Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.29.211.138 (talk) at 06:24, 21 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 20 January 22 January >

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 no consensus. Merging into an existing or as-yet-uncreated article seems to be a viable option, but there's not a consensus for a specific merge target and the discussion on that can continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series

Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment, I notified an editor who is currently improving articles in the "Tomb Raider" area. If they are willing to clean-up the article, then we should keep it. Perhaps WikiProject Videogames may also help, they were previously notified of this AfD. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that you need to explain which criteria it fails in either of those. There are multiple reasons for failure. See WP:ATA -- an example from that page is as follows ---- Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. --Teancum (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as plot-only fancruft and game guide information with no basis in the real world. I would also support the deletion of Tomb Raider characters. I'm not discounting the possibility of a complete rewrite at Characters of Tomb Raider but as they are now, neither character article is encyclopedic and thus would not be conducive to merging. The characters would be better off summarized at their respecive game articles.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, which is the default whenever the WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument enters a discussion. Anyway, keep as well due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content concerning characters from an astonishingly important game series that has spawned two mainstream movies and even an amusment park ride must urgently be protected from the public eye. The article passes WP:LISTS by being a discriminate listing that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notablility has not been established here. There's only one third party reference, and that's to the IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. Notability for the series does not mean immediate notability for secondary characters. If the secondary characters cannot stand on their own as notable, the article cannot stand. While I'd much prefer cleanup and sourcing per the WP:VG guidelines, I don't see how these characters could ever stand solely on their own with reliable, third party sources. A few might, but on the whole they couldn't. As far as passing WP:LISTS, the guideline has this to say: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. The Tomb Raider character list as it stands is not encyclopedic, being merely a re-hash of the plot in relation to the characters. That coupled with notability issues makes this a tough one to support. One article for all major sub-characters that's sourced well with reliable, third party sources I can support, but I found no sources that could be used to help this article. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one way or another, bullying a merge is unhelpful. Find ways to serve our readers. Obviously a character list is acceptable, what remains is one or two and if split, how? Seems the current split is causing more problems than solving. I certainly could be wrong. I would expect major and minor characters so "recurring" jars a bit although there may be good reasons for it. As always with a list, expand the lede to spell out the nuances and significance so the rest of us can read that and move on. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We really should just have this discussion once, instead of repeating it time and again. Keep for the same reasons all the other AFD about list of game characters was kept. They are notable fictional characters, who are found in multiple notable works, and often get plenty of coverage, as much as a real person would, in game review shows, magazine articles, and whatnot. And by Keep I mean to keep the entire article, not "prune" 90% of it, or try to replace it with a redirect(as has happened elsewhere time and again). Dream Focus 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long running fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tomb Raider characters. Pare down drastically, and remove the copyviolating images. Abductive (reasoning) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is that the article is sourcable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted (by me or any admin) if someone is willing to properly source it {sofixit} Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilkins

Andrew Wilkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of non notable writer. ViridaeTalk 06:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Khalife

Hilda Khalife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entertainer. ViridaeTalk 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnston (author)

Paul Johnston (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, unreferenced biography of a local politician(wrong article) academic. ViridaeTalk 06:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even when the economy was better... I had 43 publications when I got my first faculty position... (Anyway, I was referring to the number of publications listed in the article). The book has 150 cites (according to Google Scholar, which I find notoriously unreliable, but at least it's an approximation). That's nice, but one book with that number of cites is not enough to establish notability, I think. You yourself say that you're "unable to evaluate his impact", so I wondered why you vote "keep", is all. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'll go with "I'm unable to be sure" in this field. In my field (computer engineering) I'd call it a clear keep. I'm trying to be clear that I'm willing to be wrong on this one but my limited knowledge of the topic puts him in the notable category. And people publish that many papers in neuroscience? Note to self: don't change fields. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Nitzani

Yair Nitzani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Now slightly (but poorly) sourced. Entertainer with no apparent notability. ViridaeTalk 06:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FarPoint Media Network

FarPoint Media Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking reliable sources. Has questionable notability. Written like an advertisement. andyzweb (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimous keep after the article was sourced and improved during the listing period (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sitti Navarro

Sitti Navarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. BLP has been without references since Nov 2006 Non-notable pop star. ViridaeTalk 06:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Madnick

Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP, prod was removed and no references added. Not notable academic puff piece. ViridaeTalk 06:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of this article does not meet WP:PROF. This article does indeed seem like WP:PUFF; the subject supposedly has made "significant contributions" to the industry, but that is not backed up by reliable sources. In fact, this BLP is unreferenced except for the subject's MIT faculty bio. As a side note, the subject apparently runs a hotel out of a castle he owns and has taken the title of "baron"; I don't think that establishes notability either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep First it's not unreferenced. Secondly meets WP:PROF#5. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the guy most have some time on his hands. When he isn't keeping his castle or tending to his two professorships he's wikifiddling. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! While y'all were fighting here and at Arbcom, Giftlite, Hipocrite, and I fixed the sourcing / notability problem. I'll probably take a few more passes at it and the article still needs a lot of work but this page isn't a great place to get that done. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Miège

