Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 24

< 23 September	25 September >

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) 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.17-357 RG

.17-357 RG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

The cartridge is a personal project of contributer Joe4570 aka Joseph D'Alessandro. The cartridge fails the notability guidelines. There is also a conflict of interest associated with this article as the contributor and owner/proprietor of Real Guns is Mr. D'Alessandro aka User:Joe4570. This article should be deleted. Several reasons for a delete exist for this particular article

Conflict of Interest - User:Joe4570 and Joseph D'Alessandro are one and the same person WP:COI
No information outside the single source for all the information regarding the cartridge - Real Guns site (which is owned by Joe4570)
The cartridge fails noteworthy guidelines - Very few if any people know or have shown interest in the cartridge outside Joseph D'Alessandro. It is just a pet project of Joseph D'Alessandro.WP:FAILN

DeusImperator (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No external reliable sources. No claim for notability. LK (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to do this, because the article "looks" nice. But I can't find anything that makes this notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

You folks don't know what you are talking about. You cite a lack of valid documentation, but your information is fantasy. Real Guns is a class 7 manufacturer and fire arm retailer. We operate an inhouse ballistic lab and we have been building special purpose firearms for twelvr years. The 17-357 RG appears on quickload..

The wiki entry was an attempt to share design details and collected data. I did a draft and a number of them wiki regulars made it a clean entry.

I publish weekly on Real Guns, a digital publication owned by RGI Media, Inc. and I write a monthly column for Brownells. I don't doubt there is a conflict of interest, but it's not on this end.

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

The result was delete. I considered a redirect but this weapon is not currently mentioned by name in the article. If it's added later then a redirect can be created. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Viper

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

Unnotable fictional firearm doesn't warrant an article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced article about a minor element of a video game. Nothing to merge, and unlikely search term. Reyk _YO! 06:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk's arguments. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 25 September 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) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the videogame. Redirects are cheap and nothing else needs this name at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the video game. This gun looks like a minor element even in the game's context, and the article has no references whatsoever. JIP | Talk 08:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Sword weapons typically are not notable enough to merit their own page. Similar AfDs have also noted that we should not Redirect either. If one of the most notable and recognizable weapons in the last five years can't satisfy WP:GNG, there's no way this will. --Teancum (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect due to lack of third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied "4:17, 26 September 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Hamilton Lung" ‎ (G3: Blatant hoax)" Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Lung

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

Possible hoax; reference does not support text of article ScottyBerg (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to add to this ... but hopefully this works ... I live in Hamilton and am trying to raise awareness of this affliction. I felt as though references regarding the Lung Association would be adequate, as anyone looking at this page would likely be looking for help, and the Lung Association is a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton Life (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either this is a hoax, or an article which fails to treat its subject seriously and accurately. Note that the original article creator wrote that cases of the Hamilton Lung disease are "associated with very bad dental hygiene and severely misguided hairstyles and clothing". Although residents of Hamilton may indeed suffer from lung problems associated with industrial pollution (see this article), this article gives no reason to believe that such problems are different from those suffered by residents of other industrial cities, nor that such illness is associated with unattractive clothing and hairstyles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. If not, then delete for a lack of significant coverage and notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way. I had a shadow of a doubt, but it wasn't much. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will now die of CSD Cancer. I just tagged it as G3, as it is almost definitely a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that it's been speedied. If it wasn't for that sole reference, I'd have tagged it myself. I guess this needs to be closed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible

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

This is a poor and overly-simple format for this information. There is not a single 'modern scholarly' view on authorship issues. Not only was it recently the site of an edit war but it has been the site of a good deal of fighting in the past. It is impossible for this list to remain neutral, since it is impossible to sum up the vast range of scholarly opinion within a sentence or two. The scholarly views are already discussed on the articles for the individual books. There really is no way this list can be done fairly or neutrally, and it more or less declares what the 'true' view is even though there is no such thing. It is thus grossly misleading, and by its very design as a list cannot be unbiased on this complex issue. RomanHistorian (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the talk page, here a table is used to "telegram" or "tweet" a message about each book of the Bible. A terrible idea really. It is like trying to tweet the history of Europe in a table. This is an inherently ambiguous topic on which every viewpoint has support from some scholar, and the debate then focuses on the relative sanity of scholars: an undecidable question really. And mix that with a table and you have a recipe for conflict. This material needs to be discussed in each article where each book is discussed. Unlike Paris Hilton's life, scholarly opinion can not be tweeted. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is a valid list. The sources are reliable. The article is not formatted correctly, but that can be fixed. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing on this article is cited despite the fact that it makes some pretty sweeping claims. The problem isn't the quality of the work on the article but the nature of using a list for this purpose. It declares what the 'true' view is even though there is no such thing.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It declares what's accepted by the mainstream, not what's true. If you see any claim to truth, please remove it immediately and I will support that change. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are infinite. For every source saying one thing, I can find you another saying something else, and then another, and another, and...PiCo (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unverifiable list and a gross oversimplification of a much more complex issue. List is unnecessary as the more complex issues are discussed in their relevant articles. I especially like the heading on the bottom table: "Author according to some modern scholarly thought". Ha! SnottyWong ^comment 23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has a lot to do and doesn't do it perfectly, but without a single place where this information is summarized, Wikipedia suffers a loss of clarity. The very fact that there is such broad controversy over dates, authorship and even canonicity is itself highly notable and educational. In my own church, there are plenty of strong, faithful Christians who still say "THE Bible" without recognizing how sheltered that view is. Ultimately, our job here is not to decide who's right, but to show the traditional views as well as the mainstream range of modern views. I think this is worth doing and very doable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the title. What is the "Christian Bible", and why do we need an article that focuses on it exclusive? Seems like a POV fork, especially when we are discussing the Hebrew bible books... the table format also seems problematic, and if it is to stay, the article should be renamed to have "List..." in the title, probably. I think an encyclopedic article on the topic of "Authorship of the bible" could be written, even if it is just summarizing the authorship sections of the articles on each individual book of the bible. But these are just generalities, and don't apply to the specific content in this article currently.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, how would you feel about a title more like "Table of Bible Authorship"? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Now, allow me to vent. 1. I despise the color-heavy layout. 2. Title has issues... What other "Bible" is there than the "Christian Bible"? Do we speak of the Muslim Koran? The Jewish Talmud??? 3. The fact that this has been the locus of an edit war is neither here nor there. The topic is inclusion-worthy; whether the current incarnation is ready for primetime is another matter. 4. Sourcing sucks. It should not suck. I assume that there is scholarly debate over authorship of this or that book and this should be reflected. Similarly, attribution should be cited in each and every case.; Bottom line: a very problematic rendition of an absolutely Wikipedia-worthy topic. —Carrite Sept. 24, 2010.

Comment: How are you guys going to address the "tweet problem"? History2007 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One simple way would be to have sub-topics for each book in which the authorship is discussed at length. This article would then become a navigational aid to these sub-articles, while providing a lead and summary of their contents. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on every book of the bible, and each of those articles discusses authorship. Let's not introduce POV forks.

