Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 12

< 11 December	13 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Servos

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

Prod said, "Article violates WP:YOURSELF and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, see discussion." I think this is more suited for AfD than prod. Strangerer (Talk) 09:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and lack of reliable sources. PK T(alk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in himself. The article contains many links (mostly done as external links rather than references) but they are all about his business ventures, not about him - and they are mostly not from Independent Reliable Sources. Similarly, a Google News search [1] finds his name mentioned, but only in reference to one of his companies. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tehiyah Day School

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

Elementary schools are not notable, no independent sources, nothing special about this school Thisbites (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note possible redirect to El Cerrito, California. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only outside Reliable Source coverage I could find about the school was this, a five-year-old item about an accusation of molestation by a teacher, without any followup; that certainly isn't enough to make the school notable. There is lots of reporting about the school in JWeekly but I doubt if that limited-interest periodical can be considered an outside reliable source. A redirect to El Cerrito, California would be possible; the school is already mentioned there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind i found a few sources for it and it's mentioned extensively in a book on local jewsThisbites (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found several news sources about this school. Not all grammar schools are notable, but some can be. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same sources that I found - a mention in the Chronicle about a possible molestation, a couple of calendar-type items about a concert, and coverage in JWeekly which I did not consider to be a significant outside reliable source. That was it, and that seems like about the minimal notice that any school anywhere would achieve. To me it did not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It's been standard practice for a long time to merge and redirect primary schools to their schools district page or locality, wherever possible. See WP:WPSCHOOLS. The schools project is a bit short staffed at the moment, and the bots have been down for a long time, otherwise these uncontroversial merges would already have been carried out. Note that sources alone do not confer notability - they just confirm it.Kudpung (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JL 09 ^talk_contribs 18:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

85th Hakone Ekiden

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

Came across this article while looking at older articles that need Wikification. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and at first I wasn't even sure what the data listed was - the article is a collection of tables full of data, describing what appears to be the second most recent event. There's no assertion that the 85th event was notable, and the lack of a page for the 86th seems to only further confirm this. JPG-GR (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. It seems like all the notable information about this event is already recorded on Hakone Ekiden. This is just miscellaneous errata. --Strangerer (Talk) 09:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Christian Dragon fiction

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

Non-notable term. Written about by one guy, once. Neither the guy nor the books he described with the term are apparently notable enough to have pages, either; I see no reason why this needs to exist. Roscelese (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alot of WP:OR with some WP:SYNTH and a dash of WP:COATRACK is how I would describe this article. Completely fails WP:N and as such, not worthy of inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Can't find anything on this, other than one book that continually comes up tagged with the term. Seems to be a term one guy came up with that didn't catch on. Agree that there is a lot of WP:OR here. Susan118 ^talk 16:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a retelling of one magazine article. Not suitable for a WP article, although an interesting topic. Lots of science fiction warns about possible bad things happening in the future. I guess if the government is the bad guys it's conservative and if it's a big multinational (or multi-planetary) corportation it's liberal. I was kind of expecting the article to be about guys like J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis who were Christians and wrote stories with dragons in them. Borock (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like quite non-notable, and there seems to be a lot of original research. No sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy James (performance artist)

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

Seems to not pass WP:N/GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Google returns a lot of selfpub and self-promo material, no substance. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. Merging/redirct to a central kliost is long standing policy for these kinds of nn/merginally notable characters Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Samson

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

I doubt that this character would meet the notability. This character has no citations or sources, and it has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge in full with List of The Venture Bros. characters. Significant and well-known character on a long-running Adult Swim series. - Gilgamesh (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters per nom, Sadads (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is one of many for the characters. If this is a delete, they all are. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a List of Venture Brothers Characters (with Comment) The previous editor's comment is the question here, isn't it? While there's no question about the notability of The Venture Brothers, are the individual characters able to pass wikipidia's guidelines for fictional characters? The problem is that there's no strong set of guidelines for fictional characters that I'm aware of. Still, Notability itself is fairly cut and dried, that the subject must receive non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. This article in it's current form does not demonstrate that this is the case for this character (as distinct from the television show he's a character on). This is not an animation icon such as Charlie Brown (a character analyzed in dozens of books on his own, separate from Peanuts). This is one character on an ensemble half hour comedy. So given the lack of sourcing the most reasonable degree of coverage he should be given is as part of that ensemble. For reference, see the treatment of all of the characters of Arrested Development in the List of Arrested Development characters. I haven't looked at the other Venture Brothers character pages, but it seems likely that merging all of them into a list is likely the best course. -Markeer 03:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble to the United States Constitution/text

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

Subpages aren't permitted in mainspace. Subpages should not be used "for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Cybercobra (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article already created. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource if it doesn't exist there already. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be in the template namespace, at Template:Preamble to the United States Constitution text until someone moved the template to the article namespace. And it was created because of Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/Archive 1#The "text". Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's further discussion, pointing out that this used to be a template and why, at Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/text#Maybe this should be a template?. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason not to move it back to Template:Preamble to the United States Constitution text? If not, that's my !vote per Uncle G and Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/Archive 1#The "text" THF (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still violate WP:TMP. (See third quotation in nom.) --Cybercobra (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreate the template if need be, but there is no reason for the continued existence of this as an article. We have a very intelligent article called Preamble to the United States Constitution that includes the text and gives it the encyclopedic treatment. Mandsford 14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- … and whose talk page is as hyperlinked-to above and which transcluded this very template for over a year, for the reasons given on that talk page, until the nominator here undid that transclusion a mere day before then nominating this template for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't correct; the template was moved to mainspace in 2009.[2] It makes sense to remove the transclusion when there's an AFD template on the transcluded text. THF (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is, in fact, correct. Here is the May 2009 edit where the transclusion, taken off in the December 2010 edit just hyperlinked-to, was made. That's one year seven months. And you'll notice that Cybercobra didn't say anything about AFD when untranscluding the template. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The applicable guideline was cited however. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't follow the rules as either an article where it currently resides or as a template where it was originally created. Prior to this implementation the main article had significant vandalism to the text of the Preamble. Moving the actual text off the main page and into a protected subpage/template eliminated much of the vandalism to the page. Comparing the two links I provided, 250 edits post creation go back 11 months with some vandalism included but 250 edits prior to it creation went back only 4 months and a lot of it is vandalism and reverts. So it appears to me that this page is useful in combating vandalism. I believe the page should be maintained either here or somewhere. In other words I am saying ignore the rule because it makes the encyclopedia better. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guidelines discourage this sort of hack, which is not worth the added complexity just to selectively semiprotect one part of an article. Just semiprotect all of it if there is too much vandalism. Sandstein 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Üçnoktabir

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

Unreferenced since Dec 2009. PROD removed without comment or improvement by IP 123.231.108.114 on 20 Dec 2010. Unremarkable defunct band. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They were a notable and successful band. I have added references to the article. -Maviyengeç (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources referenced in the article, along with others such as this one in a major national newspaper, demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add a short review in Turkish Daily News, 29 August 2007, to the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funk Metal

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

False genre entirely invented and single-sourced by Allmusic, a site I find completely useless in terms of music. Any of these bands can be classified as another legit genre, and the fact that they mention Red Hot Chili Peppers and metal in the same sentence just makes me burst out laughing.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before you all vote Keep, I recommend you actually try to find other websites that throw around the funk metal term and see what you get. You will also see scattered arguments how the genre doesn't exist.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 03:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the nominator: Please provide details and links regarding the arguments that this genre doesn't actually exist. NotARealWord (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve citations. andycjp (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you counter the nominator's argument that that's impossible, because there are no sources documenting this genre outside of Allmusic? Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Allmusic is a good site- they have a valid point- there are bands that do funk/metal, even if they don`t describe it as such. andycjp (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if those bands aren't described as funk metal, then we can't call them funk metal, here at Wikipedia, since that would be original research. Also, I think there needs to be sources other than all music, since notability requires coverage from multiple sources. NotARealWord (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutist disregard for allmusic can be disregarded. - Steve3849 ^talk 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of use:

nytimes
[3][4] [5] [6]
boston.com
[7] [8] [9]
latimes.com
[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
sfgate.com
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
village voice
[20] [21] [22] [23]
rollingstone.com
[24] [25] [26] [27] - Steve3849 ^talk 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some 1,500 hits in Google News Archives. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philippine network television schedule

