nearly got blocked. But I want to make clear, for purposes of this AfD that's irrelevant to me. Your reasons are persuasive, except that they need some reliable sources to back them up. If you could produce those it would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be made up, I have certainly never heard or seen this neologism used. Inherent lack of reliable sources means that this will never pass the general notability guidelines. UrbanDictionary is one of the weakest sources I have ever seen. -- Big Dom 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete - Work in progress or not, the bottom line is that the term is not notable. It's simply a neologism that hasn't caught any mainstream attention. Any alleged notability for the term has so far been unverifiable. I couldn't find any reliable references either. New slang is made up all the time, and we can't have an article on everything. Come to think of it, I think that the only term similar to AL that actually has an article is LOL. —LedgendGamer 08:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources I understand where you are coming from, but with a matter such as this, an acronym that has been proven to have been in circulation as far back as 2004, there is not going to be many scholarly or credible (by normal standards) sources. Even if one was to search for sources to back up "LOL", the vast majority, if not absolutely every piece of information out there would be judged as non-reliable and not credible, because the standards that are in place for what constitutes a credible source do not apply to items such as a text-message based acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altox012 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, the difference is that the article on LOL does in fact have reliable sources. No, not every source that turns up in a google search will be reliable, but they exist. Fact of the matter is that I cannot, nor can others, find a single reliable source for this term. The policies of notability and verifiability apply to every single article on Wikipedia, and unless they can be met (i.e., a reliable source can be shown for this term), this article cannot be kept. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs to be notable in terms of having caught mainstream attention and being referenced by reliable sources (see WP:RS), and that does not appear to be the case (I know personal experience is not sufficient to judge, but I've never received an email, a text, an IM, or any electronic communication with "AL" in it myself - though I've had thousands of LOLs, LMAOs, ROFLs etc) . However, if some reliable sources can be found, I'd then suggest making it a redirect to LOL, in the same way as LMAO and ROFL - there is far more WP:UNDUE detail in the article as it stands (There's no "Official Origins", for example, as there is no official text acronym body, and some of it is just talking of text acronyms in general) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional The article also seems to be largely WP:OR - it contains quite a few specific factual assertions that are not sourced, eg: "Recent history has shown..." - where? "research has shown..." - let's see it. "AL was started several years ago by two teens in the small town of Walker, Minnesota" - who says? "The abbreviation was first used in a Windows Live Messenger conversation" - how can you know that? etc -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Rankiri took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being not notable. I think that sometimes people say "ALOL" (particularly if they're talking to someone named Allen or Alison or Albert or Alex), which is nothing more than a variant of LOL. Just as the AL and the NL go together in baseball, in this case I'm NL (not laughing). Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 March 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. Needs better ref format but seems to meet the criteria. Tone 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Thin Kids

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

Deprodded. No apparent nobility given WP:BAND. Shadowjams (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band leader Everett True is notable (formerly recording for Creation Records under the name The Legend!), and the article includes ample evidence of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Everett True (his article has a picture) is the "band leader"? Maybe he is, but the article doesn't say that outright. The article says at the end "The Thin Kids debuted on MySpace on 2nd December, 2009...True sent the recordings to the Head of A&R at Domino Records...who promised to give them a listen “in the next five years or so”." Look at the actual paragraph too because there's a lot of promotional language. In addition, even if it is his band, that doesn't necessarily make it notable, and there still aren't any WP:RS talking about it in the article or here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this ("Were this a regular band, you'd call True “the vocalist” and Guglielmino the “guitarist”"), this ("True and his band The Thin Kids amble through a set of the nonsensical punk-poetry, drearily filling the slot vacated by Sydney’s Bridezilla."), this ("A couple of tall tales soon gave way to actual music as he (Everett True) introduced new band mates Edward Guglielmino and Margaret Collins, who form half of the debut quartet The Thin Kids (along with The Gin Club’s Scotty Regan, who was absent until the very end)."), and this ("The band proclaim on their MySpace page “we’re better than you”, but vocalist Everett True explains that this is most likely being taken the wrong way"), all of which are external links in the article. I could go with a merge to Everett True but deletion? No way.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the criteria at WP:BAND. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing notability of the band's leader, Everett True. There is also enough source coverage of the group itself, such that the page could be improved with citations from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planck particle

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

I can find no evidence this term is in widespread serious use. The article's sole reference does not use the term. Top hits on Google are this article, followed by an article from an apparent crank journal denying any such thing exists, then several apparent crank sites and Wikipedia mirrors. A Google Scholar search turns up what appear to be largely crank papers; one can see how this term might be frequently invented by numerologists, but if the article is to be about that, we need a reliable source documenting such use. The concept itself is more notable than that of a "1 kg particle," on the grounds that the Planck mass is a plausible natural mass scale, but only barely. All this article does is confuse people into thinking that Planck mass is the mass of a hypothetical particle rather than part of a system of units. A much better-written version of this content already exists at Planck mass where it belongs. Jim E. Black (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I have heard of the term, but only used in the context of defining the Planck mass - and I can't find any references to it other than in that context. Agree that the description in Planck mass is better. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my view in the light of the new sources found, below -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Planck mass--most is already there anyway. Owen× ☎ 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I easily found multiple notable documents and journals talking about Planck particles. I have added them to the article. They clearly pass WP:N. Silver seren^C 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those were not reliable sources. Just because the "Journal of Theoretics" calls itself a journal, doesn't make it reliable. That the term is in wide (but not necessarily consistent) use by numerologists is clear, but it's not at all clear that there's significant serious use. Of the eight sources you added, five were papers in highly questionable journals, and one appears to be just something someone posted on the Internet. I argue that we should ignore those. The usage in Sachs et. al. is clearly specific to the theory they are proposing (a theory which doesn't appear to have caught on), and has nothing to do with black holes as written about in this article. All that remains are Jonghwa Chang's nuclear physics lecture slides, which uses it to define the Planck mass as Boing! said Zebedee described. If we can find more references using the term in this manner, preferably in better sources than lecture slides, it would support that the term is in widespread serious use and deserves either an article or perhaps an entry over on Wiktionary. I'm not sure the one is enough, though.Jim E. Black (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how is the Journal of Theoretics and the General Science Journal unreliable? You never said how. You just stated they are without any evidence. Furthermore, "Planck Particles and Quantum Gravity" - Google Docs, is a completely valid source as well. Silver seren^C 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its name is a made-up word, and its website complains of "Bias in the Scientific Literature" against "dissident scientists." Those are huge red flags. Progress in Physics and the General Science Journal make similar statements. Almost always such journals are created to publish work that was rejected by reputable journals due to incompetence, not bias.Jim E. Black (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the lecture slides have some calculational errors; for example, they miscalculate the particle's ratio to the proton mass. But they are do substantiate that someone outside of woo-woo land calls such a thing a "Planck particle," justifying a ~~merge and redirect~~ to Planck mass instead of the deletion I originally proposed. The Planck mass article has a somewhat better source[30] for most of the material here, although its source doesn't use the term "Planck particle." We don't need a whole article about this, because it's just a brief pedagogical exercise, and arguably a poor one, since there's no reason to believe the formulas used continue to work at the Planck scale. Jim E. Black (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planck scale. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planck scale links to Planck particle in its See also section. Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some new links that are from the CERN Document Server, which only publishes approved, peer-reviewed and reliable stuff. Also, something from SpringerLink, also notable, and a book. The new EL's are another book, another CERN document, a published paper from Stanford, a article from Ingenta Connect, also notable, and another slide from the University of California, San Diego. If you need me to find more, notable links, let me know, because I can do it. Silver seren^C 06:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This batch looks better, thanks. Now we've got some decent sources using the term talking about a possible role in early cosmology, rather than just playing unit games. So this is a real term; it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio in texts using it is particularly bad. I withdraw the nomination. Jim E. Black (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google Scholar 180 hits Scirus 77 hits, among them articles in Foundations of Physics Letters, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Progress in Physics (doesn't look terribly "mainstream", though) , Astroparticle Physics, Physical Review D, Astrophysics and Space Science, Astrophysical Journal, MNRAS, European Journal of Physics. Passes WP:N with flying colors, everything else is about content.