Unsourced contested PROD. Prod, which called for sources or deletion, was removed and no refs added. Not notable or barely notable academic. Academics publish a lot. That doesn't increase their notability. ViridaeTalk 06:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irisonline

Irisonline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly not-notable online game. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections

Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthesis and original research issues aside, this is an unnecessary content fork of Batty Langley ~DC Talk To Me 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I mean to disagree with you, but are you saying that biographies about the deceased can never be contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that it is per se not libelous, no real harm is being done, and there is no reason to be courteous, to a man dead for centuries. The general rule is to keep footprints -- records of past changes. "Contentious" has no meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I used the wrong word then, I meant to use the word that meant potentially libelous. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that our little side discussion has no impact on this AfD? Consensus here is pretty clear. Ivanvector (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith AFD started by sockpuppet of banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Thomas (composer)

Andrew Thomas (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has received no significant awards for his "work," and neither has he been written about in reputable publications. There is a reason this article has no sources--its because no sources exist. Don't let his being a classical composer blind you to the reality that this man is not-notable. This article demonstrates that the subject's level of achievement and recognition is that of your average "Myspace" garage band. Politoman (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pwang War

Pwang War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi, I think that that this article may be nonsense, or be titled incorrectly. A google search for "Pwang War" turns up no relevant results; I suspect that if this war were notable enough to be covered in a general history of East Asia (the reference cited), there should be at least some result for the article name on google. A search for "Treaty of Geeba," which ended the war according to the article, also turns up no results. When I search the terms "Pwang" and "Geeba" in "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" on Google Books, I also find no results. So, I suggest deleting this article, unless someone can come up with a source for this information. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running through a history archive I have access to I still can't find anything. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books allows limited searches. I tried, but nothing. --Auric (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decline WP:CSD#A7, that doesn't apply to made-up "days", but on this particular "day" it's SNOWing. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Day

Ariel Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable holiday. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I hate to say this. (It's a bad reason) but per nom. Fails WP:GNG NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to WP:IAR and tag this for speedy as an attempt to circumvent the wording of speedy criterion A7 (people). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. –MuZemike 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of GTA

Future of GTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic speculation, original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Rogers

Toby Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous editor drastically cut the article down; I restored some of its content (really, the guy's claim to fame) and added a reference (all I could find, that is; see this search), but it's not enough to keep it. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect already completed with no objection for several days. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Richards

Rosalind Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a claim to notability here (a prod was removed), but this unreferenced BLP is destined to remain unreferenced--look, for instance, at the results of this Google search--and that's for her claim to fame, her role in Pobol Y Cwm. I found her resume, here, but even that doesn't suggest she's WP-worthy. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. A thought occurred to me. Perhaps we should merge some of the Pobl actor stubs into the series article and give a brief description of each actor. Some of the actors are only noted for appearing in the series so that would be best. I would have no issues with redirecting into this article unless the actor has a substantial filmography and number of sources to make it an adequate seperate article. Any thoughts Dr. Mies? Dr. Blofeld White cat

Yeah I agree Hobit and Drmies, I was surprised there is not much about her online. Tomorrow then I'll merge a few Pobl bios into the main article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UVa Online Judge