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

Listcruft information, Wikipedia is not TV guide (per WP:NOT). WayKurat (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WayKurat (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you can't get a more literal violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this seems like it would be more the job of some other website. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The overall general schedule is encyclopedic . What would not be encyclopedic is a list week by week of exactly what programs there were--that's what TV guide means, not this. Any TV guide providing only this sort of summary would be laughable. FWIW, we have keep many lists such as this--I know some people would rather achieve consistency by deleting them also. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Total OR and a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total violation of WP:NOT#DIR. JIP | Talk 07:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree totally with DGG on this one. My only quibble with it might be a question of whether the season in the Philippines runs during an entire calendar year, since the U.S. season typically is a September to May (or August) thing. Lists such as 2010–11 United States network television schedule and 2009–10 United States network television schedule are a means of navigation to the articles about the individual shows. Most of these have an historical purpose, such as 1970–1971 United States network television schedule, rather than a present one. Mandsford 15:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict from Mansford, but I guess it'll answer his question.) No vote/comment Unlike the U.S. or UK, there are no "programming seasons", at least as what is understood in American or British contexts: These are the types of Philippine TV programs in this regard:
1. Once a TV program ends, it's replaced by a new program never to be seen again except for special occasions or (very rare) re-runs. There are some few exemptions:
2. There are some TV programs that do have "seasons" but in almost all instances the next season begins following the last episode of the previous season.
3. Very few programs (excluding sport leagues) do have "seasons" in which they start->end at roughly the same time of the year but they're really few (mostly talent/singing/reality programs).
4. Still some fewer (than the previous example) programs do have seasons that start not immediately following the previous season's end but those are also mostly confined to reality programs.
- Also to be considered are it's almost never a batch of TV programs end at the same time of the year, although some start at the same time but their length depends on TV ratings.
- Point: It's pretty hard to come up with a "2010 Philippine network TV schedule" since not all programs end at the same time, and that turnover is pretty quick, although I'd assume it'll be relatively easy to find references. If any of the keepers would want to maintain such a list, it won't be as easy as the U.S. or UK articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is confused, here are some examples:
  1. Most common instance: TV show that started and ended never to be seen again: Palibhasa Lalake aired from 1986 to 1998.
  2. TV show where the next season starts immediately after the previous season ended: Love to Love: 12 seasons from 2003 to 2006.
    - In this example, all 12 seasons are not related to each other (essentially all 12 seasons were separate miniseries), nor were the cast the same, although perhaps the crew was identical.
  3. TV show where the seasons run at the same time of the year: StarStruck: All seasons started from October-December and ends in February-March the following year.
  4. TV show where the seasons did not start immediately after the previous one ended: Pinoy Big Brother (there no exact time of the year the season started/ended). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in principle, this seems okay... but more info should be added to the article about how this schedule will change over time, as well as a source for the information. Esn (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE Sb617 (Talk) 02:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Andres Bolona

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

does not criteria for notability for a tennis player (no ATP World Tour main draw matches or Davis Cup matches played; not a top three world ranked junior or junior grand slam winner; not a ATP Challenger titlist) Mayumashu (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Pursuit

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

Beyond one review, there is no other coverage by reliable third-party sources of this anime. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NFILM. Prod disputed by IP. —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete - I do not know the RS status of the GameFAQs review [28] but I think the Mania review [29] is RS. – Allen4names 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs reviews are reviews by individual users of the site. They would definitely not qualify as a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs as least 2 more RS reviews then. – Allen4names 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any non-Mania reviews in my CSE (after cleaning out many hentai sites). --Gwern (contribs) 22:10 16 December 2010 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Fair

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

Never reached big leagues, though he did collect 2200 hits and manage in the minors. Despite that, I'm not sure what makes him particularly notable. Alex (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though he never played in Major League Baseball, his minor league statistics, combined with the recognition given to him by the Carolina League indicate notability. I am sure that deeper research than google would indicate sources currently unavailable given his stature in that league.--TM 17:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Seattle Mariners minor league players. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wilson (outfielder)

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

Non-notable 27-year-old minor league baseball player who has never reached the major leagues. He's been around for nine years and has never made the majors. He is currently in the Mariners system, so a merge might be optimal. Alex (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seattle Mariners minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge: To Seattle Mariners minor league players. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. He had a decent 2010 in AAA and, given the Mariners' hitting woes, he could very well make a 2011 debut. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Williams

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

Not notable minor league baseball player. He is a .213 career hitter and doesn't seem to be getting any better. He is currently in the Giants system, so perhaps a merge? Alex (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One two three... 04:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue hair