Keep The topic has massive notability, of course. Should this be doubted, please see an entire book on the topic. That the topic is challenging and open to debate is not a reason to delete. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People have written whole shelves on each book of the bible, and you want us to try to reduce that to a dozen words? But if the decision is to keep, the table should be dropped and replaced with a prose discussion. PiCo (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Pico, a table that "tweets decisions" is not going to be accurate and each item would need to be three paragraphs at least. History2007 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this article isn't deleted this is a good solution to the problem.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly useful for our main readership -- students. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that brings out what was in the back of my mind: fast food vs fast knowledge. Call me old fashioned, but while I think it is ok for students to grab fast food, I am not an advocate of fast knowledge, specially when it is undercooked. I would suggest a few paragraphs per book at least and 2 separate article: Old and New Testaments. There is no reason for not separating them. History2007 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been rated of top importance by the appropriate WikiProject. In my opinion that means that, to those interested in the subject think, it is notable. The article may need reviewing or rewriting but as the content of the article is clearly encyclopedial to those interested, I can not even begin to understand why this article has been put up for deletion. --JHvW (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an unsatisfactory article that needs a lot of work, and is too simplistic. But that is an argument for improvement, not deleton. NBeale (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Acknowledging the problems of the title, Authorship of the Books of the Old Testament and Authorship of the Books of the New Testament would both be acceptable, and probably allow for more development. Table format must go, as it lends itself too much to really short descriptions. It generally is possible to have at least some indication of the academic consensus of the authorship of each book, at least in a broad sense, however, so I think a revised article or two, with individual paragraphs indicating the current academic opinion regarding the authorship of each work, is probably doable. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's entirely possible to summarize majority scholarly views, as this tries to do. The article has problems, but for how much of several hundred years of debate it tries to cram into one table, it does a really good job. Most of what is being proposed as changes to the article seems reasonable, but not tied to a deletion process or outcome. I suggest the nominator start an RfC on how this information should best be presented, in order to prime people to arrive with opinions other than "keep" or "delete". Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems an entirely acceptable article to me, if like most it may require some work. Would support adding caveats in the lead section to address some of OPs concerns. But I see no sufficient reason to delete at all here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable. If you have a problem with any of the entries, discuss it on the talk page. Plenty of sources exists discussing where the various books of the Bible come from. Dream Focus 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article topic is clearly notable. The fact that it is in terrible shape is a call for improvement not deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, great topic, poor title ("Authors of the Bible" is not ambiguous with anything else except the Tanakh, which is routinely finessed with the word "Bible"), poor presentation. I would like to see some discussion on the Talmudic tradition on authorship and the traditional lists of the 72 prophets of Judaism, as many of them have auctorial status. JJB 07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep Although I sympathise with some of the arguments against the article, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article on authorship. However, the presentation is poor (it certainly should not be in table form), and the title is simply asking for problems as it covers too large a scope. We need separate articles for different parts of the Bible, possibly Authors of the New Testament and Authors of the Tanakh/Old Testament, just to keep the articles manageable. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree thst the article needs a lot of improvement. In particular "modern" ought to be "modern liberal", as many evangelicals will not accept the views of modern higher critical theologians. There are further difficulties: while Protestants regard the apocrypha as deutero-canonical, Catholics regard them as canonical and Catholic Bibles will not print additions to Daniel (including Judith) as a separate book. I agree that the article may need to be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is highly notable. If there are factual errors, correct them; if layout is misleading, rearrange it; if there's edit-warring, deal with the miscreant editors. Deletion would not be the most appropriate response to any of those problems. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clearly the consensus is to keep, but I am sympathetic to the quality concerns of the nominator. It needs some opening disclaimer about the subject being complex and the modern scholarship theories being subject to debate on a case by case basis, and a suggestion that the reader go to the individual book articles for fuller explanations. (Alternatively, we could change the traditional column to say "God" and the modern column to say "Man" and be done with it.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I liked John Carter's suggestions above; they could help address some of the article's problems. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The question of the authorship of the books of the Bible is a legitimate topic and has been discussed at length in many works of scholarship. So the article is currently pretty horrible. So what? This is nothing that cannot be fixed through normal editing. Reyk _YO! 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted as pure vandalism. the wub "?!" 22:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slump buster

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

Author insisted on removing the PROD from this. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Lord Pistachio ^talk 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum archaeology

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

Not a recognized discipline. Not even a fringe or hoax subject of any notability. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MADEUP. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a clear hoax. Apart from the obvious non-existence of this topic as a current scholarly discipline, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would make it impossible to even develop this as a discipline. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a laughable piece of bull****. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but somebody should give a notice to the creator and essentially only contributor. Most of his edits seem to be rather similar to the article here. Nergaal (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discusshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality ELDRAS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As the history shows, I did attempt to remove a bunch of crap from that extremely poor article, but was reverted. I would recommend others look at it as well. However, that is irrelevant to the article being discussed here, which I see was previously through a deletion discussion. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion. Tim Shuba (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suggest salt as well. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeLorean time machine

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

Article filled with mostly original research and duplication of plot details from Back to the Future and related films. Although time travel is the main plot point of each of the films, the actual time machine is not notable enough to warrant an individual article. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - not sufficiently cited is not a valid deletion reason. Details would make plot section of film articles too long, so this article was separated out from those articles, also so as not to repeat these details in multiple articles. As a subarticle of a clearly notable topic, this article should not be deleted. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—"Not sufficiently cited" is not a reason this article is proposed for deletion. The time machine itself is not notable enough and has not been sufficiently covered in non-fan material. First page of Google search results lists only fansites and Wikis, and no links of substance. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - notability doesn't apply to subarticles. Subarticles are simply for convenience and inherit the notability of the main article. Yworo (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I was under the impression that notability was NOT inherited. But if I'm wrong, please provide me with a link to the wp guidleine stating otherwise. Mtiffany71 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Mtiffany71, you are right. Notability is NOT inherited. See WP:INHERITED.—Chris!_c/t 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - the notability is not inherited applies to main articles. A set of articles with a main article and subarticles is considered a single article for notability purposes. You are misapplying WP:INHERITED. For further information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). Yworo (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - No, I did not misapply WP:INHERITED. It clearly says "notability of a parent entity or topic does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities". And Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) has nothing to do with inherited notability. It only instructs editor when and how to spun off long articles.—Chris!_c/t 02:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bulk of article is synthesis and original research (comparison to the TARDIS from Dr. Who, speculation about when and where the "Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor" was acquired, whether leaded gasoline would damage the car's engine, etc.) If synthesis and original research were removed, article would be little more than a stub indicating that the car was plot device. More appropriate as sub-section in BTTF page. Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the article is notable enough to be kept. This article is seriously original research. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I agree with the "subarticle" argument. Films are popular enough for it to be notable in some circles. Warp drive (Star Trek) is perhaps more "notable" but should also be (or should at some point have been) deleted on the basis of the above if this one is. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Retracted per subsequent comments. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure, the film itself is notable, but the fictional time travel machine used in the film is not. While the lack of references itself is not a valid reason for deletion, the availability of reliable sources are used to gauge whether the topic is notable or not. Editors who believe that notability is inherited are seriously misguided. See WP:INHERITED.—Chris!_c/t 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into the Back to the Future films. While key to the story lines, they don't really go into much detail in the films. It is just the means to get to the rest of the story, after which it takes a back seat. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP simply on the basis of inclusionism, but also because the Delorean deserves it's own page. Do you need a reason? oh, apparently you do, well, because it is not only a prop in a film, but also a statement about the collective dreams of mankind and the want to be able to change the past or to control the future, and also the dreams in the future that man may wield the power of time travel, although, if, in the future man could wield the power of time travel, would he not come back he and be all like "I'm from the future, arn't you freakin' out, past man?", unless, of course, it was one of those time machines where you couldn't go back in time to before the machine was invented, however the delorean doesn't seem to have this problem, it is, in essence, the perfect time machine, it can get you around in the present (whenever that may be, as it is the present for the time traveller) as well as transport you through time, so it is a multifunctional movement device allowing travel in at least 4 dimensions. So, it is more than a prop in a film and more than a simple modified car, it is the very dream of humanity, and all of our hopes and dreams, all bundled up into one car. And so, for the reasons I have mentioned above, I am voting, as I said in the prologue, a STRONG KEEP. That is all. CybergothiChé (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quite possibly the most rambling incoherent argument to keep an article. What reason are you actually submitting for inclusion? Sottolacqua (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thankyou, I do my best. My reason is in two parts,

part the first : Inclusionism - this is an online encyclopedia, and is not bound by the restraints of a printed tome, therefore can have an almost indefinite amount of articles, and should be a compendium of all human knowledge (gotta think big);