UVa Online Judge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing independent coverage of this software, just because it exists and has its own website isn't grounds for inclusion. MBisanz talk 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you linking a guideline for academic people in an article describing essentially software? And, ehm, we have linked significant 3rd party coverage above? --Cyclopiatalk 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no guidelines for academic software, but the guidelines for academics are closely related and provide a useful reference for accessing notability. Academic publications do not constitute significant 3rd party coverage. EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:N, academic publications do constitute significant 3rd party coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N does not say academic publications are notable. The issue is that academic communities are highly focused and closed to the outside world - you could be the top person in your field but completely unknown.
Does this topic have any significant coverage outside of the small community in which it is used? None of the references you listed show significant 3rd party coverage - they are just papers written by academics in the field. Where is the evidence of impact and coverage outside of the field? A google search just yields UVa and ACM related links. No coverage by mainstream press.
It could be a section on ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest if appropriate, but it's not notable enough to have it's own article. EeepEeep (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having no impact outside of its field doesn't equal non-notability per WP:N or anything else. WP:N says that it accepts reliable sources which they are. Smerdis tried to put that bias opinion in a software proposed guideline, but everyone except him turned it down. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're missing the point of my objections, but we'll see how the deletion discussion shakes out. You might want to take a look at this other current academic deletion discussion. EeepEeep (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point. I see the same comments from Miami and Smerdis, and their bias opinions never win in software AfDs. What really makes no sense from you is linking to academic people. How do you expect software to meet criteria for biographies? Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere it is needed, for notability, coverage "outside the field". Quite the opposite: one of the best advantages of an encyclopedia is to give information to the public also of things that are usually known only within a field (provided sources exist somewhere). I'd say it is hard to find something more WP:RS than scientific academic press, and therefore academic papers about a subject are a strong indication of notability -probably one of the strongest possible. Your request of "mainstream press" coverage is nonsense: what's the point in requiring (probably) bad sources when you have (most probably) good ones? --Cyclopiatalk 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you're focused on a minor issue that's tangential to my main argument, I'd say you're missing the point. And the rest of your comments make no sense. Who's Miami? Smerdis supports keeping this article. What makes their views biased? Are there specific other software AfDs that establish relevant precedents we should consider?
I merely suggested that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) could be a useful starting point for establishing notability in a related area that lacks its own notability guidelines. If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, so we shouldn't be listing information that's only mentioned in or of interest to a scientific journal.
I don't find any of the references compelling; they merely mention that the system exists without establishing impact or importance, see Existence ≠ Notability. That's my opinion, you're entitled to disagree. EeepEeep (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If publishing a large number of papers in academic journals doesn't establish significant notability to be included in wikipedia, why would a system that's only mentioned in a few papers be notable? - Because you're missing the entire point of WP:N. If author X publishes 100 papers, but there is no source whatsoever on X, X is not notable, primarily because it is not verifiable: there is nothing about X that can be reliably written. If however there are 5 papers all together talking about object Y, this satisfies WP:GNG: there are several third-party sources covering the subject. Also, you have to explain me what has to do WP:NOTPAPER with scientific journals. Please, read policies and guidelines before citing them. --Cyclopiatalk 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, the notability guideline disagrees. At the moment, WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant to software. Smerdis appears to have changed his opinions since Wikipedia:Software notability failed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, sorry, that should be WP:NOT PAPERS. I really don't see how this topic has significant coverage. Again, my opinion, and I'm allowed to express it. Clearly not everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable, and nothing in WP:N contradicts that. I've done significant research and published in the field of CS Education but have never heard of this system. On the other hand, I can name several academics who have published large numbers of papers, are frequently cited by other academics, are considered highly influential leaders in their field, and have received significant amounts of coverage in the mainstream press but don't have wikipedia pages. EeepEeep (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't see how WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point then I'm at a loss. It's clearly the closest related topic. Wikipedia has few hard-and-fast rules, but we need some guidelines here.EeepEeep (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in fact we have the guidelines we need: WP:GNG. --Cyclopiatalk 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't see the part above in your comment. WP:NOTPAPERS is a guideline about style, not about content. And yes, everything that's mentioned in a handful of academic papers is notable by definition, per WP:GNG. The rest of your comment is satisfactorily answered by WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. --Cyclopiatalk 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that there is no mention of software on the guideline so it is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, you'll notice I only said that WP:ACADEMIC is a useful starting point for establishing notability of other academic related topics. If software were specifically mentioned, it wouldn't be a starting point, it would be an established guideline. I'm merely suggesting applicability in the absence of an established guideline. If we just apply WP:GNG, this topic fails. EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we apply it, it doesn't fail. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, bear in mind that guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (which putative relevance here is surrealistic, but oh well) never override WP:GNG. That is, if a subject doesn't pass a guideline but passes WP:GNG, the subject is notable. Other guidelines are to complement GNG, not to substitute it. --Cyclopiatalk 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested WP:ACADEMIC should override WP:GNG. I merely mentioned it as a point of reference for discussing a related topic that falls into some grey areas of WP:GNG. If WP:GNG were cut-and-dried in every case the guidelines would never have been created in the first place. Your opinions don't overrule mine; the whole point of an AfD discussion is to give multiple editors a chance to express their opinions. You feel this topic is notable and gave your reasons, I don't and gave my reasons. EeepEeep (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Off the top of my head, I would have said delete because most grading software isn't notable. But this seems to have some coverage in academic papers and a book on preparing for ACM contests [19] (some of this text appears to have been recycled in other papers by the same authors) [20] (contest prep book) [21] (round-up of on-line judges on p. 7). So, it is more notable than the average grading software. Also, a distinction must be made between academic software written to illustrate some idea, and software used in academia. This falls roughly in the latter category, so it needs to be treated as any other software, and it has independent secondary coverage WP:GNG which is not just due dilligence in reporting related work in academic papers. Pcap ping 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Cars Database

Internet Movie Cars Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources are from 2006 when the site was founded, with no substantial coverage afterward. A brief flurry of coverage from around the foundation does not translate to full blown notability if the site never got any coverage from third party sources after its foundation. Prod declined with a proposed merge to IMDb simply because it shares a founder was inspired by IMDb -- not a good idea in my opinion given the tenuous connection. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 near unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Gospel (book)