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

I'm boldly nominating this for deletion per WP:N. It's mostly filled with trivia, and I fail to see a reason why blue should be notable. This is "blue-fan-cruft". Think of green, purple, red, yellow, pink... and then of course lightgreen, may-green, neon-green, olive-green, middle-of-yellow-mix-green, fishbowl-green, turquoise-shade-green... The history-trivia are of words that someone translated as "blue," or some legends that say there were blue-haired people... And then we have the rant section about some kid being expelled for blue hair, of course... is this some typical thing that only happens to blue-haired people? Is this a "social stigma"? c'mon... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep It has coverage in both historical text, as well as modern. This is totally different than the previous article here by this name. And we do have red hair already. In fact, we have articles for Auburn hair, Black hair, Blond, Brown hair, Chestnut hair, and Red hair. Gray hair however is just a redirect, strangely enough. Such a massive industry to hide it, and coverage of what it represents should justify an article on it. Dream Focus 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... excuse me... people are born blond, brown, red... Is anyone born blue? Will you support an endless list of stubs covering all possible artificial colors? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets coverage, by all means. Dream Focus 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, have other non-natural colors of hair been so prominently used throughout history as blue hair has? Silver seren^C 04:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a basket of sentences. Not even a stub. Keep only if it's successfully {{rescue}}d. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand basket of sentences to mean that it has a jerky style. But we don't have a policy which says that we should delete articles which are not written fluidly do we? Otherwise, we'd be deleting 99% of our content. Polishing the English style is the stuff of an FA review, not AFD. But let me explain how this arises. For a topic of this sort, I find that one has to write defensively, using multiple sources and summarising them in a staccato way so as to avoid complaints of plagiarism and OR. One might call this the Joe Friday style in which one reports "just the facts". If one instead writes in a more expansive and discursive style then the article is often brought here for being an essay. That is an equally silly argument for deletion as our articles are supposed to be essays. But at this stage of development it's best to focus on the facts and the sources. The copyediting can come later. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "basket of sentences" quality goes beyond style to content -- to the fact that most of the sentences are unrelated to each other, except via the title. The article is simply a grab-bag of unconnected mentions (medical, figurative, artistic, fashionable, sociological) of "blue hair". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a basket of sentences, and I may be stealing that phrase in the future. It's really a meandering list of people and characters who have blue hair doing a poor job of trying to be an article. Until some cohesion and notability can be established, this needs to be deleted... yet again. AniMate 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Our own personal impressions that something sounds unlikely should not take precedence of the actual evidence. Since I've come here, I've discovered a great many things in the world are notable that I would never have thought so. That's what an encyclopedia is for. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: If we have a red hair article then certainly we can have a blue hair article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the red hair article. It has info on genetic-origin theories, chemistry of pigments, as well as geographical mutations and distribution, prevalence in populations and phenotypes, and scientific discoveries on possible relations to pain-insensitivity and reception. None of that can be given for blue — unless you think that dying your hair blue or putting on a blue wig will alter your DNA, and will cause you to pass it on to your children by producing blue-haired babies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair. No depth of coverage, and no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme -- so no WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFAIK, no mammal has naturally occurring blue-pigmented hair. So comparisons between this article and ones on naturally occurring hair pigments are misleading. A more correct comparison would be to Hair coloring -- which gives blue hair only passing mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are breeds of blue rabbits. You can see a nice picture of one on the cover of Rabbits as a new pet. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are breeds of rabbit called "blue", but which are actually more of a grey[30] (similar to the 'blue fox'). The "nice picture" in question appears to be an unrelated white breed with lighting giving it a slight bluish tint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing specifically special about blue hair. If this article is kept there should be ones about every other possible unnatural color, the list of which is endless. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... the list of which is endless." Must you give people ideas? AniMate 15:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Hair coloring#Alternative hair colorants. Non-natural hair colors are all properly discussed there. There are no other articles for non-natural hair colors. SnottyWong ^converse 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced from reliable sources and big enough for its own article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since people are going to clearly ignore my comment above, i'm just going to vote. I agree that we do not need articles on every possible artificial hair color out there. However, as far as I know, no other artificial hair color is so documented throughout history and religion as blue hair is. It's use in various mythologies makes it a fairly notable hair color and one that I believe we should have an article on. Silver seren^C 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you possibly provide a source that discusses blue hair in depth. Trivial mentions do not an article make. AniMate 00:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has two fairly long paragraphs about it, in terms of historicity. Silver seren^C 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we in fact have is a source that spends at least as much time discussing the lack of corroboration of this practice, as the purported practice itself -- meaning that we cannot be sure that it existed in fact as well as in art. And it would appear to be you that has 'clearly ignored' my point above that we have "no sources drawing these isolated occurrences together into a common theme" and thus a "WP:IINFO indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of blue hair". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indiscriminate collection of mentions. This has to be the worst. Some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII and we're parading this out as some sort of reliable source. Pathetic. AniMate 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 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 seem to turn up a similar level of scattered mentions to blue hair -- so I think it would be hard to make the claim that blue hair is in some way special. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have news hits, but that's to be expected. Considering that the vast majority of the sources used in this article are books, which are being used to show the historicity of blue hair, do green and pink have the same sort of historicity? Green hair would have some, i'm sure, since it's the other kind of hair color that is affected from mining, copper for green. But I don't think pink hair would come up with anything of historical importance. Silver seren^C 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The historicity of blue hair"? Some Anglo-Saxon artwork (with explicitly no confirmation that this occurred in reality as well as in art), "some guy named Freddy writes a letter home during WWII", an ancient Greek figure of speech (presumably similar to the more modern "hair standing on its end" or "hair going white" in fear) & a scattering of artwork depicting mythical characters? None of this even establishes that anybody in history EVEN WORE BLUE HAIR. Ancient WP:IINFO is no more encyclopaedic than modern WP:IINFO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly not been keeping up with the evolution of the article. This source that has already been added to the article proves that it was a practice by Anglo-Saxon women and even identifies what they used to get the blue color. Silver seren^C 06:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not been 'proved'. See below. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point out that Novickas is doing an amazing job at sourcing the article. Silver seren^C 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I just want to point out that this article has about as much coherence as an article on People in history called Robert. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is good that you have an opinion. But it is clearly one that others disagree with. Silver seren^C 07:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For people in history called Robert, see Robert#People. We have lots of articles like that and they seem well-established. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden: please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you don't know the difference between an article and a disambiguation page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Silver and per sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has multiple good sources in which blue hair is part of the title such as Gods' blue hair in Homer and in eighteenth-dynasty Egypt. This demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable. The nomination complains that the matter is trivial but provides no evidence to support this claim. Blue hair, in fact, seems to be quite non-trivial because it is such an unnatural colour that it excites comment and is attributed to gods and other extraordinary people. The appearance of blue hair in history and legend is good scholarly stuff while contemporary coverage is a matter of fashion which will be of interest to our neglected female readership. There doesn't seem to be any policy-based case against the article - just variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Our editing policy is to keep such well-sourced and notable material and so it should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colonel Warden for that WP:BATTLEGROUND warcry. Thank you for violating WP:TALK & WP:AGF by misrepresenting the opinions stated here (WP:IINFO="doesn't seem to be any policy-based case" my arse!). Thank you for misrepresenting a scattering of unrelated mentions as "demonstrat[ing] beyond any reasonable doubt that the topic is notable." Thank you for your WP:OR interpretation of the meaning of blue hair. Thank you for demonstrating how spuriously-based your participation on AfDs all too frequently is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, WP:CIVIL, please. You're getting way too worked up about this. Silver seren^C 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPADE "d^u_de". And there is nothing in the least bit "civil" about CW's unsubstantiated accusations and misrepresentations. It is high time somebody called him on his gross & pervasive misbehaviour. If the the CW-cheerleader-squad doesn't like this being pointed out, then the door is thataway. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "It has been suggested that English men dyed their hair and beards blue with woad, on the evidence of the dark hair colour often used for hair in the Hexateuch; however the use of colour in Anglo-Saxon art is not realistic (see my remarks in the previous chapter, pp134-135) -- green is used effectively for hair in the Tapestry -- and there is no need to assume dye was used on the hair." -- Dress in Anglo-Saxon England By Gale R. Owen-Crocker. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and reliably sourced. I wasn't previously aware of the cobalt phenomenon - thanks to whoever put that in. I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this into Hair coloring#Alternative hair colorants as that is more about hair colours chosen for cosmetic reasons. Nor do I think we should greatly concern ourselves with the number of artificial hair colours that might or might not require articles - each such article would need its own sources and can be argued on its own merits, after all there aren't that many major colours in total. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also notice the result of all of the previous AfD's. SnottyWong ^confess 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at both previous articles and their AFDs,(there have only been two). The first article was a redirect to Blue rinse as that was what the article was about. the second was about Blue Hair, but was basically a list of Blue haired characters. As you can see from the AFD discussions, both those articles were substantially different to this one. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This incarnation of the article is encyclopaedic and reasonably well-sourced, sufficient to demonstrate notability of the topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an encyclopedic topic backed by reliable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per stunning improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not denying notability, can somebody tell me what makse blue hair notable, and green hair not-notable? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article for green hair just hasn't been written yet. See Occupational, industrial, and environmental toxicology - it seems to be common when people swim in chlorinated water. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Somewhat silly topic has sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War / Illumination Band

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

No proof of notability. References provided re a mixture of blogs and youtube. There is a slight chance that the creator isn't very good in article building but my prod was removed without further explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEnot notable. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this above vote, its a troll account.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is this junk?<( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 04:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sheesh, what is this? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, mostly per nom. Quite non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Stickee (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (2nd nomination)

These articles are merely about children of American presidents that are not notable themselves. Notability is not inherited. One problem is that there are POV pushers, some of whom are paid political operatives (as reported by the news), that want to push a political agenda. By grouping several similar articles, they will have a harder time to act bias since they would treat several articles the same way. Of course, they could come up with fake excuses.

Let's try to determine which ones we keep.

Note that all these articles are not notable. Some presidential children, such as George W. Bush, are obviously very notable. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep all the people, and consider the dog separately.If you want to determine which articles to keep, nominate them individually; a joint nomination is for things of equal importance, and to see someone's dog and his children as of equal or even similar importance does not seem reasonable. There are exceptions to every generalization, and some people in the world ares sufficiently famous with such great popular attention that their first order relatives are notable , and this includes heads of state & government of major nations. BTW, the first AfD, a very clear keep, was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Looking at it , I see that one of the delete !voters said, he would be of zero importance if his family wasn't famous, which I guess proves the point that in this case, he's of much greater importance-- the reasons why someone is important can be very various. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep We can't possibly be expected to consider the deletion of six quite different articles in the one nomination. I'd suggest nominating them separately (or do one first, see how that goes, and then nominate the others depending on the outcome of the first). --Mkativerata (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a mirror page. Doubled page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (2nd nomination)). This guy is a troll. Outback the koala (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

votes transferred from duplicate nomination page:

Speedy Keep Disruptive nom. One of these thing doesnt belong (Bo), a for sure speedy keep. The rest also a strong keep (but not speedy). They are notable subjects. Outback the koala (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This little idiot brand-new-account nominator made sure to make an innocuous comment on my talkpage to draw me here. I have no idea why. The nominations are clearly in bad faith.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad-faith trolling. --CliffC (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caylian Curtis

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

Doesn't pass stricter version of PORNBIO once the criteria for Playboy Playmates was removed. Doesn't pass general notability guidelines. Notability tag has been left for a month. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who has removed the criteria for Playboy Playmates and for what reason ??? 78.55.73.169 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was argued here.[31] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Caylian Curtis does indeed not meet the notability criteria yet. -- fdewaele, 14 December 2010, 8:48 CET.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dyne