part the second : the DeLorean time machine is a quintessential part of 80s/early 90s culture and is fittingly deserving of it's own article, with perhaps a link on the main BTTF article which links to the article (something along the lines of "see also : DeLorean Time Machine") CybergothiChé (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations. Couching them in this way is quite acceptable because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ILIKEIT are not solid arguments for keeping an article. This is essentially a prop from a movie, and the article is filled with original research and plot information from each of the films, not necessarily information validating the notability of the main article topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of "movie props" that have developed independent notability for a stand-alone article, just as has this one. And as the most central plot device from this series, it has done just that... just as has Starship Enterprise and Millenium Falcon. And please, WP:AGF. As I am not offering these examples per WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT... only as guideline encouraged precedents where a plot device has achieved an acceptable notability to merit an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of sources for this, of course, as the prop is as iconic as the TARDIS or Starship Enterprise. Some have an amusingly structuralist approach to the topic: "The DeLorean is presented as a masculine space... " (The Worlds of Back to the Future: Critical Essays on the Films); "...the DeLorean time machine the 'primary symbol of 'phallic' power'." (Liquid metal: the science fiction film reader‎). The topic is therefore notable and should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news results are plenty. [1] The creator of those cars and owner of the company that made them, said his success was because of them being used as a time machines in that movie. [2] Dream Focus 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article refers to someone else saying that this was his "claim to fame". Considering that John DeLorean's company went bankrupt three years before the movie came out, it didn't bring him any success. I think that the DeLorean DMC-12 has become an icon for time travel, and if the article can be purged of the fancruft, it's workable. I don't think that anybody actually calls it "the DeLorean time machine" however. Mandsford 12:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many source call it just that. I've added a number of possible references to the further reading section. A search through Google Books shows that the DeLorean time machine is iconic and is mentioned in a lot of sources other than film plot summaries. It's used as an exemplar fictional time machine is some non-fiction sources, along with H.G. Wells' time machine and TARDIS, and also mentioned in the same context alongside the Starship Enterprise. So it clearly has the same level of notability as these cultural icons. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a lot of in-universe cruft in the article that needs to be cleaned out, but I don't think accusations of non-notability are going to stick. SnottyWong ^talk 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Back to the Future trilogy with relevant info included in the individual films' articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Far too much content for a proper merge, specially as this plot device has achieved independent notability enough for a proper WP:SPINOUT.[3][4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup trim the plot summary, keep including more real world/production/review/critical commentary details, as the searches above indicate exist, and we're just fine. The rescue in progress appears to be going well, the fictional element appears to be meeting the GNG on its own. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A classic of popular culture.AWHS (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially per SnottyWong. In the end it might be better to merge this, but there is at least a little salvageable content already in the article and no pressing need to delete the history. It certainly is a possible (if not terribly probable) redirect, if it comes to that. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural icon, totally notable... the OR could use a trim, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarastar42 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DeLorean is iconic in its own right, and there are plenty of sources available to demonstrate this. --Korruski (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An iconic plot device that has itself been well covered in detail in multiple sources.[5][6] And though WP:NOTINHERITED and been spoken of earlier, THIS plot device, even if only because of the film, now has its own sourcable notability, and thus passes both GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Per WP:ATD, cleanup is a reason to do so... and deletion is a last resort for the completely unsalvable.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Duncairn

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

Article tagged as hoax over a week ago; I requested help from WP:IRELAND but no action has been taken to refute the claim that this is a hoax, so I'm opening this discussion. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to suggest that this incident ever happened. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to suggest this battle ever happened. Sources on article relate to 1916 Easter Rising, in all likelihood a hoax. Snappy (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am suspicious of this article, becuase the battle does not appear in the list in the United Irishmen Rebellion article, and becasue it only cites Irish-lanaguage sources. I am not Irish, but do the titles of the two works cited mean "easter Rising"? If the article cannot be provided with WP:RS directly related to the 1798 rebellion, it should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Éirí Amach na Cásca means Easter Rising which was in 1916. Also the creator of the article, listed the battle as a defeat for the Irish forces, some anonymous edits later, it became a stunning Irish victory! Snappy (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a fun item, and not found in Rebellion in Kildare 1790-1803" by Dr. Liam Chambers (1998).Red Hurley (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per my comments on talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - likely a hoax per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Both sides of the debate point to a mere wikiproject essay (WP:SOLDIER) to support their views at various points. But in any event, there is a clear consensus for retention based on notability arising out of the subject's award and coverage in reliable sources. Other reasons for deletion (eg BLP1E) are alluded to but they do not have consensus support. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Ley

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

Unremarkable person, fails WP:SOLDIER, should have been speedied, no idea why it wasn't. Single-purpose account. — Timneu22 · talk 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One could argue that any recipient of the George Medal is de facto remarkable. But the issue isn't whether Ley is remarkable, but whether he's notable, and in that respect he satisfies WP:SOLDIER, which states "... an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The article cites multiple reliable sources. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jimmy Pitt. While he may fail the Additional Criteria for WP:SOLDIER that determine extenuating circumstances for articles that do not meet the GNG, he most certainly meets the GNG itself. This also does not fall under WP:BLP1E, as his notability is based on something that lasted for six months. Silver seren^C 21:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at WP:SOLDIER#People, Ley satisfies 2 criteria which are 1. Being awarded the nations second highest gallantry award and 2. Playing an important role in a significant event notable Moshtarak [7]

In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

  1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
  2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
  3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
  4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
  5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or

Ley, features prominently on many major, credible and reliable news sources as the article clearly shows and the fact he is cleary named on the British Military of Defence website shows his notability. The George Medal is not readily awarded, each recipient is therefore notable. Two other Ammunition Technician have received George Medals namely Kenneth Howorth and Gary O'Donnell Sinbadslimpig (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Fails 2 and 5. But whatever. — Timneu22 · talk 10:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I was the closing admin of the speedy tag. The speedy tag was wrongly put by Timneu22 disregarding the claim of notability of the individual being a George Medal awardee. I removed the tag and prodded the article. The author and creator (User:Sinbadslimpig) removed the tag and added references. It's a new article; and I believe that this editor is attempting to improve the article. I would advise the closing administrator/editor to speedily keep this article, but mention that there should be no prejudice to an early future AfD in case the article is not improved from its current state (or even after the article is improved, yet doesn't qualify clearly on GNG). Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 13:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an obviously ignorant nomination, as confirmed by the nominator's statement that he had "no idea why it wasn't" speedily deleted when the article already said that the subject was a George Medal recipient. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the nation's second-highest honor, and he received it once. Read WP:SOLDIER. — Timneu22 · talk 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~: I don't buy the argument that he passes WP:SOLDIER, especially criteria 2. I see the possibility that some of the above editors have confused the George Medal the George Cross, which is higher in precedence. Also, he's only been awarded once; there is a precedent of deleting pages for single awards of the Navy Cross and the like specifically because of the "multiple" in the guideline. I'm not convinced that he meets criteria 5 either; EOD is not intrinsically significant to the overall operation. I also don't feel that he meets GNG: while there are certainly plenty of good sources, they are all focused on the one event (one tour of duty, one operation, regardless of how long it actually lasted), thus WP:BLP1E. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to keep based on clarification of his notability regarding his bomb disposal count. It seems that he indeed has disposed of more IEDs than anyone else in history, and as an expert in his field, is notable in that right. Seems that he was more than just a BB-stacker as I initially thought. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) On a cursory look, I was able to find around 20 odd news reports from reliable sources ranging from Telegraph to BBC to Express that have given the individual, in some cases significant coverage, and in some more cases, non-significant coverage. GNG is quite evident. (2) WP:SOLDIER is only an essay and should never be used in Wikipedia deletion discussions considering that WP:BIO supersedes it by policy. Consequently, WP:BIO states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. In case depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." Note the word 'multiple', which means greater than singular. This is clearly satisfied given that this particular individual has been featured in a considerably large number of articles, and in some of them with quite significant coverage. Thus, even WP:BASIC is satisfied much comfortably, I should say by miles. (3) WP:ANYBIO, which is the primary notability guideline to be considered across Wikipedia for people getting awards, states that any person is considered notable if the person "has received a well-known and significant award or honor." To argue that the George Medal is not well known would be highly illogical, considering that the number of reliable sources linking to this medal go beyond even Wikipedia's GNG standards. (4) Finally, this article has been recently created and we should necessarily provide the author and other contributing editors more time to bring this up to GA/FA class. I am mentioning this because the more I have researched, the more I have realised that the biography of an individual "who has defused more bombs than anybody else in history"[8][9][10] simply should not be brandished in AfD discussions with a deletionist perspective. Deletion discussions are supposed to take place when the article does not qualify on any notability criteria or is a borderline/suspect case. And much of what I have seen in this particular nomination has disregarded almost every available policy and guidelines with respect to notability, lack of civility aside. This would be used by me as a case in point for future reference with respect to the nominating editor's contributions. Thanks. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You sure have an awful lot of things to say about me and this nomination. You are being insulting and uncivil, based on a one-sentence nomination. At least someone else agrees with me, so please calm down your tone. It's quite ridiculous. — Timneu22 · talk 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry for that impression. It's just that after seeing that you used the word idiot while replying to my message informing you about your speedy getting declined, I couldn't but help gather an impression. Just a month ago, you used the term 'Fuck prod', 'fuck it' and Prod sucks while replying to WikiDan61 and Atama, who had notified you about not re-adding prod templates if they are removed. To use such words against administrators and editors is not a good way to be proactive. Again, you also have many positive contributions too; so I'll leave this discussion here, as this is a deletion discussion going on. If you wish to continue this discussion, do kindly contact me on my talk page. Sincere regards. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's avoid the argumentum ad hominem and stick to the article itself. The nature of the nomination itself is not in question; you should AGF and realize that if the nom was indeed in bad faith, there would not be any valid arguments toward deletion, which the closing admin will recognize. If you are having a dispute with the other editor in question, bring it up elsewhere.
    - Also, I'd like you to address BLP1E, which would override GNG and BIO (as well as its derivatives, BASIC and ANYBIO). And frankly, I'm insulted that you would say that WP:SOLDIER can be so brazenly disregarded; it's a very clear consensus opinion established over many years by experienced editors in high standing, and upheld in quite a number of deletion nominations. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks Bahamut for your reply and your points. My replies are as follows to all your points. My comment above was only as User Timneu believed that the civility point had been raised simply because of the nomination; as you might have read, the background is quite clear now. With respect to your query whether there's a dispute going on, I don't believe so at all; it's an editorial opinion difference. And perhaps you missed out on the last line of my reply where I have clearly written that this discussion (of civility) should not continue here, but on my talk page - and I should mention here that Timneu has left a concise reply there. So my request to you also will be to not address this issue here as this clearly is not a place to discuss and re-discuss a civility issue. You mention there is an ad hominem argument that I am putting across. No, not at all, and I agree this deletion nomination should be considered on its own. To your next point whether this nom is in bad faith - I should not say 'bad faith' but surely 'lightly/not researched'. Look at a significant part of the nom statement: "Should have been speedied, no idea why it wasn't. Single-purpose account". This was written only a few hours after I had clarified very clearly to the nominating editor about why, as per policy, this biography cannot be speedied. To write that the editor has "no idea why it wasn't", is clearly disregarding a policy issue. And to address a newbie contributing account as "a single-purpose account" and requesting deletion giving that as a reason, is akin to sledge-hammering newbies. I'm making it a point to write all this here so that in the future, the nominating editor can realise there are editors/administrators who completely disagree with this approach of nomination.
      - Now to your point on the essay titled WP:SOLDIER. I'm sorry you feel insulted that I have advised that this essay should not be used in deletion discussions; but till the time WP:SOLDIER becomes a guideline, I should be extremely uncomfortable quoting it in deletion discussions. You perhaps might know that WP:SOLDIER was nominated to become a guideline, but failed to gather consensus, showing that the community does not back this essay's content to the extent of making it a guideline. Our notability guidelines have been specifically made to be used in deletion discussions and those are what I shall quote. At best, if you believe WP:SOLDIER does have it within itself to become a deletion-quotable essay, get it included in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates once it becomes a guideline.
      - Finally, your query on WP:BLP1E, which is a more logical argument than any other. As the author of the policy footnote that differentiated between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, I have a few queries for you before I answer. Do kindly give me your views on the following:
        If you believe WP:BLP1E applies to this biography, which singular event are you referring to? (that is, are you referring to his award ceremony event? or the event of his returning to Britain? or is it the event of his becoming the largest bomb defusing expert in history? or his sojourn in Moshtarak?)
        