Another Gospel (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to merit its own article; also violates WP:NPOV to a possibly irredeemable extent Richwales (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: Changing to speedy keep as nominator has shown no reason for deleion other than a dislike for the subject of the article, not an issue with the article itself worthy of deletion. Turgan Talk 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not convinced yet regarding the notability; just because two universities have courses using this book doesn't seem enough. My main concern regarding WP:NPOV is that the book is a vehicle for advancing a specific version of the Christian faith, delivering negative value judgments on numerous other faiths with which "mainstream Christianity" disagrees. If this article is salvageable, I would propose it would need to discuss the background of the author's religious views, why the author's beliefs impel him to write negatively about what he considers to be "cults", outside critical reaction to the book, etc. That would seem to point toward expanding the subject to the point that this book would be more appropriately included in Wikipedia as a source in articles about evangelical Christianity, rather than being a separate article. Richwales (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richwales (talk · contribs) - Your nomination itself is considered a "delete" - there is no need for you to make a duplicate "delete", with bolded formatting. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my error, no intent to confuse. I've removed the bolded "delete" tag on my comment above. I still stand by the content of what I said, though. Richwales (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmmmmmmm... AfD discussion bacon....... Cirt (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, are you saying that this book's treatment of Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc. is unbiased because they really are cults? Richwales (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's treatment of the book is unbiased. Whether the book itself is biased isn't relevant, otherwise Mein Kampf would be a redlink. WP:NPOV applies to articles, not the subjects of articles. Holly25 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you still don't get the point. The book may be biased. The article is not. And even if the subject of the article(i.e. the book) is biased, it doesn't automatically make the article "biased". For example, Nazism again(for a lack of better example I can think of, sorry if not appropriate) - Let's say Hitler claimed that "Aryan is the best race in the world", and now we are trying to put this into an article - in describing it, we can simply say "Hitler claims that Aryan is the best race in the world" - this is not biased. If you try to either support (e.g. saying "Aryan is the best race in the world" without attributing to him) or deny (e.g. "Hitler said that Aryan is the best race in the world, yet another nonsense") his claim, that would make the article biased. Hope the matter is clear now :) Cheers, Blodance the Seeker 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the article (in its current form) is heavily biased because it doesn't provide any clue to the reader regarding the POV nature of the book or of its thesis (namely, the tacit assumption that evangelical Christianity is true and authentic, and that other religions — even other Christian churches which diverge from the "mainstream" — are "cults" which believe and preach "another gospel"). An unbiased article would need to acknowledge the non-neutral POV of the author, the POV nature of the publisher (Zondervan), deal much more neutrally with comments like "biblical critique of the cults", address the POV nature of the book's title, etc., etc. Even if this issue can be adequately handled via a major cleanup of the existing page, I'm still not really convinced that there is a good enough argument to make this book notable and worthy of its own article (as opposed to dealing with it and similar so-called "anti-cult" or "anti-counterfeit" writings as a subsection of a more general article on evangelical or fundamentalist Protestantism). Richwales (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a read through and the article in its current form nowhere uses the word "cult" to describe these groups except in direct quotes: even the intro adds terms such as "new religious movement" in order to avoid lumping in the following list of groups under the "cult" banner; "groups" is the term used from then on. It's perfectly neutral.
An article doesn't have to include criticisms of the subject in order to be neutral, unless those criticisms can be properly sourced and their insertion doesn't give undue weight to fringe views. What would not be neutral is if someone decides the work in question is biased and arranges the article to "show" the bias, when no such allegations of bias are represented in the secondary literature. The way to add criticisms to the article is to first locate some good sources for that criticism. Holly25 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following excerpt from the back cover (as found in the book's page on Amazon.com) seems, to me, to clearly illustrate the view of the author in this book: Ruth Tucker’s overview illumines the personalities whose alleged revelations spawned historical heresies in all the major cults in the United States. She highlights important controversies within each movement as it aims for religious respectability. She pinpoints how the doctrines and practices of a dozen contemporary groups—as well as the New Age Movement—deviate from orthodox Christianity and shows how to reach out to cult members. At the very least, the current article fails WP:NPOV because it fails to even try to acknowledge the POV of the book. Also, I question the citing of this book being required reading at Regent College as being supportive of its notability, given the evangelical Protestant bias of Regent College. So I still believe this book fails the notability test — though I'm willing to concede that it may be possible to salvage its lack of NPOV via a major rewrite that does not tacitly accept a mainstream Protestant viewpoint. Richwales (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richwales (talk · contribs) - Perhaps you should take some time to read the above comments by Blodance and Holly25. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did read these comments — and I disagree with them — but in the interests of accomplishing something useful here, I'll tentatively agree to drop the NPOV element of my complaint in this forum, pending a good-faith effort (which I'm willing to participate in) to rectify the serious POV problems which I remain convinced exist in the current page. I still believe a page on this specific individual book is inappropriate for lack of notability, and I still favour its deletion on that basis (and/or the incorporation of its contents into a more general treatment of polemical literature within the evangelical Protestant community). Richwales (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, seems like a bit of overusage of the bolded Note formatting, over and over again... In any event, this can be discussed further at the article's talk page, but it still seems like Richwales (talk · contribs) has failed to point out any specific issues with the article itself (as opposed to his WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns with the book). Cirt (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all possible respect here, I feel my concerns go beyond "I just don't like it". I will admit that I don't particularly like this book — as you can see from my user page, I'm LDS (Mormon), and this book directly attacks my set of beliefs — but I'm not going to object to an article about this or other polemic literature as long as the material is treated in a dispassionate, objective fashion that doesn't promote or put down any particular version of faith. In any case, though — as I said — I'm willing to drop this part of my objection to the page's existence in hopes of being able to make the page better. Richwales (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several points.
  • I was unable just now to confirm that Another Gospel is in fact being "used as a reference at the University of Pennsylvania". The online material I could find for the cited Penn course doesn't appear to mention this book. A more comprehensive source (e.g., a complete reading list for the course?) would probably help here.
  • The online material for the course at Regent College does list Another Gospel — but it's buried near the end of a reading list of over 100 books — not what I would consider to fall into the category of "independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science" (note 5 at WP:BK).
  • If I wanted to be picky (which I really won't in this situation, but whatever), I could point out that Penn is in the USA, and Regent College is in Canada, so these two examples aren't enough to satisfy the "in any particular country" part of the cited condition at WP:BK. I would propose that the best answer to this objection would be to find more programs which make genuine, substantive use of Another Gospel.
  • I'm concerned that the other works cited as referring to Another Gospel may not represent exposure to a "general audience". Most of the cited works come from evangelical Protestant publishers (such as Zondervan, Moody, and Intervarsity). This isn't as bad as a fringe blog basing its claim to notability on links from other fringe blogs, but I think a conclusion of notability here ought to involve nontrivial citings of Another Gospel in a wider range of publications.
Richwales (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richwales (talk · contribs) - You have a tendency of responding with long posts under almost every respondent to this discussion. Perhaps it is time for both of us to step back and allow others in the community to weigh in. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There might not be an online reference for the UPenn course, but offline sources are perfectly acceptable (they just take more work to check).
The "independent works... sufficiently significant" note is used to disqualify textbooks and books written specifically for the course. "Major works" are given as examples, not as requirements.
The "any particular country" part is, as I read it, meant to be inclusive: we can't discount courses in obscure countries out of geographical snobbery. I don't think it means "they all have to be in the same country", I don't see what sense that would make.
I'm not sure that "general exposure" is the right standard to use here: it's definitely a specialist work, so we look to how it's cited within that specialist area. I see a reference from a university press (Sydney) and use in two mainstream university courses alongside the cites in books from evangelical publishers. The Christian Research Journal review puts the book at the top of its field, and although I'm sure you'll point out problems with their neutrality, their parent organization seems to have played a big role in the "Christian countercult movement", so their endorsement does carry weight when we're considering the work's significance within that specialist field. Holly25 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't get any info if you try to click the link University of Pennsylvania... it brings you to the WP article of Penn. Noted the "RELS133"? Try search "Penn RELS133" - it's a course number. I think the creator meant to say that the book is mentioned in the course content - the link I found was dead, though, so it shall prolly get removed for unverifiable. But even if the ref is removed, it is still a widely cited work and seems to have enough notability for inclusion. For the content of the article, as long as they are properly attributed, they are fine, no real need to portrait the author and/or publisher. Check Mein Kampf - we dont really need to say "a book by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi leader and the most evil mass murderer in human history". Some of the "POV" you mentioned was not even included in the article - how in the world can they make the article POV if they are not even in the article? I'm getting puzzled... Sorry, I don't mean to be all "I R TEH JASTIS", but this seems to me to be getting more and more like a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Blodance the Seeker 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you look at WP:BK, it lists 5 criteria for book notability, only one has to be met to establish notability, and this book meets at least two (#1 and #4). I haven't independently verified those claims, but unless proven false, this book is notable. As for the POV problems, I agree that the book is probably POV, but the article is not. If anyone thinks the article has problems, those can be fixed without deleting. – jaksmata 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable book from Zondervan. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Boys