As far as the merge proposal to Planck mass is concerned, I oppose. The two are about different concepts. Planck mass admits that a Planck particle need not even have Planck mass: "This is not quite the Planck mass", referring to the estimate given for the Planck particle's mass. Paradoctor (talk) 13:50, 22 March 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. JForget 00:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Ami

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

Contested PROD. This footballer fails WP:ATHLETE having never played a fully-professional match; he was previously a youth player with Accrington Stanley and has recently joined Galway United in the semi-pro League of Ireland. Lack of coverage outside general sports journalism means that he also fails WP:NTEMP. -- Big Dom 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he has yet played for Galway Eldumpo (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is there no evidence that he played for Galway, his profile on the clubs webpage confirms that he has never played for them. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to play fully-professional match per WP:ATHLETE, as and when he does then it can be recreated. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Lochner

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

Non notable web developer. DimaG (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly even speedy A7, as it doesn't assert anything of note -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Manchester. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth Park Halls of Residence

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

Non-notable university residence hall. All references are self-published by the university itself, no evidence of independent sources which cover this topic in an indepth manner. Jayron32 04:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge key information to University of Manchester#Residential campuses, unless someone wants to create an article about the University's accomodation in general. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge key information to University of Manchester#Residential campuses.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I was going to suggest something similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sometimes there can be decent coverage of Halls of Residence, but the best I could come up with is this, which is a decent source in itself, but I don't think shows enough notability for an individual article. Quantpole (talk) 15:32, 22 March 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wong (comedian)

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

I can't find too much coverage on this comedian--and I very much doubt that an appearance on the Late Show is of and in itself enough to merit an article. Blueboy 96 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Boston Globe discusses his work here: [31] and This google news search turns up plenty of reviews and interviews in many reliable sources, there seems to be plenty here. Some are behind paywalls, but I see enough in the abstracts to indicate that there are many articles that discuss him and his work. --Jayron32 04:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't find him very funny but [32] and [33], along with many other news results in conjunction with his appearances on Ellen and the Late Show establish him has notable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only one comedian is invited to entertain the White House Correspondents Dinner each year. The fact that Wong was makes him notable. Also, besides his appearance on Letterman, he's a regular on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. MyPOV (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed with MyPOV, hosting the Correspondents' Dinner makes him notable. WLGades (talk) 09:15, 26 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonadians

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

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone invented a portmaneau word that also happens to be a double entendre. It got used on a message board on the internet. No evidence of significant coverage. The use of a neologism on a message board doesn't, by itself, catapult it to notability. --JamesAM (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transfer to urban dictionary, where anyone can make up their own words at will. Dew Kane (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per subject's request, and failure to produce reliable sources to back up the assertions in this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chancery_Stone

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

Subject is not notable (a self-published author with no other credits), text is written by subject, and references are unsubstantiated (see the discussion page)

I am Chancery Stone and I think you should take down this page. It is annoyingly flat and dull; had I written it it would have been much more interesting and colourful, but I appreciate that's not particularly valid as a reson for deletion. Therefore I want to point out that The DANNY Quadrilogy is the only novel I have ever written and only two volumes are in print (although honesty forces me to admit another two volumes are due out this year, and I have written a non-fiction book on writing, but I think we can safely discount those too). The DANNY Quadrilogy has no sizeable fan following to speak of, therefore it cannot be notable in any way. No-one famous has ever read it. If no-one famous is talking about it, and it hasn't been acknowledged by anyone famous, then why should it be included on here? Wikipedia is a fan-compiled website. If my book has no fans then there is no reason to include it on here. Contrariwise, there are several 'fans' (of other things assumably) pointing out, quite rightly, that my work has no place on here. I agree with them. I would go one further and ask that should the book ever become famous, or be mentioned by anyone famous, that you please not include it on this site. I think it's better to be consistent. If a book's not worth anything before it gets famous why should it be worth anything after? Looking forward to losing my 'entry'. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjects snarky comments aside, no indication of how this person might meet WP:BIO, self published works rarely get 3rd party coverage. RadioFan (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with RadioFan, as far as "reliable secondary sources" goes my work has only been mentioned in passing by The Times Literary Supplement and more fully on Grampian TV. That one was (much) longer admittedly, but Grampian is only watched by the Scots, and they have only produced a handful of famous people, none of whom count for much (like Lorraine Kelly), or are dead (like Robert Louis Stevenson). Other reviews and write-ups have all been on internet sites, and they aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I have been mentioned relatively recently, in 2009, in several Really Big Newspapers (oh - and The Bookseller) along with Max Scratchmann when the scandal blew up over his book, Chucking It All, but that was only because we are published by the same publisher. So that's really because I know someone notable rather than I AM notable. You really do need to delete.

P.S. Forgot to mention last time, my 2 fan sites only have about three members each. I think that clinches it really. --81.155.156.9 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Chancery Stone[reply]

Delete Still no reliable independent sources on TLS mention other than the puff by author's publicist/publisher, who is creator of the page in the first place. Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'. Page is a blatant piece of self-promotion, subject entirely non-notable. Be best (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry which we placed on Chancery Stone is in no way "a blatant piece of self-promotion". It adheres strictly to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic guidelines and Chancery's work satisfies notability. Chancery Stone's work has been reviewed in various newspapers and magazines and was, indeed, discussed in the TLS - see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tlskeywordsearch.tls?queryKeywords=chancery+stone&x=0&y=0 - Also the launch of Chancery's first novel was covered on Grampian TV (now STV North) - see our site to replay the broadcast: http://www.poisonpixiefilms.co.uk/danny_movies_launch_large.htm As for "Nor does Chancery Stone provide any further supporting evidence despite her claims of being recently mentioned in 'Really Big Newspapers'" please see The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/shelved-the-book-that-outraged-the-orkneys-1712238.html and The Daily Express - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/128689 Our book, Chucking It All, was also featured in The Sunday Express, The Bookseller, The Press & Journal and the Scottish Review of Books (where Chancery was also mentioned but there is not an on-line source for that.) I am at a loss to understand how being discussed in The Independent, TLS, The Express and The Bookseller, plus being covered on TV, fails to meet the criteria for "reliable secondary sources". Poisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Poison Pixie PublishingPoisonpixie (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"discussed in the TLS" - The only ref to Stone from that link leads to a subscriber only page. However, from the talk page on the original article, someone who has seen the item states - "The book was mentioned as part of an article on "The New Disgustingness" in 2005, but it was not reviewed and was only briefly described, with no particular opinion given. I can find no information from reputable sources about sales or reviews in print." Mere mention in newspapers, or being reviewed, is not an indication of notability. Furthermore, you, as promoter/partner/publisher of Stone's work, are demonstrating a clear [of interest] - "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Be best (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suddenly Chancery Stone's lack of "reliable secondary sources" has changed and become "mere" reviews and newspaper features. Now that we have provided the required "reliable secondary sources" the goal posts have been moved yet again. What would be an indication of "notability" if being discussed in the TLS, national newspapers and national TV do not qualify? Perhaps 'Be best' now requires a royal decree or an affidavit from the Pope. As a final thought, we find it strange that the statements in Chancery Stone's "discussion" page are taken as gospel and no "reliable secondary sources" are ever required from these 'contributors' for their assertions. Perhaps 'Be best' has a conflict of interest which she is not declaring - such as a personal mission to remove Chancery Stone from this site and that she is more concerned with "advancing [her] outside interests" rather "than advancing the aims of Wikipedia." Poisonpixie (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete? Just let it go already! I have tried to delete my 'entry' from Wikipedia only to find it immediately reinstated. Why? The 'entry' is up for deletion. I do not have notability. This has already been well established through extensive hearsay. The national media bona fides offered by the Poison Pixie publicist will never compete with unsigned opinions (I warned him). Why, oh why, then is the 'entry' still here? Why reinstate something no-one wants – especially me? This insanity smacks of power-play. Surely such an upstanding online resource as Wikipedia is not indulging in acts of ego? Please remove the entry. I've asked you nicely; I don't know what else I can do. You won't hear from me again. Chancery Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.156.9 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 March 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 18:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books on non-evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life

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

Very incomplete list of books, with very broadly described subject. The division looks like evolutionary books vs the rest. Orphaned article (only 1 link from main space) Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where is the Iroquoi creation theory? They hypothesized that the earth was created on the back of a turtle.--Milowent (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a list of creation myths.Mercurywoodrose (talk)

coulda fooled me.--Milowent (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i suspect that most of these books dont fully deny evolution. title of article is too vague, inclusion criteria may be impossible to define. is this books which question some aspect of evolution, all of it, books by religious fundamentalists or skeptical/fringe scientists? both? awkward. darwins black box author does NOT deny evolution, just questions whether evolution can fully explain biochemical change/diversity. this may be a hatrack type list. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's synthesis (WP:SYNTH), as the title of the article itself is an analysis of the contents of the books - and I think it's an inaccurate analysis of at least some of them -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous two comments andy (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the suggestive title and other mentioned problems, it's also largely a fork of List of works on intelligent design. — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that the topic of non-evolutionary explanations isn't notable, but Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not a reading list either. This can be part of the bibliography of one of the creationism articles. Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete synthesis in the form of an indescriminate list. Unmaintainable RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 March 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth characters

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

While a list can do things that a category can't, this list doesn't. Completely redundant with Category:Middle-earth characters. DES ^(talk) 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It provides a single alphabetical list, which is a lot more useful if you just know a character's name and want to find who he or she is. Using categories, you will probably have to search a number of sub-categories to find the one you're looking for, especially if you don't know any details of the character (which species, what book they were in, where they live, etc) - look at all the sub-categories of Category:Middle-earth Men, for example. Or without knowing anything about who he/she/it is, try and find Muzgash using Category:Middle-earth characters. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CLN, WP:ATD. It's clear that the quality of the list can be improved. — Rankiri (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above reasoning. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One centralized repository where these articles can be found can only be of the utmost benefit to this project. North North-West (talk) 00:10, 23 March 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 Edmonton municipal election, 2010#Ward 7. JForget 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Van Alstine