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

Unremarkable business person, unreferenced BLP, passing mentions and press release blurbs are all that I am finding on line. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't think he meets WP:BASIC. If he were mentioned substantially in sources like this cited in the article, I might change my mind, but so far all I've found is raw press releases, automatically-generated or self-generated profile pages, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think he does meet the WP:BASIC. I did some more research and he is clearly an important player in the Skype world which is now a trend setter. Over 14 references to him in the Skype S-1 document filed with the SEC and a Director of Skype. [32] Also verified signature to the master settlement agreement in the Skype - Joltid Litigation that lead to the control of Skype back to founders [33] Jojorev (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. I think what we need to establish notability would be coverage in 2ndary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is mentioned in multiple articles including [34] in other capacities. Clearly a major behind the scenes player. See also under [35] and in our own Wikipedia Management Buyout definition and example. see under [36] -- Droppinghunter (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. 2nd relist rationale: BLP still not sourced properly. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Droppinghunter, those refs appear to be passing mention, not significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, [37] [38] are the only refs here that are half-way usable, but more than two sentences would be a stretch. Hits are basically profile entries or short mentions of the same fact. Being "important player" does not by itself warrant an article. The above keeps have not to me demonstrated any significant, reliable, secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly a high level figure. And while the references are a little light, if the unreferenced text is correct we should definitely have this guy. @Nuujinn While passing mention might not enough for a standard blp I can AGF on this one, but if nothing changes in a few months, then I would change my mind if you renomed. Outback the koala (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced material is the problem and it would need to go--the current sources are press releases and primary sources, a dead page, and a page that doesn't mention the subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Tonga relations

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

much of the article is a direct copyright violation from [39]. no real significant relations, applying WP:BEFORE most of the coverage relates to rugby matches [40]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect into Foreign relations of Canada and Foreign relations of Tonga. No reason to delete completely - info can be cut down and cited later, but I don't see enough here for a stand alone article. Agree with nom. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the new sources Treasury has found. With these added to the article, I believe there is now enough for a stand alone article here. I will personally help rewrite the article to help include these sources once we can edit after the copyvio thing is cleared up. The template there says not to edit the page, but if we rewrite the page completely does that apply still? Anyone know? Outback the koala (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at treasury's articles, they are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at treasury's articles – I would tend to assume that he has... ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find the books linked to, but I am coming up short so far - so I have not read them, although since Treasury has, I'm sure he can tell you more about them. I assume in good faith that he has the books and they say what he says they say. Of course I looked at all the links provided. He provided substantial material that he says provides clear sourcing for the subject. Why can't we accept that he has these books? Is it so hard to believe another editor? These are sources on the subject of the article, why would he lie? Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the books mention something, but is it indepth? I am seeking more information on depth of coverage, the freely available links are not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's fair. I don't know myself what is included in the sources since I cannot read them right now. I want to hear from Treasury also since he read them and has brought them forward to us. It stands to reason noone would suggest a source he has not read; so he if the man to ask for more details, but I'm sure that there is enough coverage that it is not trivial. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to rewrite the article without infringing material, follow the instructions on the copyvio template. Use the link there to create a temporary subpage where the new article can be constructed. If the revised version eliminates the copyvio problem, an administrator will replace the old page with the new subpage. For discussion purposes here, you can always direct people to the subpage revision. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—if it is a copyright violation then it is easy to fix. This appears to have some relevance. Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy. This relates to Tongan dialogue with Canada. This seems very much germane. This touches on the subject. This sheds some light on the trade and financial relationship between the two countries. I've read this article, which covers extradition arrangements between the states.
I could go on.
Basically, name-checking WP:BEFORE in an XfD nomination is not actually a substitute for doing proper research on the topic. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it seems like you are grasping at straws here. None of those sources have anything substantial to say about the relations. The first couple have just a mention of Canada and no content on the topic. I support bilateral relations articles wholeheartedly, but lets not be ridiculous about it.--TM 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree wholeheartedly with TM, the supplied links by treasury are not indepth ~~or cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase.~~ This makes one very small mention of Tongans migrating to Canada amongst other countries. this makes a tiny mention of Canada in its footnote. this is hardly indepth coverage of bilateral relations. this is another tiny mention in one whole book. clutching at straws to say a real notable relationship exists. clutching at straws indeed. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the supplied links by treasury [...] cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase – I wasn't aware that Wikipedia only accepted sources which were readable gratis by anyone with an Internet connection. I was under the impression that articles in published books and academic journals are considered adequate. Am I wrong? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on this point requested. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can quite see how articles about extradition treaties between the two states are insubstantial... </sarcasm> ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there is no need for sarcasm. This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. If your incivility in AfD continues (as I watched you and another editor both engage in such actions at a previous AfD) your actions will be reported elsewhere. Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. Moreover, we do not know what is in the journal article and how substantial or trivial it is. Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. AfD's are not WP:BATTLEGROUNDs but places for discussion; not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy.--TM 14:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, this is one of those spectacular comments which I get to analyse in detail:
First off, there is no need for sarcasm. People quite often do things which aren't strictly necessary, such as doing anything which is not eating, drinking or sleeping.

This is a discussion and your attempts to belittle my point of view are not appreciated nor appropriate. I'm not attempting to belittle your point of view. This is a discussion, and I am entitled to express my disagreement with your position using a rhetorical device of my choice.

If your incivility in AfD continues your actions will be reported elsewhere. Well, obviously elswhere: reporting them here would be rather pointless. And if you wish to report me for "incivil" mild sarcasm, then go ahead, see if I give a dolphin.

Secondly, you presented a link to an academic journal discussing Canada's extradition treaties all over the world, not just Tonga. I know I did, but thanks for the reminder. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia guideline stating that any reference must be soley concerned with a single subject. (It is quite common for articles about, say, individual British Prime Ministers to contain references from books about British Prime Ministers generally. This is permissible because – obviously – sources which cover a number of topics are perfectly capable of going into detail.)

Third, you act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not. I think they are significant. You claim that they are not, but have provided no rationale for that position, so it's rather difficult for me to discuss this point.

In fact, most of the articles do not cover anything that has to do with the topic. Really? So you think this is my scam, I trot about filling AfDs up with randomly-selected sources? :P The references I have listed (which, incidentally, convinced another editor to change their !vote) clearly pertain to Candian-Tonganese relations, and it is, frankly, bizarre to claim otherwise.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Mmm.

╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Outback. There really does not seem to be any significant relationship between the two states. Treasury, can you find how much aid Tonga receives from Canada? If it is one of its major donors, then I would definitely change my opinion. According to CIA.gov, Canada is not one of the leading import-exporters to/from Tonga.[41] I wish people would work to increase truly viable bilateral relations articles which are missing; for example, China-Tonga relations would make a fine article. Come on people, stop making lame bilateral relations articles when so many really useful ones are waiting.--TM 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TM, I disagree with you on the merit of accepting bilateral relations article in principle, in these days when very different nations have frequent dealings with one another on all sorts of matters, not necessarily on a purely bilateral basis but also in bilateral contacts within mutlilateral institutions. Nevertheless I agree with you that an article on China-Tonga relations would be useful, which is why it is sad time and effort is distracted by this AfD. (Addition: In fact there is an article People's Republic of China – Tonga relations) Opbeith (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am sorry, but since this article is a blatant copyright violation, I have templated the page per our requirements at WP:CV. Editors interested in rewriting an article without infringing text can rebuild the article using the "temporary subpage" link on the template. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury, and look at this: [42] Merge and redirect Oops, the source i found was Australia not Canada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs)
Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So the argument "cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase" is irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my comment relates to whether or not we can verify how it contributes to Canada Tonga relations. Does this book include substantial coverage of Canadian relations? Does this actually cover relations in depth. almost of this coverage only touches the subject and does not treat it in depth. most of it can be inserted into Foreign relations of Tonga. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to read a source which another editor asserts is relevant, then what a normal person would do is to ask for an emailed copy, maybe. Or you could head over to the Resource Exchange and ask there.
But discounting it because you happen not to have access is completely unacceptable. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discounting it but it doesn't have a chapter or title on "Canada Tonga relations"? we can't assume indepth coverage of these sources. where is the evidence it covers "Canada Tonga relations" substantially? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do you agree that the readily accessible links you supplied are not indepth but limited coverage? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, in extremis, merge): original article is a WP:COPYVIO and suggested new sources do not in fact demonstrate any substantive relationship. Most merely demonstrate that the two countries happened to be, unrelatedly, mentioned on the same page. Only source that did in fact demonstrate any relationship was for an extradition treaty -- the sort of very-low-level agreements that most countries try to maintain with most other countries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of sources means nothing unless it is shown that they contain significant coverage. The few which are accessible do not seem to contain much info at all. Quantpole (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no substantial relationship. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. 2nd relist rationale; consensus split, pointless NCing this one, may benefit from further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but remove copyright violations. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no argument presented on how this article meets notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: which sources are you 'basing' your "keep" on? This SPS (that only give a bare parenthetical mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (which offers no indication that it mentions either Canada or Tonga at all), [this report (which merely mentions Canada as one of a long list of dialogue partners of the Pacific Islands Forum), this book (which gives bare mention of Canada as one of a list of countries Tongans have settled in), this book (that just mentions Tonga as a nation New Zealand has relations with), this article (again giving bare mention of Canada being one of a long list of countries Tongans have settled in), or this article (which, at most will say that the two countries have an extradition treaty -- when such treaties are the norm, not the exception)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Would lack of an extradition treaty then be notable? Clearly interaction between the two states has occurred. And down playing expat Tongans in Canada does not make it minor - in Canada's multicultural society, all cultures are valued equally, even if they are from a small state like Tonga. You reference what is in the first of the books linked to; but how do you know? Do you own that book? Have you read it? If you do that would be really great to the discussion, as only one editor above has. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) In an article about extradition treaties generally perhaps, or in an article about the foreign relations of a nation that had few or no extradition treaties. I would however suggest that the lack of a specific ordinary/low-level relationship does not add to the notability of the general relationship. (ii) The book is titled Employment and Industrial Relations in the South Pacific: Samoa, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji Islands. This would indicate that Tonga would be at best peripheral, and offers no relevance for Canada whatsoever (let alone a relevance to the relationship between the two). Lacking any indication of relevance it would seem to be simple WP:REFSPAM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title does make it seem vague, I'll give you that. It would be great if Treasury would rejoin the conversation as the only one here who has read the sourced book in question. Outback the koala (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't read it -- "Google Scholar seems to suggest that this covers the topic a bit, but I can't find an online copy" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on DGG as an admin I assume you checked most of these new sources for their indepth coverage? to me they seem to only touch on the topic sometimes only getting one mention in the whole article. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I think the closing admin might want to know the answer to this as well in deciding how much weight to give your contribution. According to your contributions log you !voted keep here less than a minute after you !voted in a previous AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested from Treasury Tag on 5 December "please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". I assumed good faith and gaive Treasury Tag one week to provide additional inforomation. No information has been provided to this request, I will have to assume that those secure sources do not contain indepth coverage of Canada Tonga relations. Thus my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio Removed -- I have removed the body of the article because it was copied from [43]. A revised page for this article was not created during the 7-day grace period, therefore there was nothing with which to replace it. At this point, any editor who wishes to rebuild the article can do so -- but please use original language only. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out to me at my talk page that copyright problems were restored to the article here. I have removed some of the more blatant issues, but much of the text that remains needs to be rewritten. The government of Canada has not chosen to release its content under a compatible license, and until they do we cannot duplicate or too closely follow their publications but must, as policy dictates, put information in our own words, supplemented with clearly marked quotations as indicated at our non-free content policy and guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per documented paucity of independent, reliable sources that address the topic of Canada–Tonga ~~Estonia-Sri Lanka~~ relations directly, in detail. I could also get behind a merge and redirect, but delete would be my first choice. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Estonia-Sri Lanka"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! The logic behind this !vote was same as for my !vote over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia – Sri Lanka relations (2nd nomination), so did the ole cut-n-paste, but missed (somehow...what's wrong with me?) the reference to Estonia-Sri Lanka relations. Corrected. Thanks for pointing this out and sorry for not catching it myself. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources provided to demonstrate that this is a subject notable enough for its own article. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look, anyone who follows these discussions can see the pattern. Libstar nominates for deletion prompting a bunch of people to try to improve the article, which they sometimes do effectively enough on a short deadline to save it from deletion. You can probably predict my argument. Relations exist. They're cited. There should be inherent notability for these bilateral state relation articles akin to populated places. Since that's not the majority view, if the AfD doesn't result in a keep, the article's content should be merged into the general foreign relations articles for each of the two countries (thus becoming somewhat repetitive but at least saving the cited content). In this case, the argument for inherent notability is strong. The two countries have had treaty relations going back over 130 years which is saying something and both countries had close historical ties to the British empire (Tonga as a Protectorate and Canada as a British colony). There's more information out there, we just haven't found it. To simply erase the information we have found would be a real waste.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I've seen the pattern. An article on a non-WP:Notable vestigial bilateral relationship gets nominated. People try to load it up with all sorts of superficial and tangential information to disguise its insignificance (a 19th century extradition treaty, for crikey's sake?). If we looked hard enough, we could probably find that "relations exist", and that they can be "cited", between some farmer in rural US and his neighbour. Does that mean that we should have an article about the pair? Of course not! As WP:IINFO states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "The argument for inherent notability is" ludicrously weak. This article is about neither Britian-Canada nor Britain-Tonga relations, so the fact that "both countries had close historical ties to the British empire" is irrelevant. The fact that neither country has resident representation in the other indicates that neither places any particular importance on the relationship. Then there is the fact that Canada has no role of any significance inside the South Pacific, and that Tonga has no role of any significance outside it. There may well be more insignificant scraps of information out there, but it won't add any more towards notability than the insignificant scraps already there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Foreign relations of Tonga#Current foreign policy: "Although it remains on good terms with the United Kingdom, the two countries do not maintain particularly close relations" (making it even less likely that the mutual "historical ties to the British empire" will have led to a close bilateral relationship). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with Hrafn, Gibraltar and Tonga are part of the British empire, perhaps we need an article on their relations?. Cdogsimmons exclaims " There's more information out there, we just haven't found it." so sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic. this AfD has existed for 15 days there, ample time to find good sources. and all anyone could find was Treasury Tag's passing weak mentions. I will strongly claim there is no indepth coverage out there on this topic. come on Cdog, disprove me and find 5 indepth sources (not passing mentions) of these relations and I will happily withdraw this nomination. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me or my argument "pathetic". It's rude. Since I just found out about this AfD yesterday and was easily able to find a couple of sources relating to the counties' legal relations in five minutes of searching, I conclude that laziness has as much to do with the quality of this article as anything else.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, give me six more days to work on this article and I will take up your challenge. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar isn't independent of the UK, so doesn't really count. But substituting (for example) The Bahamas, the same point remains. Simple co-membership in the British Commonwealth does not imply any significant bilateral relations. For this you need common cultural, historical or trading ties. As far as I know, the most important thing that Tonga and Canada have in common is that they're both (very minor) Rugby Union-playing countries. But if they don't happen to come together in the same pool for the first round of the Rugby Union World Cup, there's a good chance that they won't play each other at all in a given year (or most probably decade). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNG requires us to consider whether the subject of the article - being a diplomatic relationship - has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Tidbits of coverage related to isolated aspects here and there do not do the job. Otherwise the article is a hopeless synthesis of google hits brought together to amount to the Wikipedia view of the relationship. In other words, original research. We need secondary sources that actually discuss the relationship as a whole, and in detail. The GNG, correctly, tolerates no less. Hrafn's analysis of the sources presented demonstrates that the coverage doesn't get anywhere near the required standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these relations articles also incorporate the relations between the peoples of countries, not merely the present government's diplomatic posture. An unnecessarily narrow reading not backed up by citations is also original research.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please state how in this instance "relations between the peoples of countries" beyond their governments' diplomatic relations is verifiable, let alone noteworthy. Do you have reliable WP:SECONDARY sources demonstrating close ties between the peoples of Tonga and Canada? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cited information regarding Canadian missionaries to Tonga.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which really proves my point about the article being a random synthesis of factoids. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does a single missionary, over a century ago, translate to close "relations between the peoples of countries"? I'm fairly sure your source doesn't make that claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the apparent perception of something incongruous in nations that differ significantly from one another in terms of population, land mass, language, location or whatever shows a lack of familiarity with real world issues such as development cooperation, security, migrant labour, biodiversity, whaling, human rights, organised crime, climate change, etc., etc. There is a prima facie case for taking the significance of relations between any independent nation and another for granted as legitimising the existence of an article which would be longer or shorter depending on the activity of the relationship.Opbeith (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary, Chinese impact on Tonga, suggests that you may have mistaken this as a debate about People's Republic of China – Tonga relations. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opbieth further explained his reasoning here on his talk. Outback the koala (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are fine. They trade together, they have news coverage of the leader of this nation visiting them[44], and they have ample coverage of their Rugby tournaments with each other. [45] Canada has given them some money in foreign aid, they not doing that with every country there is, so they must have a reason to favor this one. There are over 24 thousand results in Google news archive search if the names of the two countries are both searched for, and two thousand less if you remove any with mention of "Rugby" [46]. Hard to sort through all of that. Enough sources have been found. Dream Focus 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have NO EVIDENCE to date that "they trade together", the only Prime Ministerial visit was 55 years ago (indicating the lack of any close relations), and both that & the World Cup pool-round tie are "routine news reporting" (WP:NOTNEWS). WP:GHITS of mere (possibly unrelated) mention of the two countries in the same article does not demonstrate "significant coverage". No "significant coverage" has been found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with Hrafn, Dream Focus, 24 thousand results does not equate to 24,000 sources, not even ten indepth sources can be found for this topic. Most of these mentions are in mulitlateral not bilateral context. Tonga Mauritius gets over 1000 results in gnews but you'd never create an article unless you're desperate. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you deem to be not significant coverage is different from others' opinions. I also think these are enough coverage already. But here is another amazing source [47] from the Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately there is no direct High Commission in Tonga; Canada and Australia have an agreement whereby citizen of both countries can go to each others high commission for assistance. This is a prime example of why that agreement was made. Either way I hope this adds to the significant coverage. I think a travel report that is valid for this month is definitely recent and not out of date. Outback the koala (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE. Your "amazing source" is simply a routine travel advisory (the sort that any given country is likely to have issued about dozens of other countries at any given time, whether they have a relationship or not) -- NOT "independent" and NOT on the subject of "Canada–Tonga relations". The standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with clear definitions of what constitutes "Significant coverage", "Reliable", Sources" & "Independent of the subject" (with footnotes in case anybody is further confused). It does not say "affiliated sources and trivial mention" (which is all we have here) -- so I suggest that we take this guideline at its word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on travel advisory source now that is clutching at straws, as Hrafn says where does it discuss economic, diplomatic, cultural relations between the two countries. Canada provides travel advisories to over 100 countries, this does not add to notable relations for WP. in fact Outback's amazing source looks surprisingly similar to the US State Department advisory for Tonga. unamazing indeed. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CNC Workshop