        This individual defused the most bombs in history. And he did this while at Moshtarak. Would you consider the individual's role major or minor in this event? Would you consider the event of Moshtarak to be major or minor?
        
        Would you believe this individual is a high-profile individual or a low-profile individual? (as he has given interviews and video shoots to certain reliable sources/media channels, it'll be good if you clarify your view on this...)
        
        Would you consider this individual's news coverage to be persistent or non-persistent? (I noticed his mentions initially in April 2010; now is September, and the Queen is supposed to award him in the coming period; therefore...)
      - I'll await your reply on the same. Sincerely. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 03:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If that's how you feel about WP:SOLDIER, then we will have to disagree. Not much else to say there.
        
        Aside from one point that I'll address next, these events are all so intrinsically and closely related that they are one singular event for the purposes of notability. The components of having been deployed, his EOD service over a period of months, his participation in a significant operation, return home, and award for his efforts are all sequentially dependant and interrelated. For comparison, I'll take Jason Dunham: his deployment to Iraq, his battles in Husaybah, his falling on a grenade, his death, his awarding of the Medal of Honor, and the actual presentation of the award to his next of kin are all likewise related. The analogy is not perfect; Ley's award was for service over a period of months, while Dunham's was for a single moment in time, and that the MOH is the hightest award while the GM is not even the penultimate. However, in both cases, the point is that these are all components of a single event.
        
        You are correct about the distinction between BLP1E and BIO1E. Frankly, I don't care about how high- or low-profile the individual is after the event, because it's that one event that is relevent to the merits of notability. I don't think that privacy is a concern here. Likewise, the persistance of coverage is not in my mind relevant to the notability of the event covered; there may be a correlation sometimes, but I generally hold the opinion that the press is a poor judge of import and notability. That distinction is something I will have to keep in mind from now on, and I think you for pointing that out to me; however, I don't feel that it really impacts the argument here, despite my referrance to the incorrect policy.
        
        The article says "he defused more roadside IED's than anyone else during his six month tour of duty", not "most in history", the distinction being that I interprete the former to simply mean that he had a higher count than his peers at the time, but the latter is actually quite significant, and is very notable in its own right. I hadn't read citation 1 (the Press Association article), and feel that this clarification actually makes him notable enough, and the other points are moot. I've changed my vote based on this new information, and feel that the article's lead needs to be re-worded to make this more clear. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep GM. That's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Too much SPA activity to properly determine a good faith consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What.cd

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

The deletion template was chosen due to few things: the article itself is of no value, no information to the public (as it's a closed down community); due to the fact that similar utterances of this site have been removed due to advertising, most notably on the oink.cd page, where every mention of what.cd (along with waffles.fm) is removed. also, almost all the sources are non-reliable and speculative (usually bringing dangerous misinformation to the site). if all that does not suffice, common sense would place this article in a "no particular importance" field. it's just a small site which does not want any publicity. Soul Eater (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; This site is not well known, nor does it wish to become well known. The public at large really does not have an interest in this, nor should they. A music file sharing site is not the kind of entity that needs to be represented (advertised for?) on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.15.202 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't believe the nominators rationale is reasonable.
- the article itself is of no value, no information to the public (as it's a closed down community) - being a close community makes no difference, the article has value in that it a) is apparently a successor to OiNK and b) was used to leak some notable material online
- due to the fact that similar utterances of this site have been removed due to advertising, most notably on the oink.cd page - unsure what that means. I guess external links to it from the OiNK page, which strikes me as correct under the EL's policy. However I do not think this is a sound deletion rationale.
- almost all the sources are non-reliable and speculative (usually bringing dangerous misinformation to the site).; not the case. TorrentFreak has been judged reliable for Torrent articles, I asked about Fast Company and I believe that is reliable also, the remaining sources are all very reliable (Guardian etc.). I don;t think any information in the article is speculative; it is quite strongly factual based on the sources.
- common sense would place this article in a "no particular importance" field. - this is the only deletion criteria that has merit, even if the relevant policy is not cited or referenced correctly. I wrote the page after flicking through "request for page creation" and it sprung out; and the time I was not sure it satisfied WP:WEB but I believe it just about does so.
- it's just a small site which does not want any publicity - not valid deletion rationale