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

Non-notable political candidate for low level municipal office. Autobiography. Some media mentions, although at least one of them undermines rather than supports any claim to notability as a candidate. Prod declined by IP without changes. Hairhorn (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edmonton municipal election, 2010#Ward 7. WP:POLITICIAN requires redirecting candidates to the election page as a "general rule". I see no reason to depart from the general rule here: the candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN and the coverage of the candidate is not significant despite the multiplicity of sources cited in the article. Additionally, the guy might win, and his name is a viable search term, so a redirect for possible restoration later.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mkativerata. Ray^Talk 17:58, 23 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gingerbread Economy

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

Non notable book DimaG (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, can't find any sources, no Gnews. Article needs cleaning up if it stays, but without sources it is a delete DRosin (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything notable about the book, the author, or the publisher Speartip (which only seems to have published this one book). -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous two comments --Rirunmot 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 March 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 12:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of allies and other characters in Codename: Kids Next Door

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

Unsourced list of trivia. It is almost entirely original research and plot summary, and places undue weight on a minor aspect of a TV cartoon show. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that article. I was to size of some KND-related article down. Nevermind. Go and delete it. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 04:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate spinoff article to keep the main article from growing too large.Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character lists are usually acceptable for fictional subjects, but four (!!!) lists for this relatively minor show is excessive. This list appears to deal primarily with characters who appeared in just an episode or two. Also, no sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the solution be to delete the whole article, then? Swarm^(Talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what we do with material that isn't sourced and (in all reasonable likelihood) never will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Swarm^(Talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reyk _YO! 02:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. My original question to Starblind was more related to their argument of "character lists are usually acceptable for fictional subjects, but four (!!!) lists for this relatively minor show is excessive." They essentially say the article content is legitimate, but the information is excessive, so they support the deletion of the whole article. That rationale just didn't make sense to me. Swarm^(Talk) 22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; completely original research and plot summary with zero refs to back it up. Airplaneman ^talk 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any sourcing can be done from the episodes themselves (i.e. like plot summaries of novels). North North-West (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. None of these characters are major, nor is the list of minor characters notable outside of the TV show. There is no real-world commentary about the list of allies, it is all regurgitated plot summary. Them From Space 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list fails WP:NOT#DIR as it has no verifiable source, without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A definition or list title needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of original research, and looking at the content of this list, it contiains unattributable statements of opinion that suggest it is entirely original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some of the characters listed, such as the Hamsters and Bradley have recurring if minor roles throughout the series. At the least, the list of persons themselves should be kept in another article relating to KND even if their descriptions are removed as original research. --204.100.184.166 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 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 is that the proffered sources are sufficient to establish notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Back

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

No assertion of notability substantiated by citations to reliable third-party sources. Might be okay at ru.wiki, but not here. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same. IMDB and Allmovie is not notable? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope they are not. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS (linked above). --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~no reliable sources.~~ Change to keep - reliable sources established below. (GregJackP (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable film with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Being listed in diretory sites like IMDB and Allmovie does not confer notability, and IMDB is user-edited. Film fails WP:NF and WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDB is most assuredly not user edited. Users might submit informations, as do production companies... but users do not have access to their database's editing tools. That clarification being made, Collectonian is correct in that simply being listed on IMDB or Allmovie does not impart notability. If any Russian reading Wikipedian can translate these news links and then show enough notability in Russia as a Russian film, that notability could be enough for en.Wikiedia, as we also do not have bias against UK films, Itallian films, Indian films, German films, etc, if proper notability, even if only in those countries, can be shown though even non-English RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb not be user edited, but under WP standards, it is explicitly stated that it is NOT a reliable source for articles. (GregJackP (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

We are not in disagreement. Which is why I hope that a Russian-reading Wikipedian might help with the search for possible sources, as I do not read Russian. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a few. Books and printed periodicals:

(in Russian)Soviet featured movies: Annotated catalogue
(in Russian)Today's cinematography, vol.3 - 1985
(in Russian)Art of Cinema, №1-4 - 1982
(in Russian)Home cinematics: Russian cinema 1918-1996
(in Russian)Country Youth, №.1-6 - 1999
(in Russian)Our cinema
(in Latvian)(in Russian)Chronicle of Print

and in English: Historical dictionary of Russian and Soviet cinema - Page 742

and web-media, of course [34] -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in good faith acceptance of sources found and provided by User:SerdechnyG since this AFD was initiated. I would encourage that the sources be added to the article itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to In the Zone of Special Attention, to which this is a sequel. Together they might actually become a decent article. --Crusio (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might be a decent articles without merging. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:SerdechnyG - seem to establish ample notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:27, 28 March 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 Chatroulette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Ternovskiy

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

I am listing this article for deletion on grounds of notability. While I agree that there has been a fair ammount of secondary coverage, this emanates from the website featuring on the Daily Show rather than Andrey Ternovskiy being notable in and of himself - I believe the website to be notable, not the founder. To me this would appear to be covered by WP:BLP1E, he should be covered at Chatroulette, which seems to be the website de jour - he is not Jimmy Wales or Mark Zuckerberg, who are regular features in the mainstream media and are notable independently of their websites. Rje (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Chatroulette. Does look like a BLP1E case, with a fairly minimal amount of biographical coverage available. Can be adequately covered in the Chatroulette article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would note that coverage of this person goes far beyond The Daily Show, though surely all limited to Chatroulette. E.g., New York Times. But since his notability is so limited at the moment, a redirect is the best way to organize any content about him right now. Good precedent: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tew--Milowent (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chatroulette. No real notability other than what can easily be covered in the history of his company. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 20 March 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuatuan records in athletics

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

A near empty article, and the sole athlete cited here has made no impact whatsoever in international track and field. There should be no prejudice for recreating this when Vanuatu becomes a global sports power, but at the moment this empty page makes no sense. Warrah (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that the article's creator has no source of information of whatever the national record might be in Vanuatu. The intro says that "The following are the national records in athletics in Vanuatu maintained by the Vanuatu Athletics Federation", but there is no link to the Vanuatu Athletics Federation, so I'm not expecting anything. Basically, there's an athlete named Moses Kamut who did quite well in six running events, so it appears that the assumption is made that he holds the national record in those events as well. While that's probably true, there's no indication that anyone has information about people other than Moses Kamut, nor that we would ever know it if another Vanuatan runs faster than he. The entire content can be summed up as MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut-MosesKamut. That can be mentioned in the article about... Moses Kamut. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you create an article about statistics you can't even get with just a mouse click on a federation's web site sometimes it depends on the help of other wikiusers and: patience... If you have a look at the development I hope this will be answer enough. Apart from that, the information is based on the official record documents of IAAF dated on September 2009. This document includes all national records and it's a pdf about 300 pages... to big for a reasonable reference I think.. This is an example for what is wikipedia sometimes about... to be the first information web site. Montell 74 (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was wrong, and change my !vote based on the information compiled by Montell74. I do think that there ought to be a link to any reference that's available online, if the 300 page .pdf is available for others to refer to. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that argument is problematic. These cannot be considered as national records if the track meets take place outside of the nation in question. And none of the athletes (with the shaky exception of Moses Kamut) qualify for notability as per WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Do you mean, national records have to be broken just inside of the nation????? And do you just accept very known athletes???? Can't follow your arguments....Montell 74 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article. Almost none of the tracks meets are identified. And unless I am misreading this, none of the runners cited here have broken any recognized records. Warrah (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying they broke recognized records internationally. They are saying that they have achieved the best times/distances of any national of Vanuatu. It doesn't have anything to do with events meeting in Vanuatu. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt is exactly correct. As an example, see United States records in track and field (for instance the U.S. record for the 100m dash was broken last September in Shanghai-- not Shanghai, Indiana but the one in China). Mandsford (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. National records in athletics indicates that the topic is clearly notable. Not keeping Vanuatu's article would be a case of WP:BIAS against smaller nations. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleary defined list on a notable subject. Lugnuts (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that User:Montell 74 removed the AfD tag, but it's now been restored. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 21 March 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. JForget 00:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Leathley

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

This page is for a school teacher who's only notable achievements are in ameteur sports (from some time ago) with low ranked teams. It is not noteworthy enough to be listed on Wikipedia.