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

delete I don' think this text book can be notable enough. Melaen (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, no sources. JIP | Talk 07:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but happy to reconsider. As it stands, this would be pretty much failing WP:CSD#A7, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. We don't apply that to books for speedy deletion, but an article should still indicate why it's there, and this isn't yet doing so. What relevance does a 20 year old CNC handbook have for us today? Why should we care? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sietz

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

Blatant autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am suspicious, especially about that Emmy. If his claims are true then he is quite notable. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable voice actor with some small parts in other areas. There is a string of claimed masteries on his web site that a person would require 5 lifetimes to achieve to a degree. There is no reliable sources that indicate notability. The claim of an Emmy is absolute bollox. - Pmedema (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Blatant auto-puffing. 75.150.76.129 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To be be honest, there is no real indication of significance or importance here, or of why there should be an encyclopedic article about Mr Sietz, other than the Emmy Award. However, the Emmy appears not to be a Primetime Emmy, perhaps its a Student or Regional Emmy, but I can't find any reliable, independent sources for this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qabdesh Jumadilov

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no secondary sources found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searches in Cyrillic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Googlebooks catalogued him under russified spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 78.107.117.194 (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Russian searches linked above find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I've added a couple to the article. Thanks, 78.107.117.194! Phil Bridger (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — JL 09 ^talk_contribs 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Newborn

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

I see no evidence that this author is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Puffy claims are made about wide-ranging fame as a presenter and credentials as an author, but I have found no proof of that. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Gnews link above seems to have plenty of evidence for a pass of WP:PROF criterion 7 - as an expert anthropologist and Holocaust scholar, and widely quoted in the popular press in that capacity. Ray^Talk 18:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have plenty of notability per Google News, although many of the major Reliable Source links are behind paywalls. At least one of his books was reviewed by the New York Times. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work, but it passes WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet Archive

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

Article without a single reference to an independent source (and it's been tagged for several months). The article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very popular website and is very notable so the article needs rework but not deletion. --ssr (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity doesn't matter if you can't provide any reliable sources (see for example WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG). The article has been up since 2005 and has been tagged for more than 6 months and still no sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an underground culture phenomenon that could have little coverage in "reliable sources" but still has notability and popularity that has to be shown in some way, but article has not to be deleted anyway. Tag this with doubting templates, but not delete because the subject is notable and such deletion is a harm for Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well too damn bad. Wikipedia failed to do its job, in fact the time it took Wikipedia to respond to these comments and delete the page they could have realized the www.hornet.org archive was mentioned and cited several times in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_Line_(magazine) Oh, is this an online published magazine? Why yes it is. Does it mention hornet? This is only one of many that do. http://staticline.theblob.org/ftp/issues/sl-001.txt Static_LiNe is no different than a Gawker media website, except its all written words. There were paid sponsors, authors with college degrees, even advertisements. A MAGAZINE, that we can cite Hornet all day with. Now if wikipedia wants to do its job, and unviolate itself, it would be wise to put the hornet page back online. I do apologize the citing wasnt done earlier, but we'll be happy to oblige now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverwisdom (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to agree with and second Cleverwisdom's motion to have the Hornet Archive's page reinstated. Static Line (the source at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_Line_(magazine)) includes a reference to a dead page link for Hornet Archive. Please bring this page back. R3cgm (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the pages text here for posterity:

I am posting text here for posterity. Perhaps an article on Scene.org would be better? Circa 1999 it was very well known, at least on the Internet.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornet_Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornet_Archive

The Hornet Archive was a file repository for releases and resources from the worldwide PC Demoscene. It was the first major demo archive on the Internet, as opposed to the popular BBS archives of the time. The archive hosted over 16 thousand files totalling over 7GB. Files were split into various categories: demos, Tracker music, graphics, code, info, Diskmags, and Demoparty releases. The files dated as early as 1987 and as recent as 1998, meaning most were intended for the DOS platform. The archive opened on September_4, 1992, as the "Internet Demo Site", at ftp.uwp.edu, located at the University_of_Wisconsin-Parkside in the United_States. In 1994, it moved to the University_of_Florida, on the FTP server hornet.eng.ufl.edu, which gave the archive its name. Soon the archive outgrew its second home and moved to ftp.cdrom.com, the largest FTP server of the time, hosted by Walnut_Creek_CDROM. A web site with search capability was added in 1996. The Hornet Archive officially closed on September_22, 1998, as its founders lost interest in maintaining the site. The Scene.org site took over as the primary file archive of the PC demoscene. In 2002, the Hornet Archive files and main web page were permanently moved to scene.org. The Hornet Archive was maintained by a Demo_group also named Hornet, which still exists and has included Andy "Phoenix" Voss, Dan Wright, Jim "Trixter" Leonard, Brett "GD" Neely, Pim "Stony" van Mun, and Christopher "r3cgm" (aka "Snowman") Mann. The group is known better for their general support of the demoscene than for their releases.

==DemoNews== Since its inception, the Hornet Archive had its own Text_file newsletter, called DemoNews. A total of 150 issues were made, from September_24, 1992 to February_4, 1998. At its peak, DemoNews had over 2500 subscribers on its email list. At first, it was primarily a listing of new files on the archive, and the status of the FTP site. By late 1994, it expanded into a full E-zine on the demo scene, with interviews, demo/music reviews, and party reports. In 1995, DemoNews introduced a rating system for every release uploaded to the Hornet Archive, ranging from 1 to 5 stars with half-steps (e.g., "***" = 3/5, "****+" = 4.5/5). These ratings were taken seriously by the scene as a guide of what was or was not worth getting. The growing tracker music scene spun off its own e-zine, TraxWeekly, as a companion to DemoNews in 1995. ==Music Contest== Hornet held an annual tracker music competition every year from 1994 to 1998, simply called Music Contest. Only MOD, S3M, XM, and IT module files were accepted. Snowman started the competition in 1993 on a BBS, before he joined Hornet, for those in the scene who could not attend the scarce number of demo parties at the time. By Music Contest 3 in 1995, the competition had become fully Internet-based and fully supported by Hornet, with an invitation intro and results pack. MC2 split the contest into rookie and veteran divisions, and MC5 introduced a third intermediate division. The contest's popularity grew from its reputation as a fair, complete competition, with scores broken down by originality, form, technicality, and samples. Experienced tracker musicians were recruited as judges, and gave written feedback on every entry. Modest prizes were given to the top winners. Music Contest 6 had 385 entries, from all over the world, nearly evenly split between the three skill divisions.