Ultimately I decided the article was worth creating, since then it has come under pretty sustained and incoherent IP/new editor attack. Which surprised me (and is perhaps why I am being particularly defensive of it :)). (I hate to take that tack, but it is worth noting that the nominator is an infrequent editor with little AFD experience, who popped up after not really editing for a month to instantly Speedy nominate and then, once declined, take the article to AFD) I think, however, that the site is relatively notable and is sufficiently covered to pass muster :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's come under new editor attack because publicity is bad for the site, and a lot of its members realize this. This may be a good rationale for them not wanting Wikipedia to not have a web page about it, but it's insufficient rationale for Wikipedia. I sympathize and agree with them from a certain perspective, but I'm sure there are plenty of other people and organizations that wish they weren't in Wikipedia, either, and ultimately, it's not up to them.--209.254.9.194 (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it with fire - Fails all 3 of the criteria per WP:WEB. Barking Fish 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See I was unsure on that one - but it definitely passes point one :) Some of the mentions are trivial, but the Guardian, TC and TF cites are not --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While What.cd appears to be a large online community (having, seemingly, over 100,000 accounts), it's not been covered by many media outlets - There's hardly any results, for example, on Google News. Most coverage is on filesharing blogs and forums, and while it seems to be well-known in those communities, it's not as notorious as Oink in the mainstream media - Yet. The rationale for deletion because the site is closed, however, is not a valid one - It's a matter of coverage, and I'm not sure there's enough yet. The community would probably welcome the article's deletion, but that's not a reason to delete it, so to speak. Esteffect (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also feel that the large list of sources, that is almost as long as the article (which features some rather trivial information as it is) is a case of WP:MASK, and trying to make the subject seem that it's had more coverage than the reality suggests. Esteffect (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a web community with an intentionally limited membership. On some rare occasions, musical releases are leaked on it and it gets a smattering of tech/music news coverage, then the site goes back to obscurity. The Twitter accounts of Jersey Shore cast members get exponentially more press than this site. It's just not very important. Perceive (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough; one of the main problems is that most search engines seem to drop the "." - Google particularly, dirtying the search results. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Captain panda 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there has. The sources given are mostly technology sites that cover many websites (and a large number of torrent trackers), and as such are specialist and not particularly assertive of notability. The mentions by The Guardian and Pitchfork would be if they were about the site, but they're about Radiohead, and a rumour that they released the song on the site. That, for me, does not indicate anything other than Radiohead being covered, with the website an after thought. Oink has an article due to the vast coverage of a court case and the shutdown, but What.cd has a few incredibly trivial mentions by mainstream media sources, and then a large number on filesharing sites. That doesn't, for me, demonstrate enough coverage. We have to be careful not to look at the big source list that's padding it out. As I note above, I think there's a little bit of WP:MASK going on here. Esteffect (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a deliberate masking I promise :) I just tried to source as much as possible, partly because of the disputed content. I think your argument is the only really valid one in favour of deletion - and I might agree, a lot is marginal. But the thing that convinced me is the COFEE leak, which was a reasonably big thing, made CNet, and had to be responded to by site staff. I think the fact that they are all tech sources is not a problem, but the niche ones are a problem, as you say. I don't think TorrentFreak established notability, for example. It's... marginal in my mind, a lot of relatively notable stuff and nothing major to put the matter to rest - I'm an inclusionist so I come down in favour of such articles :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, AFD isn't here for universal agreement. However, I'm of the view that one CNet mention of the leak of Microsoft COFEE doesn't assert notability, either. If it was a big thing, as you put it, then it'd have made other news outlets too. It's probably the only direct coverage by a reputable source that the site has had (that isn't about something else primarily). If there were two or three more cases of coverage at that level, then I'd be for the article's inclusion. Esteffect (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, solid point - it is hanging on by its finger nails somewhat. Frustratingly the COFEE leak was well reported, but everyone just says "a Torrent site", which is completely useless :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be 100% clear the sources I have for COFEE leak are; mainstream press - CNet and SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle). tech sources - TechDirt and TorrentFreak. Nothing else mentions them by name --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's partly the problem. If the site were particularly notable in the mainstream, then the site's name would be mentioned. Referring to it as 'torrent site' suggests it's not notable in the mainstream. Esteffect (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not actually describe the website in question very well. Rather, it describes a few almost-notable events relating to the website. I do not believe sources exist which describe the website itself, and therefore it seems to me that the website is not notable. --96.241.179.251 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.241.179.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"private BitTorrent tracker" is what most sources refer to it. I am not sure what else is needed on that score :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article describes notable and sourced events about website which is its subject. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mostly only speculate. Information on this subject is too hard to verify. This article also lacks even the most basic information. Please delete this article. Markiij (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Markiij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete As per above. Burnedthru 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How this gets on here, and things like Slenderman don't, really confuses me sometimes... 70.226.198.238 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.226.198.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Not of public interest. 129.241.158.196 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 129.241.158.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google My Way

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

Contested prod. Silly little article about Google that clearly fails WP:NOTHOWTO. It ought to be speediable but I can't see how. andy (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Yousou (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 - unremarkable website. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 I have actually applied the tag to the article. Yoenit (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at RFD. You can slap me with a trout if this close was inappropriate. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose bautista homerun number 50

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

This sports landmark doesn't meet the bar. Information should be added to the bluejays and player's article, and a list (if there is one) of home-runs, but this isn't a large record and this is an implausible search term. Shadowjams (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As I nominated this, it was redirected. I still think the redirect is implausible. Shadowjams (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it's as unlikely a search term as could be, especially since "Jose Bautista" is what it begins with. Original author is new to Wikipedia, and is welcome to edit the Bautista article to include relevant information. Mandsford 20:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under R3 - implausible redirect. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Ansah

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

Youth football player who does not meet guidelines of WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when he becomes notable in the future. Giant Snowman 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently non-notable. Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Without any first team appearances for Arsenal, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hellsing (manga). /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legends of Vampire Hunter

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

A contested proposed deletion, this doujinshi precursor to Hellsing (manga) does not appear to show notability by WP:N or WP:BK. A CSE search turns up nothing of use. I'm hesitant to recommend a merge to Hellsing unless sources can be found. Malkinann (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and cleaned the CSE hits, and tried a few other variants, finding nothing. Which is strange, because Hellsing is not an obscure manga and it's also finished. If any reliable sources can actually be found, then this is an obvious merge, else just redirect it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:26 24 September 2010 (GMT)

Merge/redirect to Hellsing (manga). 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing to merge. It'd just one sentence saying before that series happened, a similar thing was done by its creator. The person who deprodded this made a good case for keeping it. Its "the direct precursor of a very famous series." Quite encyclopedic to study all things. You see a great and notable series, its interest to read about what came before it. Dream Focus 23:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hellsing (manga) - not notable by itself. LK (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If at least one reliable source can be found making the connection to Hellsing, then smerge to Hellsing (manga). Otherwise, redirect to Kouta Hirano. —Farix (t | c) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It needs to remain a redirect at the very least, but a discussion surrounding the merge/redirection of this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks

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

Content fork of Juniper Networks. Note: this is a featured list, but nevertheless deleteable. Sandman888 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Sandman888 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you have merged the list article into Juniper Networks recently. As explained in Wikipedia:Merge and delete wikipedia's license does not allow for merged pages to be deleted. Also, did you contact the FL nominator at any point? It would be kinda rude if you didn't. Yoenit (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~ Merge - This is still a featured list. So you should bring this to FLRC for delisting first. Also there is no consensus on directly afding featured list without first going through the delisting process.—Chris!_c/t 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After this deletion review I doubt any admin would procedurally close this. Feel free to start an RfC that featured content should be defeatured before AfD, but until consensus says otherwise I'm not inclined to do it your way. Sandman888 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One DRV does not fully reflect the actual consensus that featured lists should be delisted before AfD IMO. So unless there is a RFC decision on this issue, I have no choice but to stand by my vote. Sorry.—Chris!_c/t 02:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just been informed that there was a precedent in which a FL was deleted without first going through FLRC. However, this afd is still pointless since the result is obviously going to be merge, which can actually be dealt with via the talk page.—Chris!_c/t 04:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has merged this content to another article, so clearly doesn't want it to be deleted. This needs to remain at least as a redirect for attribution purposes. The article talk page, not AfD, is the venue for discussing merging and redirection. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a good faith bad faith nomination. Whaaa? That's right: the only reason I can see that this well-sourced article could be called a "content fork" is that the nominator appears to have merged the WP:SS list into the main article. As such, the editing solution is to simply undo such a merge, and a nominator who has himself created the only listed deletion rationale is inherently acting in "bad faith" even if he honestly believes he is acting to improve the encyclopedia: one cannot both create such a situation and then complain about it, as the nominator has unclean hands. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's obvious that this page will not be deleted outright; at the very least it will be turned into a redirect. Why do we need an AfD when a merge discussion on the talk page will work just as well? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. Though there is one outstanding delete !vote, his sourcing concerns appear to have been addressed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOCEP Constanţa