There are no footnotes or refences to prove any claims other than for low ranked local cricket. (For example international basketball is mentioned but no proof is given through references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjvinegrad (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: nomination was incomplete (step 2 was incomplete, step 3 was missing). I'm completing it, but not judging the rationale or providing a !vote. tedder (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm intrigued that he played basketball for England in the 1970s, but unless any reliable sources verify that (and I can't find any), it is a fail of WP:ATH and WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There is a consensus below that at least some of the information in the article should be kept. There is not consensus as to whether it should be as a stand-alone article or merged to coverage of the serial. Further talk page discussion may be helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Shaitan

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

No evidence given that the character is notable outside of the single serial he appeared in. The writing style is not terribly encyclopedic, and I'm not sure it could be suitably rewritten. Merging it into the serial's article would seem to give undue weight to the character. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't read the books myself, but, on the face of it, it would seem more than likely that coverage in books with titles such as The bad guys: a pictorial history of the movie villain, The encyclopedia of super villains and Reel bad Arabs: how Hollywood vilifies a people would be more about the character than about the films. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell exactly from Snippet View, but it appears that Reel Bad Arabs merely quotes El Shaitan, rather than treating him in depth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what to do with Jeff Rovin's "The encyclopedia of super villains" and William K. Everson's "The bad guys"? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The serial was made a long time ago and so is little known today. This actually makes the article potentially more useful than one on more recent fictional characters - i.e. it being old does not make it irrelevant. Given that there are sources on this subject, there is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the name merely means "the Devil" or "Satan", there are almost surely several if not many villains with a variant of thsi name. For example Lord of Samarcand and other adventure tales of the old Orient found by a Google book search on this name uses it for a place. DES ^(talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Dare Miss the Next Thrilling Chapter By Anthony L. Fletcher appears to summarize the plot of the serial with several mentions of the character, and to discuss the serial as a whole critically but not much discussion of the character as such. DES ^(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The vanishing legion: a history of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 by Jon Tuska discusses how the character was played, and in particularly that multiple actors played the part or provided the voice at different times in the serial. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion in the article on the series is totally inadequate. A proper merge might be an alternative, since what matters is retaining the content, not how it is divided into articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frazer played in more than two hundred movies, a lot of different roles. So it wouldn't be proper decision to merge. Besides there were three another men involved in portretizing El Shaitan. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), probably in a paragraph below the cast list. Deletion should never have been considered but rather a discussion to merge. The film serial article could use more meat. It would be uneven with the addition of this character information, but it is best to preserve the content and to work on adding content about other characters and other aspects of the serial. Erik (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that I didn't give an opinion about disposition above, so I'll say this should be either a keep or a merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), but whichever is done the content should be preserved. If merging leads to an imbalance in the serial article then the solution is to add more content about other aspects of the serial, not to remove good content about the character. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cope you, Phil. Your answer was to keep or to merge? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: If majority will decide to merge, I'm asking the administrator, who will resume this discussion to delete this article and replace it in my space for further edit. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to merge, then the article cannot be deleted. The page history must be preserved. You can follow the redirect, access the page history, and develop the content in a user sub-page. Erik (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's much more difficult to face and disentangle the consequences of merger than to improve the deleted article in private space. I hioe you understand what I am talking about. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but if the consensus is not to delete, the article will not be deleted. I do know what you mean and recommend not trying to work in the user space. Work with the merged content at the main article to provide information about not just this character, but the serial in general. If the main article eventually gets too big to cover all the details, a sub-article, like a character article, can be created. The main article can have a summary section about the character and have a {{main}} link to the character sub-article. It's very strange to see sparse main articles and such developed character articles. Most characters will be discussed in context of the film, so it seems that information about other elements of the topic is overlooked in a very specific research focus. Erik (talk) 21:15, 25 March 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. Tone 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrowhubbock South

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

Unreferenced stub on a thoroughly non-notable townland (small local area, usually only a few hundred acres) in County Sligo Ireland, about which there is little to say other that it exists and has a few posh houses. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thoroughly non notable place. Mind you stumbling on rocky shores, sounds quite painful. Snappy (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an official geographic division, which is generally considered notable. It is used as a geographic location and point of reference in some book sources [35][36][37], and the usual policy of keeping established geographic locations should apply here as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a townland. Much as I like the townland system and hate postcodes, here are more 60,000 townlands in Ireland, and there is next to noting to say about plenty of them. A list of townlands in the Eniscrone area might be of some use, but this is just a factoid which belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --02:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't much verifiable information about the place, it could be redirected to Enniscrone or Kilglass. snigbrook (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not familiar with the townland system in Ireland, but the fact that there are 60,000 of them in Ireland doesn't tell me much. (How many CDPs are there in the United States? Every one seems to have an article). TheCatalyst31 makes good points. While article needs some cleanup, how would deletion of this article improve wikipedia?--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent.Red Hurley (talk) 11:22, 26 March 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 as a hoax. How this lasted six years on here is beyond me. Blueboy 96 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Balkan

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

Non notable product. Also, might be a hoax, since I can't find anything on google. DimaG (talk) 00:43, 20 March 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) 05:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invocation of Evil

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

Demo by redlink band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability or coverage by reliable sources. Orderinchaos 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A9 (album by redlinked artist). Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 March 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) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onward to Mecca

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

Album by redlink band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability or coverage by reliable sources. Orderinchaos 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A9 (album by redlinked artist). Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 March 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) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Stamey

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

Prod removed. No reliable sources to establish notability of a musician. Google News didn't turn up anything promising. Plenty of sources are given as references, but they are blogs, facebook/myspace links, or alternative papers (MetroPulse). tedder (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a vanity page, insufficient sourcing leads me to believe the subject is non-notable, better sourcing and this could be better DRosin (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND, Google shows little, and the use of blogs as references is wholly unacceptable. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 06:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, fails WP:BAND. Lots of references, none are reliabel. RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 20 March 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) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

ThrashIRC

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

No indication of notability with little hope of additional content. Google hits only show download locations and unreliable reviews. The only content I could find was this message. While such a blog is not a reliable source, it does give us some insight into the level of notability of this IRC client. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be any reliable sources out there for this. Aiken ♫ 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just someone's home project. This type of program was old hat about 8 years ago, I used IRC back then and this type of client. Brings back bad memories of dial up modems. It was crap. I doubt there is a single IRC program in the world that is worthy of a page on WP. This one certainly not. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are numerous notable IRC clients that have pages. Aiken ♫ 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coment. Fair enough. A Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients shows many haven't been updated for years/months. It is hardly a happening part of the software industry. Anyway this client just isn't notable, it'll be gone within a week as i'm sure you also know. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm Anthony, the author of ThrashIRC, I didn't create the wiki page for ThrashIRC, and was surprised to find it in Wiki, but I have edited it today, Mar 17, 2010 because the description was wrong, and the page was basically blank. There isn't much on the web about ThrashIRC because I've never promoted it. I have no interest in promoting it in wikipedia, either, and if wiki editors feel it fails notability, that's okay with me. And I feel Szzuk's remark should be addressed...it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on their personal low opinion of IRC in general. If any editors have questions regarding my client, feel free to email me at developer@thrashirc.com (sorry for not signing my post, this week was my first time writing anything on wiki)--AnthonyThrash (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've admitted IRC has a low opinion in general. Notability to some degree cascades. If IRC isn't terribly notable then an IRC program is likely to be even less notable. There are many programs such as yours that have been confined to the archives a long time ago. This isn't a reflection of how good the program is or your ability as a developer. Szzuk (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This remark was edited after I'd replied, changing its meaning. You said "it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on a low opinion of IRC in general." Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I edited the remark to clarify it's meaning, since it was misinterpreted.--AnthonyThrash (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep **I love the fact that ThrashIRC is on Wiki. It is a great client and I use it often. ThrashIRC should definitely remain on Wiki and not be deleted. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 205.142.197.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable source, WP:ILIKEIT votes above notwithstanding. Pcap ping 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ** ThrashIRC is a great reliable software and his maker Anthony has put a lot of time and effort on it, he is always open to suggestions and accepts feed backs with enthusiasm, ThrashIRC deserves a place in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.61.43 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.201.61.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this relisted? The only keep !votes either fail WP:ILIKEIT or WP:COI. This is unremarkable software, no indication of how it might meet WP:GNG, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable software. GHits show no RS. (GregJackP (talk) 02:22, 21 March 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mu Proteus X

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

non-notable product. Ridernyc (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Em-u. The Proteus was an important instrument in its day but not so much to warrant a dedicated article RadioFan (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the above comment--if it wa important in its day it remains appropriate for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May want to read what he said or make an actual argument, since he clearly says it was not important enough to have it's own article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 March 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) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Samuels

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

Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to say about this guy's work beyond sessions for more notable acts. Possibly redirect to Burning Spear because he has contributed to several of that artist's albums. Otherwise delete due to lack of independent notability per WP:MUSICBIO. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish independent notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 22 March 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uziah Thompson

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

Non-notable session musician. Ridernyc (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Non-notable session musician" is again a ridiculous description. The most important reggae musicians have worked as session musicians, and Thompson is important enough to have his own entry in David Moskowitz's Caribbean Popular Music: an Encyclopedia of Reggae, Mento, Ska, Rock Steady, and Dancehall.--Michig (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He also received significant coverage in David Katz's book People Funny Boy as well as coverage in most of the other good books on reggae, and this gives some idea of how many recordings he has contributed to, and it only covers his album work up to the mid-1980s. He played in Bob Marley's band, and Marley described him as a "legendary" musician.[38] More recently he has worked with Anen,[39], Sinead O'Connor,[40], and Michael Franti,[41] to name just a few. He is one of the most important percussionists in the history of Jamaican music.--Michig (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Given that I have demonstrated significant coverage, your !vote makes no sense.--Michig (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An easy one, given the indicated sources reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources show an extended career working with artists whose notability is unimpeachable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 22 March 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) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gold Rush