Polo Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NOTABLE, no appropriate CSD category. Frmatt (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner and a Movie (album)

Dinner and a Movie (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an unreleased album. As per WP:CRYSTAL. Frmatt (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - We are seeing more and more AfD's for upcoming albums by notable artists, proposed for deletion just because there are not yet numerous sources available. Sometime in 2009 the old Template: future album was discontinued (see admin discussions here and here). I think a re-enstatement of that template would solve some problems if WP editors continue to create articles for near-future albums, but I guess that should be discussed elsewhere. As for the album in the present discussion, if we delete the article now it will just be re-created in a couple of months. Also, I'm not sure if citing WP:CRYSTAL is appropriate if the article has reliable sources, and I would find at least one of the sources in this article to be so. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the independent sources, only the MurderDog interview gives the album more than a cursory mention. HipHopDX and BallerStatus report the deal between Tech N9ne and Brotha Lynch Hung, and BallerStatus further quotes Lynch's Twitter page which says that this album will be his first release under the new agreement, but neither of these discuss the album per se, and so don't help establish its notability. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Amato

Billy Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly complex, questionable hoax. It would appear as if someone is attempting to re-write the history of Studio 54 with NO sources, references or corroborating evidence. In addition, the editor responsible has refused all communication, even after being blocked. "Billy Smith" in the Studio 54 article was changed to Billy Amato a few days ago. For the full timeline, please see the following links:

There is a claim of a legal name change, for which there are no sources provided. If it is determined this information is NOT correct, this article should be deleted as a hoax. Several other similar articles attempting to introduce this information have already been deleted, including Billy Smith, Studio 54 and Billy Smith/Amato, Studio 54.OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found this - Being born 1945, in 1957 he should be like 12, exactly the age for graduating from an elementary school. Considering there is unlikely to be two people who both had two surnames "Smith" and "Amato", I think they are the same person. Thus, the legal name change is true. Blodance (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This also. 6 years passed and he graduates from high school. I think we can now at least say that there was a person named Billy Amato aka Billy Smith indeed. Blodance (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is his own website. He says he was "Being born and raised in Pelham Manor, New York", matching the classmate records I linked above. He also mentioned Studio 54. So, no, the article is not a hoax, as far as I can see. But I failed to establish his notability, as such, I'm going Weak Delete on this article, for failing WP:BIO. Blodance (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, Classmates.com was not a WP:RS. All legal name changes must be published, except in cases of domestic violence, so there should be a source for this information. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the situation in the US - no such requirements here. (I've !voted delete anyway, but I must say that I'm pretty convienced that they are the same person, even if the source is not reliable.) Are there any exceptions? Blodance the Seeker 09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than likely exceptions to this rule (domestic violence, witness protection), and the subject in question may have "informally" changed his name. The problem extends beyond the notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC of Billy Amato and the "alleged" name change. If the subject "Billy Smith", "Billy Smith Amato" or Billy Amato himself is editing the article (and vandalizing my userpage), we have a WP:COI. If it is not, then where is the authoring editor getting this information? There are no sources to establish notability of anything. If it is available to the general public, why can't it be produced? In addition, the existing information about Studio 54 mentions a "Billy Smith" which is a pretty common name. My concern was the production of 1) a reliable source establishing the name change from "Billy Smith" to "Billy Amato" and/or notability independent of it, as "Billy Amato"; 2) a reliable source proving Billy Amato "launched the career of Madonna" and 3) attempting to get the author of this article to communicate with the community about where this information is originating, in a way other than vandalizing my userpage and the Studio 54 article and talk page. From my perspective... beginning with the changes to the Studio 54 article, moving to the deleted articles (referenced in nomination above), and the 2 user accounts (the author, and then after being blocked, an anonymous account) being used to attempt to change who the founders of the club were, and who launched the career of Madonna (both accounts are now blocked for persistent disruptive editing), we are dealing with a persistent and concentrated hoax effort. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its Amato himself... it could be a friend of him, but if it was himself, I think he would have mentioned the name change on his personal website. In any case, let's pwn delete this article, unless notability is proven. Blodance the Seeker 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ok guys - i am Billy Amato, i change my name back to my family name back in 1985 when i was still at Studio 54. Yes it was Billy Smith. Because names are very much a part of your heritage and family name change is very common in the USA. my web site is www.BillyAmato.com. Go to it, It is all true and I am now 65yo born in 1945. Also the infomation you have on the Studio 54 page is so wrong, well 96% of it is. I happen to be (was) Steve Rubell best friend and buddy since 1974. I lived with him and party with him durning the summers of Fire Island, NY during all of the Studio 54 days 1977-82 than we moved to East Hampton 83-85 - if you have a qustions e-mail me. Also we did launched the career of Madonna at Studio 54. There is a great story about that night when Steve Rubell walk in from the back door on west 53 Street with his friends - but that's another story i have in my book to be coming out the end of next year, I have over 1500 stories about Studio 54. - Your more than welcome to e-mail be at Billy@BillyAmato.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.17.196 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The majority of the deletion !votes were based on the speculation in the earlier version. Removing the speculation would seem to address those concerns. For future reference, it might be better to try and address a content issue on the talk page before nominating for AfD. GedUK  15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean presidential election, 2013