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

No refs. Notability. Looks like a corporate website. The Eskimo (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to prove notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Alinasy 9 (talk · contribs) likely intended this to be an advertisement, so the user constantly returns to revert my addition of sources back to the spammy version absent of sources. I have restored the sources. Notability is clearly established. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources are in Romanian and can't be verified by an English speaking WP user. That's not very clear. The Eskimo (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...*facepalms* Please read WP:NONENG. If no alternative sources are available in English, then an article is fine with having non-English sources. It does not affect notability or verifiability in any way to have non-English sources. Silver seren^C 22:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't look at all spammy now. A port handling 300,000 TEU's annualy is pretty sizeable. Google finance data looks like this is a fairly big outfit, relatively speaking. I doubt we have specific notability criteria for ports or port authorities but if we did I suspect this would pass. Pedro : Chat 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I speak Romanian and I'm going to say neutral, at best a weak keep. The Romanian sources are actually fairly reliable and do deal with the company. I suggest contacting User:Bine Mai, who's also Romanian but who wrote Port of Constanţa as well as articles on numerous Romanian companies - he's by far the expert on this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how it is a advertisement. The article is written in a neutral point of view and is adequately sourced. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was "adequately sourced", what was the point of nominating it for rescue? Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to seek assistance for further improvements from the editor community in making the article better to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With coverage in Capital, Ziarul Financiar, Curierul Naţional, and a number of others, I don't see how this company couldn't be notable. Silver seren^C 22:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Appears to be a large organization which is probably notable, although I can't personally verify the sources. SnottyWong ^converse 23:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appears to be a large organisation as said above.though lot of clean up required.LinguisticGeek 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Biruitorul. Strongly suggest that translations of the Romanian sources be provided on the talk page to show notability so that future editors do not continue to question it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added English translation links to the sources. Silver seren^C 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a substantial organisation to me. If even more refs are needed (either to underline notability, or just to flesh out the content a bit) I'll happily contribute. I don't think the article looked like an advert at the time the AfD was raised - it just described the business' activities. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and with respects to the nominator suggest he consider a polite withdrawal at this point. The article has been cleaned up and sourced since nomination... and non-English sources are valid if their English equivalents do not exist. And a note to a closer... the article was improved and sources added after the one delete vote offered his opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Next time click on a Google news search BEFORE you nominate something. 129 results, some of them surely notable. Dream Focus 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering initially there were no references, and the article uses vague generalities like "one of the largest" etc...not to mention that when sources were added half of them were in a foreign language or just basic stock exchange info (and BTW the # of Google results may mean newsworthy, but not necessarily wp:Note) I would suggest that you wp:AGF and leave your snarky comments at the door next time you vote on an wp:AFD.

And since this AFD request resulted in bringing attention to this article, as well as the addition of sources thereby making Wikipedia just a little bit better, I apologize for wasting User: Dream Focus's time, and would request an admin close this AFD as there appears to be a strong consensus to KEEP. The Eskimo (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mourad Aarab

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

Orphaned, unreferenced BLP. No hits in google books, nothing reliable on the web in english that turns up. He isn't even listed in the club which claims to be current.Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete - According to the kawkabi.com website, Aarab hasn't made a first team appearance for Kawkab yet, and he never made one for Raja. Article fails NSPORTS and the GNG as well. Jogurney (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art bollocks

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

non-notable neologism, supported only by usage in blog posts and opinion columns Yworo (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it appeared in an article in Art Review (i.e., on paper) back in 1999, and has done so since then. It has even appeared on the Charles Saatchi gallery website; see this. How is anyone on wikipedia to understand what AB means if it is not defined? Why should wikipedians have the benefit of List of Pokémon characters but not AB? If my article were retitled Artspeak, would that be more acceptable? AB goes beyond art criticism into the uses of language. It is a term in British English, not American, and I linked it accordingly. I have no axes to grind in regard to art or philosophy, and the article is based on WP:GOODFAITH. Please re-read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and please add any contrary views if you think it was too "pointedly written".Red Hurley (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there secondary sources that discuss the term? Because from what I can tell you are finding instances of its use and then writing about how it is used. That's original research. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and some mainstream printed-on-paper sources are listed in David Thompson's 2007 article which is available on the internet here, which I plan to quote from separately. I appreciate that papers like The Guardian would not be well known to Americans.Red Hurley (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we change this to Artspeak when it is a place in Canada? Any better suggestions?..Modernist (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or rename per discussion...Modernist (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Pointedly written, fails RS, describing it as a neologism is probably too kind. Artspeak fair enough, but the function sect reeks of an axe to grind. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be keep on a rename' to Artspeak and some rewriting. About Artspeak I have a lot to say myself. Red Hurely seems up to this so, pending. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep I was all set to line up with my buddies, but found this [11], as well as use of the term by journalists [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Apparently a popular term; original research and violations of neutral pov can be cut from the article. JNW (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is thataway. This doesn't merit more than a dicdef, it's art+bollocks. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My colleagues across the pond maintain it's not a commonly used term [17]. As for Wiktionary, I likely could have found it, with the aid of my seeing eye dog and gps, but the link was thoughtful, so long as it wasn't intended snidely. JNW (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but no matter. The Bill Drummond link strikes me as I'm kind of a fan of the man and the way he writes, but its a concidence, two words that happen to meet in a sentence. The combination has no currency. Do we need an article on fan of or of the. English people throw around the word bollocks like its christmas. Tisk. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a colourful people. freshacconci talktalk 01:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish, not English. Big difference. We never swear. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You all talk funny over there. That's all that counts. freshacconci talktalk 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, not another Irish-Canadian conflict; can't we all just get along? JNW (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the major players for the Munich Agreement were Ireland and Canada. freshacconci talktalk 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada started it. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Canada will finish it, beotch. freshacconci talktalk 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle folk, come to your senses; you've both contributed so much to our culture. JNW (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why describe my creation as "fuckology" onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts? I'd say that counts you out as an objector, considering WP:CIV.Red Hurley (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A term being used a few times doesn't justify an article about it.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename? I am happy to redo the article as Artspeak (language), as there is an Artspeak already. And include AB as a synonym. I assure you all that there was no evil intent in creating the article, just an attempt to unwrap a mysterious language. I have a lot more sources to add.Red Hurley (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd re-name the existing article, and move this page to artspeak. I know well enough now that there was no bad intentions in creating the page; my first impression was that it was ridiculing mordern art in general, now I can see that it riducles the pseud language often used to describe it. Anyway, I've struck that stuff and am a Keep, rewrite slightly and rename. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have no idea why this article was nominated. As recognised jargon among elements of the art world, the topic is notable. I see no reason for deleting an article like this when its presence provides people like me - those who are largely ignorant of artspeak - with the ready opportunity to learn about this sub-genre of the world of art. BlueRobe (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this article is spurious. If there were relevant or compelling references and sources then this debate would not be taking place, hence de facto, there not enough supporting evidence for notability, etc.--Artiquities (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Artiquities, I'm not sure you know what "de facto" means. BlueRobe (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18] Robert Atkins. "Artspeak: a guide to contemporary ideas, movements, and buzzwords, 1945 to the present". Abbeville Press Publishers, 1997. [19] Roy Harris. "artspeak: the language of the arts in the western tradition". Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2003. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think a rename and substantial rewrite is a good solution. Artspeak as a concept is well-established but in a much wider scope than simply mocking art. freshacconci talktalk 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have "Artspeak," by Robert Atkins, and its companion book, "Artspoke," also by Robert Atkins. But "art bollocks" is entirely different. Art bollocks is negative. Robert Atkins is writing about something that is neither negative nor positive. He is just telling us about some of the dialogues that serve as a background to various types of art. "Art bollocks" is specifically pointing out the bullshit. And the bullshit is definitely real. It creeps into everything, almost, to some degree. And it has an overwhelming presence in some art settings. But then again that is not unusual—boloney can be found in many walks of life. I love reading catalogues for men's clothing—just to read the utter bullshit. They tell me that this is the shirt to wear on cool misty mornings by the campfire while making a cup of coffee. Yes, right. Well, "art bollocks" is just the same but aimed at the sophisticates who populate art galleries and art museums. Tell them something they don't understand—they'll love it. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we would need a rewrite. My reading of art bollocks is that it is a reaction to artspeak. Artspeak is a specialized language and like all specialized languages can easily be abused in order to obfuscate (such as legalese). I'm not convince that "art bullocks" is in wide-enough use to warrant a stand-alone article. But we don't have an article about artspeak in general and as a mocking of artspeak, art bollocks would easily fit there. Under legal writing we have a section on "legalese" which is a good parallel to what we are discussing here. freshacconci talktalk 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art bollicks describes the abuse of artspeak, and I'm reminded of The Fall lyric "praising the crap with words they could hardly pronounce"[20]. I would really like an article on artspeak; if Red Hurley is up for it, so am I. Art Bollick would be a subsection, a very substantial subsection because I've seen plenty of it myself and its a real turn off. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection makes sense - thumbs up...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. JNW (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that makes Art bollocks possible is the open-endedness of art itself. It's funny that you all accepted my comparison to men's clothing sales, because it is not comparable at all. We have a whole article devoted to "What Is Art?" Do we have an article "What is Clothing?" ~~(And why, pray tell, is "Art" capitalized in that title?)~~ This is a work of art. How is that possible? Because of the open-endedness of the definition of art. How can you possibly have an article on "artspeak"? Is that sourced? Even if it is—that ("artspeak") is the ordinary use of language—only applied to art. "Art bollocks," on the other hand (forgive the imagery), is a unique entity. Its existence is strongly tied to the open-mindedness with which the most sophisticated thinkers approach contemporary art: all of the art public maintains a characteristically open mind about the next creation by the next young person who calls himself or herself an "artist." Don't water down the subject of the article by placing it in a context where ~~we pretend that~~ it is of subsidiary importance. If anything, the term "artspeak" should be integrated into the "art bollocks" article. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you can turn the fact we ignored to "you all accepted my comparison to men's clothing sale" and then used your own bad example as a stick. Nobody is doubting the existance of the trend, just the article title. Nothing is done and dusted here, its all still under discussion. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not meaning to be confrontational. Just challenging. This is an interesting juncture. I like this stuff. I think a key question would be whether we think "artspeak" is a term deserving an article, and I think an important consideration in that would be whether we feel "artspeak" means anything special—is "artspeak" just language used to talk about art—or is "artspeak" special in some way, and uniquely applicable to talking about art? What we find about "art bollocks," I think, is that it is a unique byproduct of the need to use language on the slippery slope that is art criticism, or art theory, or connoisseurship. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that artspeak is a broader and more frequently used term referring to the often esoteric language employed in art's academic and commercial circles, and would be the umbrella under which art bollocks would fit. Now all that's needed are references to justify the artspeak entry, which could be differentiated from the current article by titling it 'Artspeak (terminology)' or some such. JNW (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Bus stop, I know well enough you are a good sort, and yeah its an interesting conversation. I think artspeak should be the main article; the exitsing page should be hatted. There is no doubt artspeak deserves a substantial article, as does what is described as 'art bollocks', its jst I dont think thats the right term. Its very late 1990s Brit art specific for a start, while I think the lesser minimualists were the most guilty of using ponification to justify pieces that were purely conceptual and had little astethic value. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not two separate articles? Esoteric is different from meaningless. That is the distinction that "art bollocks" gets at. "Art bollocks" is about pulling the wool over someone's eyes, while "artspeak" is merely the useful application of language to explain art. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Not meaning to split hairs, but 'bollocks' can still fit under artspeak as the pejorative reference to AS at its most painful. JNW (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is "artspeak"? Is it anything meaningful? Do reliable sources talk about "artspeak" in a way that sets it aside from other uses of language? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem from me on two articles, but again I really dont think bollock has currency, and I think its a term specific to Saatchi, and London media of the late 90s/early 00s. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have shown above that the term has an origin, and a definition—two key characteristics in establishing that a subject has an existence outside of Wikipedia, in my opinion. I don't know if it would be a lengthy article, but I think its existence is justified by sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in the current version of the article. Perhalps if Red Hurly was less indignant and self righteous they might. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two [21], [22] establish that it is a term. And I disagree that it is just "art" + "bollocks." It is that, but it is a reference for a certain type of hot air that is particular to visual art. One of its characteristics is its propensity for expanding the definition of visual art inexorably—to the point that everything is (potentially) art (understood to be visual art), and nothing is ruled out as being part of visual art. The phenomenon needs a label, and this one has stuck, at least to a degree. That is sufficient justification for an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. I conceed. And am keep. Good work Bus stop, your argument is solid. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil—I think this is the original article, from 1999, by Brian Ashbee, titled "Art Bollocks." Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your thoughts so far. Artspeak is also a derogatory term because it links to "Newspeak", the government language of George Orwell's 1984, but it is probably better known in the USA. I first heard "Art Bollocks" mentioned by a salesman at Sothebys in Bond Street, London, back in 2000, and considered that it was an ironic / sarcastic term, but one that non-academic lovers of art would immediately understand. However, few people in the art business will criticise a writer of AB in public because they are adding to the mystique of art for new buyers, who may soon be buying in places like Sothebys. Some critics of AB say it is too postmodernist and even Marxist in origin, but I would argue that contemporary art is a world away from Soviet art, and so there is lots of wiggle room for differing views. But what is Yworo's view?Red Hurley (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "artspeak?" Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are many terms for pretentious terminology in art criticism. This does not stand out as an especially dominant one. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be a reasonable objection to the existence of this article, if it were to hold up under scrutiny. Can I ask you to identify another such term? Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of other such terms. Pre-modified 'bollocks':postmodern-bollocks, gender-equality-bollocks, health-and-safety-bollocks. Post-modified 'art': art-shite, art-wank, art-crap. Art jargon is perhaps the article that needs to be written. The same shitey, wanky, bollocks, but a bit more tastefully expressed.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have a source on any of the terms you've presented? "Art-bollocks" is written about in sources. It is virtually defined. At least a suggestion is provided as to its intended meaning. Examples can be given because examples are actually provided by sources. "Gender-equality-bollocks" is a term relating to the visual arts? "Health-and-safety-bollocks" is a term relating to the visual arts? Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like Art jargon better than all the other suggestions...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What source supports the term "art jargon?" Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google books search throws up more for 'art jargon' than 'art bollocks'.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources provided in this discussion. It is possible that Art jargon would have more potential as a good article (the article right now is not very good, ahem), in which case I wouldn't mind bollocks being merged into jargon. But since we don't have the jargon, I think we need to keep the bollocks. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street Names of Paris, 1er arrondissement