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

Procedural nomination. Was PRODed by Tedder but there is a declined PROD in the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I didn't look in the history- doh. Obviously, delete as a neologism and an essay. tedder (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten it and added a number of sources. The modern gold rush is a documented term for the current rise in gold prices. And the term itself has been around for a while. Silver seren^C 20:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gold. Silverseren did improve the article (it was absolutely hopeless before) and added good links. But the term remains vague and undefined. Even the links that mention the term "modern gold rush" seem unclear what they mean by it: do they mean the price going up, or increased mining activity, or what? It's not a notable, defined event like the California gold rush so I suggest putting the information in the "Gold" article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold is far to long of an article to have more crammed into it. Silver seren^C 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic, the rise in gold prices in the last 40 years which along with increased demand has driven an increase in mining, is notable and should have an article. The expression "modern gold rush" seems to be to just be a fairly obvious thing to say which has been used a number of times, but no clear meaning. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't you be asking for a renaming of the article, rather than a deletion? Silver seren^C 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. On the other hand there might be other articles on the general topic already. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should look for them and use them in your argument. You shouldn't vote delete merely on the premise that there "might" be other articles. Silver seren^C 18:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've listed the article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was originally an article called Gold Websites, listing websites to sell gold, and clearly a commercial. Then after someone prodded it for deletion, it was renamed by its creator to Modern Gold Rush, still including the list of websites that sell gold, and still sounding like a commercial. One person has changed it from the article it was, to what it is now. [42] I don't see the difference between an old gold rush or a modern one. All sources are about different unrelated things. A gold rush is people rushing to where gold is at to mine it. "Like a modern gold rush" is an expression that is commonly used, but I don't think we could make an article about that. Dream Focus 10:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a good look at the article gold rush. It list all the gold rushes throughout history, including modern times. No reason to have this page at all. Dream Focus 10:02, 21 March 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) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherese N. Williams

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

Comically peacock-term laden biography of an American activist, with no evidence of notability: nearly all the references are to websites of organisations she has worked for.

I haven't seen such a blatant puff-piece for a while,and while it appears that she is someone whose career puts her on the cusp of notability, I don't see any evidence that she is there yet. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references given do not indicate notability. (some are dead ends or dont mention the person). If this is the best that an advocate for the woman (or herself) can provide to show notability, then she is not.Comment recent vandalism removed some references which show more notability that i at first observed. i restored the section vandalised. i am ambivalent about deletion now, leaning towards keep until we can sort out what is happening. I hate when people remove material during an afd. just wait, or add stuff, or remove absolutely uncontroversial material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you can pick your way through the peacockery (worst I've ever seen; looks like a cut-and-paste of an overblown resumé), she turns out to be a mid-level executive with the NAACP and later with the Progressive Majority. In that type of position she might someday become notable. But so far, independent sourcing about her is unimpressive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the history: the original article was a much more straightforward, encyclopedic entry. The peacockery was added later by a couple of WP:SPAs: first by User:71.246.74.67 and later by User:Cherwil7. Also, a post on the Talk:Cherese N. Williams page, and this User talk:12.186.233.18 response from User:Cherwil7, imply that the subject is no longer working for the Progressive Majority but rather is looking for a job (as of December 2009) - and that she is pointing everyone to this Wikipedia page as support for her job search. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After the comment above by Mercurywoodrose, I have looked again the references, and I can see nothing which comes anywhere near WP:GNG's test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the refs are to organisatiosn with which she was involved, and the few press articles barely even mention her. Can anybody see anything which might be relevant to GNG's test? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the record, i tried various google searches: news, name, etc. i cant find any mention of her outside the confines of naacp. her title may in fact be a significant one within the org, but i suspect for our purposes she would have to have some media contact as a spokesperson or public activist. unless someone with more familiarity with her can provide a really solid ref right now, i say delete. no prejudice towards recreation (sans ALL the puffery) if evidence is found later, or of course if she gains more notability after this discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:29, 21 March 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. Although the version nominated [43] was dubious in respect of WP:CRYSTAL, the additional information and sources that have appeared over the course of the AfD eventually lead to a clear and obvious consensus to keep it. ~ mazca ^talk 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazin' (Trina album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Amazin' (Trina album)

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

Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Article mostly sourced from YouTube, Twitter, and a fan site. Fails WP:NALBUM (see also: WP:CRYSTAL). TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially unsourced. Hasn't charted. Don't see significant coverage. Fails WP:NALBUM. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but needs work. The album is confirmed, but there are better sources out there than what has been provided thus far.Strikerforce (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being confirmed is not one of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." So, the question now becomes, is Trina considered notable? If so, then it can be reasonably assumed that this album may have sufficient notability to have an individual article on Wikipedia. Strikerforce (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...officially released albums may have sufficient notability..." This does not say that albums by notable artists are notable; it allows that there is a good chance that they are. The album still has to meet notability guidelines. Remember, "notability is not inherited". TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This album is released by a notable artist, on a notable label (EMI is the biggest in the world, last time I checked), featuring other notable artists (I dare you to try telling me Sean Combs is not notable). If you delete this album, then you have to delete all the other albums she released (they've all been on major labels). Plus there is a source I put in which provides plenty of info. Tom Danson (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct—Trina is certainly notable, as is EMI, and there are indeed notable guest artists appearing on the album. Where you are misguided is your thinking that all of her other albums need be deleted if this one is. You see, this particular album has not yet been released and so, none too surprisingly, has not been reviewed or garnered any other media coverage of substance; her other albums have. I suggest you check the criteria at WP:NALBUM, paying particular attention to the part that says "unreleased albums are in general not notable". TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's less than two months before this album is released. Most of us don't want to have to try restoring it again after it's been deleted. If you must do anything, redirect it to Trina (rapper) until we get the final tracklisting (which a good deal is sourced and covered here) and cover. Tom Danson (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Atama頭 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It feels good to be a member of the Wikipedian Inclusionist Party, doesn't it? Just be patient, deletionists; the album is set to drop in 39 days, so I think that pretty soon, an official tracklisting and cover will be released, rendering enough information to make this notable and rendering this debate moot. Conservata Veritate/Wikipedia is not paper, Tom Danson (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And here both the cover and the tracklisting are. This should be a Strong Keep now. I'm not worried about the 3-2 margin for deletion, because AfD is not a vote. Tom Danson (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM now that title, track listing and release date all have been confirmed by the record label. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Tom Danson and User:Paul Erik - album is notable and confirmed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:37, 28 March 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) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtblut

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

Unnotable musical group; self-released albums - not signed in any major label; refs are in german and unclear if considered reliable sources. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are three problems at work here. First of all, though there's never really been a consensus on foreign-language sources, I believe that there should be at least [i]some[/i] English-language sources for any article here because otherwise the pool of Wikipedians able to maintain and improve the article becomes too small. Second, the German Wikipedia has the corresponding page; while their standards for inclusion are stricter, I believe that we should give some credence to their decisions regarding topics where the available sources are in German. Finally, the subject fails to pass WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 22 March 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) 05:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Manara Jewellery

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

This reads like an advertisement for a non-notable jewelry business. Warrah (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (a7) sounds like blatant advertising for a small business. Dew Kane (talk) 04:09, 23 March 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) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLUDGE

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

Does not appear to pass WP:Notability. Could not find any reliable sources for WP:Verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet the minimum requirements of WP:N. For filtered Google results, see [44] and [45]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a scientific article mentioning SLUDGE and an interview with the creator, as well as a text input tool for SLUDGE. Some coverage of Out of Order, the game for which SLUDGE was originally developed, I put on the Talk page. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific paper only contains a single fleeting mention of the subject. The Just Adventure+ article is practically a primary source. — Rankiri (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm afraid the sources mentioned aren't enough to establish notability as what Rankiri said above. –MuZemike 00:35, 22 March 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo (Gucci Mane song)

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

Single which barely charted and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirecting it to the album it's from was reverted with the reasoning that "it has charted and has a music video". TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has charted, its by a notable artist, and its music video is currently on BET's top 10 line up. Str8cash (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from WP:NSONG: a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 20 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seascraper

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

Contested PROD. While the concept of a "seascraper" is an interesting topic, I believe that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL as there are just not enough reliable sources to verify the content and/or expand on a basic definition of what the word means (most likely due to the fact that no such "seascraper" has been built or even begun real planning stages). Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a seascraper could also be a dragnet, or some underwater mining or construction equipment, such as a dredge, or sand siphon, etc. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another reason to want to delete it? Do you believe anyone reading the article might be confused by what it is? Do people call other things Seascrapers? If so, you could have a note at the top of the article linking to those articles instead. I've never heard anyone use that term before though, so doubt its necessary. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Whether or not a seascraper has been built or begun initial planning stages is not a reason to delete. It is as real as dragons or hoverboards (both in wikipedia). Neither are in existence but does that make them irrelevant? It's only a matter of time before a seascraper is a reality but why wait till then? The more interest we build the sooner we can all be living 50 floors below sea level. And the name seascraper couldn't be more appropriate. From the material that has been gathered, it seems that this is more than just a throwaway thought. Long live the future, long live the seascraper.Detroitsprinkles (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) — Detroitsprinkles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

{{CB-keep}} Article has adequate refs to meet WP:RS and WP:N. It could use improvement but not deletion. Ikluft (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be merged into underwater habitat, which briefly covers potential future large-scale underwater structures, or if kept should at least be referred to there. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, despite statement in the lead, the linked examples of 'waterscrapers' are all floating buildings rather than underwater buildings. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should probably be changed (and have one of the refs attached to it). Silver seren^C 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources show various floating buildings, not underwater buildings that the article describes. I also hate the word "seascraper" but that's not a reason to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as I stated above, the lead should be rewritten to say floating buildings instead of underwater buildings. This is an edit you can even do yourself if you dislike what it is currently. Silver seren^C 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources that this seems to pass notability and verifiability. More importantly, it's a pretty coherent topic with good scope. It needs to be edited to be clear that it is mostly a science fiction idea. Quantumelfmage (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say conceptual. Silver seren^C 08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NEO. Although the earlier comments claim that the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:N, it is simply not true.