CD-ROM and DVD compilations

===Hornet CD-ROMs=== Two of the earliest CD-ROM compilations for the PC demo scene came from the Hornet Archive, specifically, Dan Wright, who compiled the Escape CD-ROM in 1994. Five hundred copies of Escape were pressed in six months and two runs. The first edition, released in November, sold for $9 and came in a jewel case with artwork done by various scene artists. The final edition sold for $5 and came in a plastic viewpak with new art. The CD was mixed mode, combining files from Hornet and BBSes with scene music, mostly from Music Contest 2. With Snowman aboard, Dan had help producing the followup double CD compilation, entitled Freedom. It was released in October 1995, and all 800 copies sold out within three months. The $12 compilation put data on one disc and audio (mostly from Music Contest 3 this time) on the other. Again, Pim "Stony" van Mun and various other scene artists were recruited for disk art, as well as vinyl stickers. When Walnut Creek CDROM hosted the Hornet Archive and employed Snowman, it was only natural that they publish the next CD compilation. Hornet Underground, released in June 1996, was strictly a compilation of demos from the archive. It lost its scene flair, with artwork done in-house, but received much better distribution through Walnut Creek. Hornet Underground Volume 2 followed in August 1997, with new art matching other Walnut Creek products, and a new interface. Demand for scene tracker music was high enough that Hornet convinced Walnut Creek to release a music compilation from the archive as well. Hornet MODs Volume 1 was released in July 1997, followed by Volume 2 in October. Each contained well over 1000 music files. Volume 2 also included an audio disc, featuring tracks from Music Contests 4 and 5, thus continuing the tradition of Escape and Freedom. After the archive closed in 1998, several Hornet members contributed to an independent compilation of releases and media from the NAID demo party, entitled NAIDorabilia and released in early 1999. Only 100 discs were produced before the disc files went public domain in 2004.

===MindCandy=== After compiling files on disc, Hornet became more interested in recording demos to video on disc. In 2000, plans were drafted for a "Demo VideoCD", quickly changing into the "DemoDVD Project", announced in 2001. The group compiled 42 PC demos in all, dating from 1990-2001, on a double-sided DVD entitled MindCandy Volume 1: PC Demos, released in December 2002. The DVD's appeal was enhanced by audio commentary on each demo, production notes, and a featurette about the demoscene in general. MindCandy became Hornet's most successful disc project, with 6000 copies of Volume 1 sold by 2006. MindCandy Volume 2: Amiga Demos, covering the Amiga demo scene from 1989-2004, is planned for release in 2006. ==External link== *The Hornet Archive (hosted by scene.org) Category:Demoscene Category:Defunct_websites Category:1992_establishments Family Guy Guy (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Druce + Quigg

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

Likely a non-notable law firm under our inclusion policy at WP:CORP Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New information was added giving relevancy. User:Timetraveller1066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetraveler1066 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Timetraveler1066 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Spam. None of the references are to Independent Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Standard Ballroom Syllabus

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

This article does not intend to be more then a list of the dance figures used in the compition. As such I feel it fails wp:NOTDIR. Declined G12 (syllabus is not creative content). Yoenit (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This counts as "source" material. It already exists on the web and where it can be linked to from relevant articles here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi–Rafter rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never met in a final, though they did have five semi-final matches, keeping each other out of the championship match. Leaning toward delete. Mandsford 02:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JL 09 ^talk_contribs 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's little doubt something good could be made of this article. Reliable sources cover it, and describe it as a rivalry.[48][49] I recall that matches between the two were particularly good, because Agassi was a great returner of serve and Rafter a legendary serve-volleyer. Just a comment because unless the article's improved I have no objection to its deletion. As pointed out, the current article is policy violant. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that this article (and it seems all the Category:Tennis rivalries articles) doesn't articulate what it means by "rivalry". If all it means is that they were contemporaneous top-level players, who therefore frequently faced each other in finals of major tournaments, then I don't think the topic is notable. For the "rivalry" to be notable, I think a particular animosity or competitiveness beyond what they typically demonstrated towards other players of similar levels needs to be substantiated. Otherwise this is just "routine news reporting on things like ... sports" -- each and every major tennis tournament will automatically have two pairs (mens and womens) of "rivals" in the finals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another pairing of two players that may have played each other a few times in semi finals but nothing more than that. to create an article about that means we might as well create articles for any pairs that have met in grand slams. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive content or references to indicate a notable rivalry Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Pocheptsov

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

Not sure about this one, but User:Jonescromwell looks like a WP:SPA, promoting this guy. I'm not sure whether Pocheptsov is notable or not, let's decide here. bender235 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I'm not affiliated with pocheptsov directly, unless you count owning one of his artworks as an association. He's been featured in some pretty major magazines and news stations (like Oprah, good morning america), and textbooks for children. I can't verify the content on the page firsthand since I don't know the guy, but that's what I gathered from articles and news sources online. I didn't cite any newspapers or past TV appearances, however, since I'm not sure how to cite those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonescromwell (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep World famous in Wilmington [50]. Nowhere else, but cut the kid a break.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't find anything other than local coverage. There are a bit of grandiose claims in the local paper that I can't find duplicated in other reliable sources. Taking into account his age and the fact that he's still up and coming in the art scene I think deletion at this state is best, with no prejudice against future recreation if his notability grows. Them From Space 04:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lendl–Wilander rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. As it stands, the article is as described, just a meaningless list of match results. However there is evidence that such a rivalry exists and is notable [51] so it may be possible to build a proper article. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the total lack of the reliable sources that are necessary to confirm that the rivalry is notable. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, we can do that if it is a notable rivalry. Is is though? To establish that we need some solid evidence. _wjemather ^bigissue 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hingis – V. Williams rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you've noted it yourself - "seemingly notable" - but not verifiably notable? What makes this, in its current format, verifiably notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What does "current format" have to do with notability? Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It means when I wrote that comment there was no evidence of verifiable notability. I think that's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I see no evidence of verifiable notability here, other than people's personal opinions on whether this is notable. And as an aside, the title should be changed from "V. Williams" to "Venus Williams" in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you looked very hard. I was able to add two references in just a few minutes. But you have to actually search, not just glance at the existing article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. But it's not my job to go searching for this kind of thing. The article was woeful. Now it's not quite so. I applaud your ability to find the time to find the relevant references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your right it isn't your job to do the searching and I was surprised myself at finding them so readily. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there are other "rivalry" pages up for deletion like this. If you could do the same for those, so much the better. I have to admit to have judged each page on its on "merit" (which generally speaking meant no merit at all). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search shows results on the first try.

The Washington Times: Hingis, V. Williams forging a great rivalry

$2.95 - Washington Times - NewsBank - May 13, 1998

It's early in the year but not too early to declare that Martina Hingis and Venus Williams are :going to own women's tennis. Everyone else is a subplot at ...

A major news paper has an article about this "great rivalry". Remember, most Wikipedia articles were created before they started asking for references to be in them. So its best to do a quick Google news search BEFORE you try to delete something. Dream Focus 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but this article is less than a year old, and we asked for references way before that. But good advice, nevertheless!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Top-rated professional tennis athletes will end up playing each other. Often. This is not uncommon. They play a lot of tennis matches. While the sources added to the article do indeed include the word "rivalry", I don't feel that there is evidence of a relationship between these two athletes beyond that of any normal relationship between two top-rated athletes who regularly compete against one another. There isn't an article to be written here. You could add a few sentences about how Hingis made a comment about how Williams isn't good enough, and Williams responded diplomatically. The sources wouldn't allow for much more than a few statements to be added to the article. If this article were accurately titled, it would be List of results of Hingis - V. Williams tennis matches. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henin – S. Williams rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 15:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to each of the Hantuchova and Schnyder articles respectively.--Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve references and add prose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to assert that this rivalry was particularly notable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - it needs tidying, because the colour scheme is horrible, but I think the rivalry is notable enough to merit inclusion either on both player's bios or its own page. AbrahamCat (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is more of a What to do with it discussion than a deletion discussion. Would encyclopeda readers actually ever be specifically looking for an article dedicated to the rivalry between Hantuchova and Schnyder? I think the answer is probably 'no', reflected by the little interest that this AfD has attracted; in which case merging to both articles seems to me to be the most logical solution.Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evert–Mandlikova rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 15:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edberg–Lendl rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - agree fully with Richard Arthur above.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport – V. Williams rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi–Chang rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capriati – S. Williams rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing to assert that this rivalry was particularly notable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edberg–Wilander rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The outcome is obvious now that its been referenced and since this discussion has been cited ina contentious RFC involving many users on either side of the keep/delete argument it makes sense to close this now that the Col has referenced it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insult comedy