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

Despite the title, this is not a list of streets but a list (not at all complete) of persons for whom roadways in a small part of Paris are named, which seems to fall foul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT in that it's based on an unencyclopedic cross-categorization of people with no intrinsic connection. The people listed are certainly not primarily notable for having streets named after them. Deor (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already has a good source and others are readily available, such as Premier arrondissement. It is our editing policy to keep such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "source" that appears in the article was published before any of the listed people (except Napoleon) were born, much less became eponyms, I don't think it can be considered relevant. Deor (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just a stub and it is our policy to improve these, not to delete them. That first source will be useful for older streets but to show the article's potential, I have added two more sources including one which specifically focusses upon explaining the names of the streets: Résistantes et résistants en Seine-Saint-Denis: un nom, une rue, une histoire. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but does need improvement. Clearly notable part of the world, could possibly be organised by street, rather than by person. Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considerable improvement is needed--I assume it is intended as a list of those streets named after notable people, not about every street in the area. It can be considered a summary article,because most of those streets are probably notable in their own right. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of them (to wit, all the ones named for people in the "Writers" section) are just walkways or arcades in the Forum des Halles shopping center, not streets "notable in their own right". Deor (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge information to the individual articles where it belongs. WP:PRESERVE is met. As the nomination indicates this is cross-categorization of people/battles/etc. with no intrinsic connection and no one is claiming that the individual streets have notability. It seems to be just an anti-orphan article device, not useful. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual streets may be notable, as the example of Rue de Rivoli, shows. And deletion and merge are incompatible recommendations - see WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, just delete. The majority of the streets are not notable. --Bejnar (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

The votecount is pretty much evenly matched. However, the "delete" arguments are stronger overall. They are based primarily on WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR; in addition, the scope is doubtful at best. Moreover, there exists a category for these articles already: Category:International organizations. Just because WP:CLS advises against deleting one in favor of another per se does not mean that both must be kept. In " Common selection criteria," WP:SAL, this list clearly fails the second and third criteria. For the first criteria, it fails "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

Several "keep" arguments are based on WP:EFFORT or WP:NODEADLINE without specifying an actual reason for retention. On a side note, there is no consensus on whether this list is potentially too long to manage effectively, but this is irrelevant as there are better reasons why this article should be deleted.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of international organizations