[46]'s "coverage" of the subject is limited to the following user comment: "should call it a "seascraper" instead of a "waterscraper", sounds cooler".
[47] has no mention of the neologism.
[48] discusses the Gyre Seascraper—the proper name of a conceptual building, not a common noun.
[49] is a "geek blog dedicated to the scientific study of gadgets, gizmos, and awesome"[50]. Not a reliable source.

GNews, GBooks and GScholar return nothing but trivial mentions. Google returns 133 unique results, none of which appear to be reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to each of your comments in turn.

1. The entire article is about seascrapers. Just because they do not explicitly use the term does not mean that they aren't talking about it. Reading the article and just seeing the picture shows what they're talking about.

2. Again, they are talking about seascrapers without explicitly using the term. He's the guy who primarily builds them, for goodness sake.

3. Just because it's more specific, we can't use it? Let me give an example. I looked up tunnel. Which, clearly, gave me the article on tunnel. Then I looked up Gotthard Base Tunnel, there we go. Now, since the Gotthard Base Tunnel is more specific, does that mean that it cannot be referenced in the tunnel article? Of course not, as it is mentioned there. Now, what was your argument about being specific is wrong?

4. Which explains why, oh would you look at that, it's gone. Poof.

There are already enough reliable sources that talk directly about the subject to make it notable. You're too caught up in the term. Silver seren^C 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. As for renaming the article, I'll have to take another look at the available sources. — Rankiri (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I want to rename it. Silver seren^C 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This topic has potential. A better title might be Amphibious building, which was used in one of the sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm in agreement with the idea, it would make more sense to people who find the article. Silver seren^C 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Amphibious Building I realized I hadn't actually voted yet. The sources for the article make it pass WP:N almost handily. The term is not really applied directly, so I feel that the article should instead focus on amphibious buildings in general, with seascrapers being a specific subsection. Silver seren^C 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've listed the article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the above renaming proposal. For one, it's patently obvious that the mentioned Gyre Seascraper is anything but amphibious. The other problem is the seeming lack of significant coverage. Again, a term doesn't belong to WP unless it's specifically covered by at least a couple of reliable sources. If we want to rename it, it's better to rename it to something like Floating building. Google Books has a number of WP:RS sources for this one, including [51], [52], and [53]. — Rankiri (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But so does Amphibious Building, [54], [55], [56], and [57]. Silver seren^C 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a source puts the single mention of the subject in quotes, it's probably not that good of a source. These are all trivial mentions. Besides, you don't seem to realize that the word "amphibious" means "able to operate both on land and water". That company's idea of an amphibious building is one of a small house floating on high tides or floodwater but resting on a solid platform when the water recedes. A building about the size of the Empire State Building obviously wouldn't operate in such a manner, would it? — Rankiri (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Google news link shows four results. [58] proves it does exist, and is rather cool. If the article needs to be renamed, then discuss it on the talk page. That isn't a reason to delete something. Dream Focus 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to an architectural magazine in the article. [59] Even more notable coverage of this. Whatever the designers call it, is what the article should be named. Instead of Skyscrapers, most call them Waterscrapers. Dream Focus 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a product named Marzocchi Super Monster doesn't mean that we should have an article on Super monster. Once again, unless you can come up with better sources, Seascraper and Waterscraper fall under WP:NEO. I could consider a compromise with a clear consensus on a better sourced title, but if it comes to keeping this version of the stub, there's really nothing in there worth saving. If you feel that you can make it encyclopedic, try userfication. — Rankiri (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the product gets multiple independent news coverage in notable reliable sources, then yes, it does get covered. Dream Focus 05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's are not the place to have discussions about name changes. The talk pages of articles are supposed to do that. The point of the discussion at hand is to determine if the subject is notable, not the name. If you are admitting that the subject is notable, but that you don't agree with the name, then you should be voting keep and discussing a name change on the talk page, not here. Silver seren^C 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read the comment? Although I see some coverage for a more general concept of floating building, the article and its contents deal with the particular subject of seascrapers, which I find not notable. — Rankiri (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs may indeed discuss renaming, as well as other alternatives to deletion. See WP:ATD. Ikluft (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ATD, "Pages with incorrect names can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Naming disputes are discussed on the articles' talk pages or listed at requested moves." They should be discussed on talk pages, not at AFD. Silver seren^C 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do already have floating buildings - house boats and cruise ships. The term seacraper shows up in works like Reinventing the skyscraper and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't seem to contain any significant coverage of the term. You can browse it through Amazon. — Rankiri (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It demonstrates that the term has some currency and so we should have something to offer when our readers search using it. We should keep this and develop it further in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion would not be constructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage like "[it] is like a horizontal floating skyscraper or "seascraper"" isn't demonstrative of anything. Please reread WP:NEO and WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage explicitly shows the equivalence of floating cruise liners and skyscrapers in scale and function. Taken along with the other sources that we have, it demonstrates that we have a topic worthy of note. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm forced to quote it again, but a new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Your interpretation of the above sentence is irrelevant WP:SYNTH. — Rankiri (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant because our topic here is the concept of large floating structures of this sort, not the words used to describe them. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we must focus upon the topic, not the words. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it could just as easily be applied to Oceancondo, Watermansion, Aquahouse and dozens of similar neologisms. We're not discussing the concept of large floating structures. We're discussing a particular subject of "seascrapers" that apparently hasn't received enough direct coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it is a straw man. This is not an article about word(s), it is an article about a topic. It would work just as well under another title such as Floating skyscraper just as we have numerous articles about the similar concept of a Floating city. We have adequate sources to support the topic and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'm not going to continue this repetitive discussion. My objections are based in concrete policies and guidelines. Your desire to keep the article is based on the existence of a completely unconnected subject of a much larger scope. If you feel that immense underwater structures deserve an article, try creating one that doesn't conflict with WP:N and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article I have in mind is not "completely unconnected" - it is the selfsame one that we are discussing here. You argument seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of the WP:NEO which is a style guideline, not a reason to delete. Its point is that we should write with clarity and so avoid words which our readers will not understand. Reworking and rewording to improve clarity is performed by normal editing, not by deletion and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a neologism - the focus of the article is the topic, not any particular word. Various authorities describe the topic in various ways. We have to pick one of them as the nominal title of the article but this is not the point of the article and so the guideline you quote is not applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:DICDEF. Aside from the unsourced definition, the article only has two descriptions of concept buildings that no one (except one of the building's authors and a couple of blogs) ever actually called seascrapers (see [60],[61], [62], [63], etc) and some irrelevant information on the mentioned "amphibious" buildings. — Rankiri (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two is enough to establish notability of the concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of what? I'm saying that the article has no relevant content except for the unsourced definition. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have two good examples of the proposed structure. It is this architectural concept which is our topic and its notability is established. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ~~intentionally~~ ignoring the facts. The proposed structures were submitted to skyscraper design competitions[64] and were called skyscrapers by nearly every single source. Only one of them ever used the term "seascraper" and only because that happened to be a part of the project's proper name. Mention them on skyscraper if you must. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Colonel Warden that the article is about the concept of a seascraper, listing waterscraper as an alternate name that has been used for it. It is not trying to be a dictionary definition, and should not. WP:NEO does not apply. WP:N is satisfied by the existing refs. Having qualified for notability, the article is a stub which should be retained and expanded over time. Ikluft (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep-This doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTAL as the article is describing a possible building structure, it is not speculating about a future event. Rather, a more appropriate nomination would be under WP:Neolgism. I, however, do not support the deletion of this article as this is a term that is indeed used, and is not vague in its definition. There are articles relating to what future seascrapers may look like for example:
- The Water-Scraper: I would live on it without a huge eco-disaster, CoolestGadgets.com
- Gyre Floating City for inhabiting the oceans, CoolestGadgets.com
- Seascraper – Floating City, Evob
- Floating city kicks off colonization of the oceans,Dvice
- Underwater Seascrapers Of The Future,Geekologie
- This topic would fall under Seasteading.Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read my earlier comments about the quality of these sources? Three of them don't even use the term. From the last two, [65] is a contest entry (i.e., a primary source; compare [66] and [67]), and [68] is an inadmissible blog. — Rankiri (talk) 02:07, 27 March 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 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zanja 8