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

Nonnotable topic — Bdb484 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author - I admit that the article has only 1 reference. However, it's not a biography of a living person and I suggest that it stay until someone can write a really good version of it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a good article yet, but it's a legitemate encyclopedia subject. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. I have proven this by adding citations to more sources. Our editing policy is to retain the topic for further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a term that does appear to be in common use for that genre of comedy, as a Google search will attest, and the article does now have some decent sources. It's not a great article as it stands, but we should improve it, not delete it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, but up until now, this has really been a thinly disguised "List of insult comedians", basically a list of names that was, up until Colonel W paved the way, unsourced. I think that there's enough serious interest in improving it that the topic of comedy, dependent upon insulting the audience, will get a better article. Mandsford 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming someone can expand the article. Seems to be a valid sub-genre of comedy which has been written about in many books. (see here)Susan118 ^talk 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Reasonable topic to cover. Jack Merridew 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cohort (computer science)

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

Apparently non-notable unreferenced dictionary definition. The computing-specific uses I found were related to distributed computing, but none seemed to include substantial coverage. Pnm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a WP:DICDEF that is not even mentioned in the Computer science article - Pmedema (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to State space (dynamical system). Courcelles 15:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clumping (computer science)

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

Unreferenced, one-sentence definition unlikely ever to grow beyond a dictionary definition. Pnm (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to State space (dynamical system) -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as Whpq.

I've also undone a recent GF edit which changed the whole topic to one about MacOS filesystems. That's a worthy redirect too (to something bigger on MacOS filesystems), but it should stay separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems reasonable to me. Should I withdraw the nomination or wait? --Pnm (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the merge suggestion, then there's no real need to wait. Nobody is advocating deletion. If an admin feels it should remain open, they can leave it open. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged, thanks. --Pnm (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. --Pnm (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Sea Salt

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

Commercial brand name with no claim of notability. A search for coverage of the product has only turned up trivial mentions, press releases, and marketing claims. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3 - no content of any note. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought of tagging with speedy; but the edit history shows that past editors who have attempted to convert the article into a redirect pointing to sea salt have been undone - so thought it best to get a more formal evaluation by the community of the viability of this as a stand-alone article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but is it a brand of sea salt? [52], [53], [54], and [55] all refer to this as a type of gray sea salt from Brittany and make no reference to this as a brand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only meaningful text in the article states it is a brand, which is supported by information at here, here which clearly label it as a registered trademark and brand name.

Still, being a brand isn't an obstacle in itself - but the only coverage of the brand appear to be trivial mentions, press releases, and marketing claims; for example, the ones you linked are only one-to-two sentence comments that confirm the brand exist, but provide no real substance beyond that. --- Barek (talk) - 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, it's just advertising. 198.49.81.49 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptability (computer science)

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

Unreferenced dictionary definition for a non-notable context. No useful inbound links. Pnm (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this page for the same reason:

Comment: The article Adaptation (computer science) gives the context for these two terms. I should have said only one useful inbound link. --Pnm (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a WP:DICDEF without any notability. - Pmedema (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahab (Kushiel's Legacy)

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

Yet another Kushiel's Legacy article with no real-world significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searched for third-party sources but none exist to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete this article. NAC—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arminka Helic

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

None of the references have significant coverage. Also doesn't satisfy Notability criteria for politicians Shashwat986 (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:POLITICIAN isn't that useful here because it only really covers elected politicians (and, if different, members of governments), and Alistair Campbell can tell you how powerful a special adviser can become. As for this one, I'm not sure. A GNews search shows she's getting some media attention, but nothing as the subject of on article, but this article from The Telegraph named her as one of the top 100 right-wingers. It's difficult to measure notability in this case because she seems to be deliberately staying under the media radar. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As above, she's not a politician but is in a position of importance as advisor to one of the top 5 politicians in the UK. Some media coverage, I'm inclined to keep for now and see if more sources can be unearthed. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Appears to be some serious interest, which makes her borderline for the WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT. Ray^Talk 15:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Ōta

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

Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Unsourced BLP. Could not find multiple reliable and independent sources on her either. Prime Blue (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 23:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources -- just one reference which mentions the subject in passing. Pburka (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taubman Institute

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

This article doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. The claims of notability seem to revolve around the implied notability of Dorothy Taubman; but notability is not inherited. (Despite the fact that Dorothy Taubman doesn't have her own article, and this article doesn't verify her proposed notability). The non-first-party sources provided seem to assert the notability of Dorothy Taubman, and not her institute. The majority of these sources are from a single source which gave Dorothy Taubman sporadic coverage back in 1994. Once of these sources includes the comment: "I thought the Taubman Institute was some cult, like a hippie club or something." — Fly by Night (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion information

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find ample evidence that Dorothy Taubman is notable (more than 100 GNews hits[56], and at least a few interesting discussions found at GBooks as well[57][58]) but my sense is that the Institute is mostly notable because of her and doesn't really need its own page. It appears that an attempted article about her was deleted as a copyvio of her biography at the Institute's website. In my opinion, the most productive remedy would be to move and rename this article to Dorothy Taubman (so as to save the work of identifying the references already presented) and rewrite it (using independent sources like the cited LA Times articles and others) to focus on the individual, with appropriate incidental mention of the Institute. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kin-Kon-Kan

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

A search for published (gBooks) references did not find support for this article as written, fails WP:N and WP:V. Prod removed with comment "ridiculous prod removed" No references added to support WP:N or WP:V. Article is about a binary-determination logic puzzle published by Nikoli. Jeepday (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what "search for published (gBooks) references did not find support for this article as written" is even supposed to mean. Is gBooks a reference to Google Books? Is that a claim that only the English language books that Google happens to have searchable text copies of count as reliable sources? That's just wrong on so many different levels. DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability "Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't doubt that the puzzle exists,a nd that we can verify the puzzle play with primary sources. What is missing is any sort of coverage from independent reliable sources to distinguish this puzzle as a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the puzzle does exist, but other then WP:ITEXISTS there is no notability. - Pmedema (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a puzzle from the Japanese puzzle giant that introduced, inter alia, Suduko. Loads of Ghits for " キンコンカン" MrCleanOut (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Management

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

Apparently non-notable company, I have found passing mention in a couple of press releases. Please note I have trimmed back the article rather severely removing puffery and spam links, and a quote about the company's founder. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adelio Lombardi

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He worked with someone, managed someone else, worked at somewhere -- all of it unsourced, by the way. So what? Not notable even if all statements are true. (As an added bonus, the article's original author, responding to copyvio concerns, pled ill edit it now but that was the text that adelio gave me.) EEng (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Only references in the press are passing and local. Pburka (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he's the agent of someone who produces music for other people? (That someone, DJ Frank E, had his article created by the same fellow who created this one, and it probably should be looked over.) Swear to heaven, if Jimbo ever dies and leaves me the Guru of Wikipedia title, one of my first acts will be to require a checkoff of WP:NOTINHERITED as a prerequisite to creating one's first biographical article. Ravenswing 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic: Night of the Werehog

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

No third-party sources indicate notability. Already mentioned in another article (Sonic Unleashed#Other media). « ₣M₣ » 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sonic Unleashed#Other meadia --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - user was blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per above Sadads (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonell Awards

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

notability not established & no significant sources identfied Scoop100 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found hundreds of media and book based sources on the subject. Linda Olive (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porn 2.0

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

Appears to be made-up neologism, and article is completely unencyclopedic. Delete. (But if kept, should be renamed to something less neologistic.) --Nlu (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those Google News and Scholar hits on the term don't seem to be made up. Enough for me to think this passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references, as far as I see, were as informal as the former references to "iCrime" — which we do not have an article for and shouldn't. --Nlu (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lot or results for the term Porn2.0. It is an upcoming phenomenon and as the article claims, the name has been derived from Web2.0. There is not need of changing the article name.WarFox (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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