Chilean presidential election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • WP:CRYSTAL: Candidates in Chile do not usually announce they will be running until a year prior to elections, thus this is extremely premature; especially considering Chile completed the 2009-2010 elections this past Sunday, Jan. 17th.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Disagreed, does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria (see #1 under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Partially agreed, though that is no basis for deletion. There are candidates that campaign much earlier than one year before the election (i.e. Sebastián Piñera). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To make a list of candidates three years in advance is a stretch. I do not have an issue with the topic of elections, (Actually, I do have an issue, considering there is nothing more than an event date that can be added at this time.) ...however the subtopic of including candidates is not prudent. The articles seems more of a list of assumed candidates than a topic on electoral process. If it is not deleted, it may grow to mimic the current elections article, which would be a grave distortion of the truth. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regards to the WP:Crystal, it clearly states Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. To say there will be elecetions is highly probable. To say who those candidates might be is not. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Verifiability: There are currently no sources or press to support this,
  • WP:NPOV: Four of the five candidates you list and link to are center-leftist,
    • Comment - Disagreed. It's just that that there are more candidates from the left than there are from the right. It simply reflects the reality of Chilean politics nowadays. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a political shift in the country right now. Pinera has to form his office, the country is going to enter a significant transition; elementary political science here. As for there being right-wing notables, there are; however if I name them I would be subscribing to your logic and I just don't agree we can speculate three years in advance. Anything can happen. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no content other than a generic infobox and internal links to politicans.
  • Comment - If the community believes this should be deleted as premature, I wouldn't contest it. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baf09 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All that's in here is a list of "potential candidates", which is WP:CRYSTALBALL at its very worst. To put it in perspective, the most recent presidential election in Chile was only six weeks ago (December 12, 2009) -- and the runoff election between the two top candidates was this past Sunday January 17, 2010). Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd add that people who have written "agreed" might want to instead say "delete" (i.e., they agree that it should be deleted) and those who say "disagreed" might want to write "keep" (i.e., they disagree that it should be deleted), and that a reason should be given. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has written agreed, it's Pristino, the author of the article in question who is agreeing or disagreeing with the critiques. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early as Mandsford noted.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make it simpler to follow, I've taken the liberty of prefacing comments as comments. In addition, bold print, like ALL CAPS, should be avoided, is. One can put a comment in italics for emphasis. Although it's not really a vote (and we use the odd term "!vote" for that purpose) I'm assuming that Neon, as nominator, would say "Delete" and that Pristino, as the article's creator, would say "Keep"; and that if I interpret Pristino's agreed comments correctly, it's more along the line of "Si, pero..." or "Yes, but...", something along the lines of "the article should be improved instead of deleted". Note that if you've posted without being logged in, it shows up as an IP address number and not a name; and that if you say "keep" or "delete", it helps to explain why you feel that way. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is going to be odd for me, but I'm leaning in the direction of keeping the article but keeping a close eye on it. We've usually have articles for the "Next [insert country here] general election"...this tends to be common enough that I'd call it a convention of sorts (there's already an article for the next German federal election, for example); it's not like we're listing the 2021 elections on here, after all. With that said, I do think that if an article is to be kept, then candidate listings need to be kept under control. The article offers no sources for these candidates being "potential" candidates, and that is something that needs to be watched carefully to prevent abuse of Wikipedia by political groups attempting to gain free publicity/notoriety.Tyrenon (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ok, I've stripped out the candidate speculation and I'll do my best to keep an eye on this one. Right now, it's just listing a date and it could use a source or two on the dates (I'll tag it as needing sources), but it's no less speculative than the one on Germany...or, for that matter, the detailed article on the 2014 US Senate elections. Even if we're just saying when elections would legally be scheduled for, I think a stub on this point is well within what belongs on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnara Silbayeva

AfDs for this article:
Gulnara Silbayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No consensus in this articles last AfD, but after a fairly long search, I can't find any evidence that this lowranking reality tv artist passes the notability threshold, so brought here for your consideration Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Maher

Carmel Maher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, PROD removed without the addition of sources. Unimportant politician for a minor party in a minor political spectrum (ACT Legeslative assembly only has control of the ACT, and is in effect a local government. Unknown, unimportant and left after serving one term. ViridaeTalk 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bundelkhand Akikrit Party

Bundelkhand Akikrit Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This political party does not appear to have garnered any significant coverage in reliable sources, and in particular doesn't seem to meet the criteria for non-commercial organizations. It has been nominated for deletion (and deleted) under an alternate spelling (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundelkhand ekikrit party. Bongomatic 02:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -SpacemanSpiff 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a very local party that hasn't achieved anything notable. The only time they'll ever get any attention is when the state bigwigs pay lipservice to their cause and they get a trivial mention. The Bundelkhand movement itself isn't one of the more notable statehood movements in India and therefore it can't be expected that these orgs will gain notability anytime soon. –SpacemanSpiff 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local party with no assertion of any notable achievements (such as any electoral success, even at the sub-national level). IMHO, the political equivalent of Other Stuff Exists.Tyrenon (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fillie Lyckow

Fillie Lyckow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete no evident claim to notability, violates BLP due to a lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitech Laboratory

Hermitech Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:CORP. Zero hits in google news archive. The creator of the article left a message regarding notability when he contested a CSD two years ago, but as far as I can tell he argues just that the company was listed in a few directory-type lists (see Talk:Hermitech Laboratory). Pcap ping 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As was pointed out by various parties in the discussion, the larger issues go beyond these articles. Perhaps a wider discussion ultimately will help settle those. In this particular Afd there is no clear consensus. I don't think it's too much, though, to suggest that editors might want to try to reign the list in. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chile-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Index of Chile-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, Wikipedia is not a directory. Saying that it is "Chile-related" is not discriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice that JBSupreme had nominated two articles instead of one. I think that it's in serious need of a different format. It wouldn't run 100+ pages and it would be less unreadable if it didn't insist on a
separate
line
for
everything.

Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the categorisation of "Chile-related" topics is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT#DIR based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for origininal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup the outline. Keep the index. The Outline seems to be a mixture of an Outline and an Index. Both are valid navigational page types, but mixing them together might not be ideal. There are RfCs being drafted to discuss these and related topics. There are WikiProjects associated with both, each with hundreds of items (WP:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge and the draft stage WP:WikiProject Index). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It appears that the editor(s) built these enormous, unnavigable directories by harvesting titles from Wikipedia's own category tree. It is time to put an end to this nonsense. Abductive (reasoning) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like the kind of quick reference pages I made for a Wikiproject I founded, to help potential project participants to locate stuff they would like to work on. I'm not sure that List of Chile-related topics is a candidate for main article space.--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no sourced content (WP:V) that could be merged, and the person with the changing signature makes no policy-based argument for keeping the article.  Sandstein  05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

María Elena Chávez Caldera

María Elena Chávez Caldera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sad but WP:NOT#NEWS, the few google news hits are either passing mentions, or happened around the time of her murder. No lasting notability. Delete Secret account 13:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an election. Do you have an argument in favour of keeping the article based on Wikipedia guidelines? For example, in this case I think a lot of editors would be satisfied if you could demonstrate that she met the general notability guideline before she was murdered. You might also explain why har specific murder is more notable than the other murders in the series, thus not failing based on WP's policy about biographies of people notable for only one event. As it is, you are effectively arguing that the article should be kept solely because you created it, which is in fact specifically against policy. I commend the work you've done on the article and think that the content should be kept, but for the reasons I pointed out above I don't think it should be a separate article, so I suggest merging. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also confusing that you changed your signature in between comments. Ivanvector (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always vote for the articles I created to be kept because I like my work to be enjoyed for posteriority. I know it's not an election, I just used the Barack and John example as a comparison, kinda like saying "it's expected for me to vote to keep it" kinda thing.
About the signature, I always do that. I never sign the same way. I just want to make other readers and contributors laugh a bit and also remember me for my unconventionality, wild ways, wackiness and sense of humor. :)
I assume you're probably not intending this, but when you change your signature every time you make a comment, you can make it look like you're trying to stack the discussion in your favour. Actually stacking the discussion is very against policy (see WP:SOCK for one). I applaud your creativity, but please be careful. Ivanvector (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You hit it on the button when you said I wasn't intending that. I guess I can revert to my old signature in which I wrote it like: Antonio ("Whatever")Martin...I really appreciate your applauding me, Ivan. Rare when people here praise others! Thanks and God bless you! Antonio the Fourth Jonas Brother Martin Aha? 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


About the other things you said, what can I say but that you're right about most of it? Megan Please Be Mine!!! Que de Que??? 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brickfilm

Brickfilm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure that this is notable. Topic already covered to some extent in the main Lego article. Frankie Roberto (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A near unanimous keep after the article was improved and source during the listing period. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Kolodny

Robert C. Kolodny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:BLP; was deleted out of process by User:Rdm2376. No sources to demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again. It was very much deleted under due process as this violates the very spirit of BLP policy. It still does, and it was irresponsible to restore it without sourcing it immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, you've clearly not even bothered to click the "find sources" links provided above. There are ample sources available, and I looked enough to confirm that notability might be confirmable before restoring and AFD'ing. Rd232 talk 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's gone through due process and been deleted, and you think it should be restored, shouldn't you userfy it and fix it, before you restore it to mainspace? Per WP:BLPDEL, due to the high standard that BLP articles must adhere to, the onus is on you to fix the article to demonstrate it should be kept, otherwise it must be deleted. As it stands, this is an easy speedy G4 candidate. Ivanvector (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The whole point was it wasn't "deleted under due process", it was a rogue deletion by an admin who was acting disruptively. I don't think even they would claim that any process was entered into at all. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there was no process, I'll withdraw my comment above. It seems User:Rdm2376 has started a campaign to mass delete stale unreferencedBLP articles without following procedure or attempting to seek consensus. This should be stopped. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, that's already happening. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London - Game of children

London - Game of children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Current-Shock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gujjana Goollu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vennela Vatti Aata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are four supposed children's games from India for which no sources are given and for which I can find none. My PRODs were removed without comment by the author, who has also declined to answer my inquiry on his talk page about sourcing. I realize one should expect it to be hard to find sources about backyard games in India, but unfortunately we need to have them.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 10:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_January_21&oldid=339106004"