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. No usable sources found in Google. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. At this point, I wouldn't oppose a speedy deletion under A7, but I'm not going to go so far as to tag it. I'm just not that WP:BOLD :) --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources, some of it fairly in-depth coverage (for example) but it's all in the Redlands Daily Facts or The Sun, which are local newspapers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as written, lacks sources and covers a subject that fails WP:MUSIC. It is unclear whether the local news sources mentioned above are truly independent. The example cited appears, stylistically, to be an except from publicity material. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:14, 22 March 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

AfDs for this article:

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

No organization claims this name. It was mentioned as a hypothetical name in a 2006 Newsweek article and has not appeared since. Shii (tock) 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's analysis is simply incorrect. GNews shows usages running through 2009; GBooks shows the term showing up in more than 20 recently published books; and GScholar shows its use in more than a dozen recent works. The existing article needs attention from someone with more specialized knowledge than I have. The initial AFD reached the right outcome, and no reason to overturn it has been provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the nominator's statement, there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to the "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", and this was covered in the last AfD. Lexicon (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is nonsense. I challenge anyone to improve it based on the references on Google Scholar. Shii (tock) 07:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(crickets chirpin) Seriously, I will just merge this article into Waziristan regardless of the AfD outcome. It's disgraceful in its current form. Shii (tock) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. If this is to be merged anywhere then there are several better potential targets, such as Taliban#Taliban in Pakistan, War in North-West Pakistan or Waziristan Accord, and, anyway, if you do merge it against consensus then it will be quickly reverted (I have watchlisted the article just to make sure). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Waziristan Accord, the relevant context, outside which this entity has no notability at all. rudra (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Waziristan and Waziristan Accord, pick a name out of those three for the article and redirect the others to it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was gutted of sources in mid-February. I have restored it. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article IJA (talk) 13:00, 20 March 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 Resident Evil. A merge of all related articles into Music of Biohazard might be a good consideration at some point. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biohazard: Symphony Op. 91: Crime and Punishment

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

This soundtrack article neither establishes its notability nor has a corresponding artist article. Recommendation: Speedy delete per A9. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Administrator Dlohcierekim has already rejected speedy deletion per A9 on the pretext of automatic inheritance of notability from Resident Evil. However, contrary to this assertion, WP:MUSIC does not mention that notability may be inherited from anything other than a composer or musician. Fleet Command (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I would argue that either Resident Evil or CAPCOM would be considered the artist here as far as WP:MUSIC is concerned - both of which scream notability - but FleetCommand makes a good point. Perhaps that policy should be reviewed to specifically mention situations like this one? As per notability - I think that because the music is heavily featured in reviews of these particular games, it lends some extra weight to an officially released soundtrack. I would not be opposed to this information simply being merged into the article about the game specifically. Addionne (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is so, Addionne, you have seven days to assert notability by providing citations. However, as for considering Resident Evil or CAPCOM as an artist, there is a void of policy support and much doubt of validity on my part. For the time being, the policy says that Resident Evil and CAPCOM may both be notable topics, but notability is not inherited. Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All six other Resident Evil soundtrack AfDs that I nominated are now closed with a Merge consensus. Here is a list of them:
Fleet Command (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to merge all the mentioned articles into Music of Biohazard for instance? –MuZemike 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea. But we need more consensus for those soundtrack articles which aren't nominated for deletion at all, don't you think? There are four of them:
  But as for the pressing concern of the moment: Should this article be merged or deleted?
  Fleet Command (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More reasons to have a discography article: I have discovered that there is already a Discography of the Resident Evil film series article whose link was not on the navigation template. I am beginning to think that we need more parity and consistency here than consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMO these should all be Merged to their parent articles as collapsible track lists. --Teancum (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Resident Evil as a collapsible track list, since it's the soundtrack for the Dual Shock Edition. --Teancum (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dual Shock? Didn't you mean Resident Evil (video game)? Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "The soundtrack covers music from Resident Evil: Director's Cut Dual Shock Version." But yes, I meant the video game. --Teancum (talk) 17:10, 25 March 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 - Altenmann >t 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enochlophobia

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

No such medical term. Heck, there is even no such Greeek or Latin word 'enochlos' or 'enochlon' to derive from. Looks like some ignoramus coined it. It is amazing how it not only infested the 'net, but even books!. Xuz (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That it "infested the 'net" and "books" is basically a hint that it has notability :). That is has no proper derivation from Greek and Latin is entirely irrelevant, as is your argument that there is "no such medical term." GNews has a substantial amount of reliable sourcing to offer, much of which confers notability, as does GScholar. I might argue that the article should make reference to the term's dubious origins, if that is the case, but the term is clearly notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence here of reliable sources. It's being presented as a medical term, but apart from a blog link on the article, we have no evidence from any online or print sources that this is actually used medically. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick GNews and GBooks search returns a plethora of coverage from multiple reliable sources (there are books devoted to phobias that cover this phobia, and newspapers like the Miami Herald talk about it, too...I'm just plucking random examples). As for whether or not it is presented properly as a "medical term," I do not have an opinion. But that's a matter of adjusting the content in the article and has nothing to do with a reason to delete this article. There is not only "evidence" of reliable sourcing, there is a bona fide mountain of it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wouldn't this be covered under agoraphobia? Perhaps the article should be incorporated there? TreacherousWays (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think they're quite the same. One is a fear of large spaces, the other is a fear of large crowds. I personally find endless phobia-creep a bit silly but they have distinct definitions and my notability argument is above. Also, if there is some concern that "enochlophobia" is not an actual medical condition and that's a problem (I have no opinion on this), I think redirecting or merging to agorabphobia, which I believe is a legitimate condition, would be problematic. Just my two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ah, yes. I misread "fear of public places". As an uninvolved, uninformed layman, perhaps my views should be taken with a grain of salt, but if this is a legitimate phobia then won't psychologists be treating it and (more importantly from our standpoint) writing about it in reliable sources? Is this a neologism to be avoided? TreacherousWays (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment On the contrary, I think being an "uninvolved, uninformed layman" makes your views very important. I am pretty much completely uninformed on the topic as well, although I've managed to involve myself now, hehe. The neologism point is interesting. GNews coverage doesn't turn up much of anything on this term prior to 2003. However, coverage is steady starting in 2003, just based on the mention rate graph they supply. In my opinion, it clears being a neologism -- it doesn't seem like a "fad word," if you will.
        My opinion is that just because the word "phobia" is in the title doesn't mean it has to have reliable sourcing from psychologists, nor does it have to be about a medical term. I don't think a fear of something has to be a medical term before it can have a "phobia" attached to it. Does that make any sense? My overall point here is that the lack of reliable sourcing from medical professionals seems irrelevant, to me. There is notability-conferring sourcing available, and much of it goes deeper than simply defining the term. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to define and promote new disorders which have not been discussed scholarly. I got no hits in pubmed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 March 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. NW (Talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galla Ramachandra Naidu

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

Contested prod way back in September '09. Non-neutral, mostly unsourced, unwikified BLP of a south Asian CEO, looks like it might have been copypasted from somewhere. Notability is questionable, I suppose someone can salvage this by stubbifying it... I don't think it's worth it though. Hopefully someone more familiar with Indian topics can help here. œ ^™ 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is most important family for the people of andhra pradesh india. how can we mark for delte.let us edit if this is not standard format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.76.100 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Clearly no editors seem to care about this article, but I see a number of google news hits from indian news sources that discuss him. So I can't conclude he's non-notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find significant coverage. None of the Gnews hits is nontrivial. Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 27 March 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) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whorecore

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

Only sources are primary or unreliable. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band and albums are self release and fail WP:NALBUM -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked through about five pages of links on Google, and the only things I can find are self-promoted coverage through Myspace and YouTube, and some blog notes, nothing that would make it pass WP:BAND. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable 3rd party references IJA (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of clearing the WP:BAND notability bar. No references from third person reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Not notable enough; Myspace is only reference, as far as I can tell. Pilif 12p (contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be bought up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopically pure diamond

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

delete or merge with diamond. sure there are sources just like there are sources for Barry Bond's knee but those sources would do better in teh article on diamonds Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep. Four reliable sources already included in the article. The source of the diamond is not what is important, it is the properties of the resultant diamond. Boghog (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there are reliable sources for each section of the article on diamonds as well. maybe we should split each section of the diamond article into its own article! maybe instead of Diamond we should have History of diamond, Hardness of diamand, Electrical conductvity of diamond, Diamond formation in meteorite impact craters, etc. yay! Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by sources. I thought you meant the isotope of carbon used to make the diamond. So we both agree that the sources in the isotopically pure diamond article are reliable. So the real issue is whether the subject is notable enough to justify its own article. The sources demonstrate the subject is notable (isotopically pure diamonds have useful properties). At the same time, these isotopically pure diamonds are a very specialized topic that would distract from the main subject matter of the main diamond article, especially considering this article is WP:FA and meant to be read by a wide audience. Furthermore, the diamond article is already becoming very long (84 KB), and if additional material were added, it would soon be time to split out some of the material into specialized subtopics. So I see no compelling reason why the isotopically pure diamond article should be merged into the parent article. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough subject matter for a separate article on one or more of the subsections, I do not see the problem splitting off a separate article. This happens all the time (see WP:SPLIT). Boghog (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
frankly i think History of diamond would do better on its own than this article is. at least the history of diamond section in Diamond is well written. this article is not and merging it into Diamond could get it the attention it needs. more to the point more editors visit the diamond article than they do this one so there is a better chance that this material - which needs improvement - will be improved. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to the point where IMHO it is now reasonably well written. Certainly it could be improved further, but in its current state, I think it is well worth keeping as a independent article. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable form of synthetic diamond with distinct physical properties leading to specific applications. Compare to articles like amorphous metal to see how specific forms of a material can have unusual and useful characteristics that distinguish them from the "normal" form. Meodipt (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts. There is no question that information is notable and reliable. I would oppose merging it into diamond or synthetic diamond because this information is too technical for those FAs. Merging into GA material properties of diamond is feasible, but it is not just a material property - this topic (should) cover synthesis, properties and applications. This article can easily be expanded if time permits, thus my current vote is to keep it as is. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article on Special relativity contains highly technical bits of information along with extremely non-technical discussions. that this article contains technical information is not a reason not to merge Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, some articles, like quark have to contain highly technical elements, but diamond is not such a topic and isotopic diamond is (yet) more of a scientific curiosity. It is not impossible to merge this article, I am just inclined to leave it be and expand myself later. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after this latest expansion i think this article should be merged into Carbon-12 and Carbon-13. when talking about properties of isotopes anyway isotropic purity is assumed. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should we also merge diamond into carbon?~~ Boghog (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 12C/13C substitution in diamond mostly aims at specific solid-state properties, which are unique to the specific lattice structure of diamond. For thermal conductivity, the substitution should be as much 12C as possible, but for research purposes, the 12C/13C composition has been varied from 0 to 100%, thus it is not just 12C or 13C. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Carbon-12 section of this article has two sentences of substance. the Carbon-13 section has one sentence of substance. merging those into Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 is not at all the same thing as merging an 80kb page into a 64kb page. if this is not an appropriate article to merge than what is by your reckoning? or is splitting a one way operation? you can split but you can not undo a split? Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strike the rhetorical question that I wrote above since it is distracting from the central argument. As Materialscientist mentioned above, isotopically enriched diamonds have a spectrum of properties as the composition is varied between 0% to 100% ¹³C. So the topic cannot not be cleanly split between the ¹²C or ¹³C articles. Furthermore since the physical properties and methods of manufacture of of the extreme types of isotopically pure diamonds as well as spectrum in between are so interrelated it make sense to have one unified article that talks about both. If one splits this material between two articles, there would be a significant amount of redundancy. Finally the topic of diamonds (natural or isotropically enriched) is a very specialized subtopic of carbon, including the subject of diamonds in any of the carbon articles gives undue weight to diamonds . Boghog (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2007 New York City steam explosion

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

per WP:NOT#NEWS this is no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure on keep or delete, but certainly more notable than the '09 Orlando shooting, given the place (downtown Manhattan, a few miles from the former World Trade Center location), the time (six years after 9/11) and the nature of the event (a sudden explosion sending debris and clouds high into the air). Yes, I know, it wasn't another al-Qaeda attack, but I'd bet it probably scared the shit out of thousands of people. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well sourced, long established (July 2007), nominated without edit summary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- long established? what? we can now no longer delete articles if they have managed to go unnoticed by people such as myself for x years? that is absurd. if i create an article on Barry Bond's knee and it goes unnoticed for two years it does not suddenly become immune from deletion. and the fact that i nominated it without edit summary is as irrelevant as the fact that my name starts with an m is. what is next? are you going to vote keep because your grocer sells snickers? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 37 references. Justification given for deletion was another deletion debate. Dew Kane (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- wrong. the justification given was WP:NOT#NEWS. maybe you should read the nominations before condemning them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting was cited as an example of the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS. more to the point that article had plenty of references but those references alone were not sufficient because all those references fell under WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal discussion about involved editors belongs on their talk pages. This page is for discussing content.

- Comment It has been pointed out to you before that "it is not really polite reply to each keep individually - say your piece, move on and let others have their say." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - you threw politeness out the window when you misrepresented my original argument as though there were not any justifications when in fact there were. also if you really peopled people should say their piece and move on why did you reply here and not on my talk page? maybe Orpheus's rule (since Orpheus obviously dictates wikipedia policy) applies to me but not to you? Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage from multiple sources. At some point everything is "news", but this seems significant enough (as testified to by the coverage) to transcend that. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep - WP:NOT#NEWS explains that enduring notability is what's required (no routine stuff) and then points to Wikipedia:Notability (events). If we're going to use that guideline, then:

Does the event have lasting effects and large geographic scope? I think so.
Does the coverage continue after the event? I'm not sure. The article doesn't include any sources from after 2007, and few more than a month afterwards.
Is the coverage in depth and diverse? I don't think anyone is calling that into question.

It's the lack of continued coverage that prevents me from !voting "keep", but the effects, scope, and source quality that keep me from !voting "delete". --Explodicle (T/C) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a City Hall hearing.. that is some long lasting effect. Thomas Menino cites the incident as one of many justifications for increased regulation of Boston's steam distribution network? why not create a wikipedia article on every justification he gave! Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After looking in further detail, I think these sources are in sufficient detail and long enough afterwards to constitute enduring notability. Changing to "keep". --Explodicle (T/C) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - the presence of a crack constitutes notability? strange - i do not recall reading anything about that at WP:N Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can if you step on it and it causes an adverse effect on your mother's back.--Milowent (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently sourced and notable to retain.--Milowent (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hopefully this event will be taught in whatever college classes or training classes city managers and chief engineers have to do in order to get their jobs. I'm sure it'll be a case example somewhere, and responsible city managers will investigate or consider replacing aging infrastructure. With events like this and that bridge collapsing, hopefully it'll be in people's mind and something will be done. A notable and lasting effect, not just a quick news flash. Dream Focus 10:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine article - well written and sourced. There is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Tampa plane crash

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

per WP:NOT#NEWS this is no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Charles J. Bishop, which is about the same thing (or merge that one to this and keep, since someone is going to probably say "bee-ell-pee-one-eee". This one is remembered regularly, including as recently as this past Monday [69], so it easily passes as "historically notable", which is no surprise. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citing an article talking about how this is non-notable as evidence of its notability. rich.

what about the car crashes mentioned in that article?

Compare these accidents to several recent incidents involving automobiles. A Tulsa man intentionally drove his car into a crowd of people at a party, killing two. In several other cases, people intentionally drove into crowds killing several persons. In 2008 in Maryland, a car killed eight people when it veered into a crowd during an illegal street race. However, no mention was made in the media that cars are the next terror threat or were there any proclamations made by politicians with congressional hearings soon to follow.

is there an article on the 2008 maryland incident? and what about Tyler Snyder? four years after his BLP1E incident and people still remember him (well at least participants of this afd will). should he have his own article now? Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge or redirect to Charles J Bishop the suicidal person is non-notable, the crash is somewhat notable. 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although not a terrorist attack, the article can be compared with such terrorist attacks. It is also comparable with the 2010 Austin plane crash. Notability is demonstrated by reliable sources such as the FAA. The incident had an impact on flying in the States, which further helps establish notability. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been established by reliable sources such as FAA and CNN. The investigation and effect on flying are also indications of notability. Intelligentsium 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- being mentioned in CNN did not save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting nor should it save this article. and an FAA citation no more makes the event notable any more than a self-published source as a source on itself Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. Was a very high-profile event that received a lot of coverage. Dew Kane (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This plane crash sure did cause some long lasting effects per WP:EVENT. It moved a guys desk by two feet and broke some glass! As for lots of coverage - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Orlando shooting. Being discussed in news sources as far removed as the BBC did not save that article nor should it save this. Remember WP:NOT#NEWS. An articles subject needs to do more than find itself in the media echo chamber Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Charles J Bishop into this article - notability guidelines state it is the event, not the person that should have the article if notability is from a one-off event. The crash was certainly notable - it made the news here in the UK [70] [71] and mentioned again recently here [72]. 86.133.53.54 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm of the opinion that this event was sufficiently notable to merit coverage. Its much more significant than your typical car crash, minor celebrity run-in with the police, etc., that would be excludable under WP:NOT#NEWS.--Milowent (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent. Racepacket (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has gone beyond indiscriminate information. Charles J. Bishop should be merged into this article per WP:EVENT. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:50, 27 March 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.