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unscoped and unverifiable. List is chock-full of n-n entries and I see no prospect of these ever being identified and removed. In any case I cannot imagine what use such a broad list could have to anyone. –Moondyne 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wildly indiscriminate and random list which would theoretically include many thousands of entries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I ran a check for UNICEF as a test. Nothing. It's pretty hard to take a list seriously that doesn't have that one, in my opinion. This is, however, a massive compilation of links, probably hundreds of blue links, which was launched back in 2005 and worked on by a large number of hands and its deletion should not be made cavalierly. I don't see this list being of much use, but neither is it of harm. The criteria for inclusion — organizations which are international in scope — is clear. Objections are that this objectively uncompletable list in nearly complete form would be massive; but this is a fairly massive list already. I argue that, misguided though the vast effort may be, this meets the Wikipedia standards for lists, that it might be of use to users, and that there is no sense in disrespecting five years of work by multiple editors with its deletion. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - According to Non-governmental organization, there's 40,000 International NGOs. Heaven knows how many other eligible entries that could come here also. The history shows a user copypasted a list on 11 October 2004 from here, entitled "NGOs eligible to attend the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference". Many of those don't fit the lede by a country mile. (eg. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council, Norwegian Independent Meat Association (KLF) etc etc.) The list has been tinkered with since but has never had a serious cleanup. –Moondyne 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it's incomplete is not justification for deleting the list. The fact that an individual organization itself is controversial (or n-n) is not reason to exclude it from the list. I can't find any WP guidelines for the criteria for including a "List Of..." article, but lacking policy in this area, I'll default to WP:OSE and suggest that if we can have lists of episodes in a season of a TV show, or a List of sovereign states, I can't imagine why this list shouldn't exist. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deadline. This should be improved not deleted.—Chris!_c/t 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an ugly mess, but worth rescuing. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - See above. Why would that happen all of a sudden now? And exactly how would you propose it happen? –Moondyne 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(s). Incomplete is not the issue, rather its a magnet for spam and other n-n entities because "international organization" is such a fuzzy term. DEADLINE is a different matter. ~~I do hope that someone will volunteer to bring this back to a verifiable and useful~~ list. –Moondyne 00:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Lets be honest, it'll never be of any use in the real world. –Moondyne 16:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a reason for this to exist as a list, but the categorization system doesn't seem adequate. If some of the organizations on the list are really international, their categorization doesn't reflect that, which may or may not be a problem. I lean towards delete. Roscelese (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding a good source which contains a similar list takes just a few seconds. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find lots of lists on the internet in just a few seconds. That doesn't mean we need an article on them. Here, make an article using this list as a source. SnottyWong ^confess 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the list Colonel Warden cited is apparently limited to intergovernmental organizations, whereas this article includes a much broader class of international organizations, the kind whose membership includes individuals and private businesses. The cited list is not that similar to the list this article has become. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^babble 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The singular fact that an organization operates over international borders does not make it notable. In this day and age, there must be hundreds of thousands of "organizations" which could appear in this list, and the vast majority would be non-notable. This list is as notable as List of organizations with buildings built of brick. SnottyWong ^yak 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with this argument is that the notability policy exists for articles not entries in a list. While I agree that many organizations on this list are probably n-n, it doesn't make the list itself n-n. In fact, I was just thinking this morning that it might be a fun personal WikiProject to start writing articles (or at least stubs) on organizations in this list for which sources can be found. Surely the concept of "international organizations" is notable... See WP:SALAT, Specifically "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." So maybe break this list up into individual lists on INGOs and IGOs? I'd really like to create sublists based on the type of organization or the group it serves (student vs. farm vs. poverty vs. hunger vs. whatever) but 1) that infomation is missing for the majority of entries and 2) what do you do with the organizations that cross over multiple categories? *sigh* Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a RFC on that exact question (ie. By what criteria do we judge the inclusion of list articles?) underway. –Moondyne 09:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm sensing a logical fallacy here. Please explain how you can have a list that consists of non-notable elements, but somehow the list itself is notable. SnottyWong ^confer 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WP:SYNTH –Moondyne 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about List of players currently in the New York Yankees farm system??? Each component part of a list need not be notable; the collective group encompassed by the list is what's important. I don't think anybody is going to argue that List of international organizations is not a particularly bad list, due to its open-ended nature and necessarily incomplete status. The question is what to do about it, if anything... Carrite (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't just delete a list because you fear it may one day grow too large. The information is quite encyclopedic, people able to find the organization and read a description about them quite easily. Dream Focus 08:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want to do is find articles, see Category:International organizations. –Moondyne 09:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories don't support red links and sources. Please see WP:CLS which explains the merits of lists vs categories and explicitly advises that one should not be deleted for the sake of the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Colonel for your advice; I am quite aware of the guideline. My issue is this is incomplete, inaccurate and of little use, and it always will be. I've read the lede and the linked articles and reckon the majority of links (red and blue) don't belong. The category is self maintaining and will be less ambiguous in terms of item membership, given the nature of the definition. –Moondyne 13:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category does not maintain itself: it is maintained by editors who seem to add such categories to articles without regard to our core principle of verification. Lists make better provision for accuracy and completeness and so your contention is supported neither by our guideline nor by simple logic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its self-evident that this list is neither accurate nor complete. One assumes that nn articles will sooner or later be deleted, and then at least the category won't contain the fluff we have here. My contention is that keeping this list accurate ~~and~~ or complete is not gonna happen. –Moondyne 15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia expects lists such as this to remain incomplete - see Wikipedia:Incomplete lists. Omissions and inaccuracies call for expansion and correction rather than for wholesale deletion. If the article seems too long, we can split it per WP:SPLIT into a structure as used by List of acronyms and initialisms. We could address concerns about spam-magnetism by requiring that new additions link to existing Wikipedia articles. (Compare WP:REDLINK, which states: "[...] rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first [...]".) While some readers may see no point in such a list, others will treasure it for its role as an ordered, alphabeticized repository expressing the richness, range and variety of international organizations. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is far to broadly defined and as such can never hope to be complete. Codf1977 (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a serious effort should be made to write articles for as many as the red links as possible. Significant national-level organizations will usually be notable. (And I think in this case a list could be justified as an exception even if this were not the case; an encyclopedia does partake of the functions of an almanac.). DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel and DGG. It should be easy enough to delete many of the nn red links after doing a search for sources and finding that any future articles would not pass WP:NOT - there would be no point in creating 100s of new stubs just to have to go through all the deletion processes for each one of them. There are only 1,186 entries on the list at present, and the sooner it is cleaned up, some rules for its expansion can be made.--Kudpung (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since there are probably hundreds of thousands of "organization with an international membership, scope, or presence", as per the definition in international organization, the scope of this list is unmanageably large and indiscriminate. Sandstein 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically per Sandstein et al. This is too large such that it is entirely unmanageable and basically useless, just like a hypothetical "List of people" would be. T. Canens (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ping me when the nonconsensus close, failed rescue, and desperation renomination transpires. I would torch the ashes into oblivion by, I dunno, creating a redirect to Category:International organizations after deletion (I know that's not realistic). Or call oversight. Such a list should start with a reputable source, and when it starts with hot-dog vendors eligible to attend WTO events, it should be deleted and rebuilt from scratch. And what is this with ACT UP and Greenpeace as big listees and the usual suspects not, a bit of undue weighting there? JJB 05:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What concerns me is the scope of this list. Should this list include the Association for Computing Machinery? The The Interuniversity Centre for Educational Research (a research school hosed in The Netherlands)? The Women's International Zionist Organization? The Liberal International? Blood and Honour? -- BenTels (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just a bit a extreme the scope that's all, could be split somehow. I agree with BenTels to an extent though that it needs some formal way of rooting out what should be included.Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This list has been compiled with no regard whatever to its stated scope. Apparently the article went wrong almost six years ago, when a "list of NGOs from list authorized to gather at WTO negotiations in Cancun" was dumped into the then-relatively short list without regard to whether those organizations had international scope. Many of the organizations listed proclaim in their names that they are focused on a single country (like the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions), part of a country (like Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association or Florida Citrus Mutual), or even a single city (like the Association of the Bar of the City of New York). Unless an organization clearly has an international focus in terms of its membership and activities, it does not belong on a list like this. Furthermore, if this is going to be a long, extensive list, it should probably be broken down into categories rather than being alphabetical. I recommend that this list be scrapped and, if there is a desire for it, it should be started again from scratch. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusion criterion unclear or too vast to be useful. Way too many red links makes it also pretty much unverifiable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- nebulous inclusion criterion, so it's hard to see how this list can avoid issues like being original research, being a mere directory and being too vast to be of any conceivable use to anyone. Reyk _YO! 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What does the argument "to big to be useful" mean? This is by no means the longest useful List on WP. Sure it needs trimming (Warsaw Pact? Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association? Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association? yeah they should go.) but that is not a deletion issue. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit notice: I believe consensus indicates at least that being included in the obscure 2004-inserted list of NGOs does not provide sufficient notability for inclusion on such a broadly titled list without significant balancing, because of severe misweighting of the title. I have deleted, with great irreverence and haste, all NGOs added from that insertion beginning with A through F, to demonstrate what the article would look like without this list. I still favor strong delete because the remaining list is just as haphazardly assembled and misweighted and is thus worse than a blank page. (In fact you can say that deletion only for A-F is misweighted and I would agree but reply it's still better than the biglonglist.) I think consensus agrees this topic title is a fine entry for Wikipedia, but this is not a simple WP:SOFIXIT, this is a rewrite-entirely, which is a deletion argument. That is, unless the article is rewritten entirely during discussion, a blank page or a wise redirect (I haven't bothered) would be much preferable. Hope this helps. JJB 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure if it is of any relevance, but: Can anyone actually come up with a situation in which this list may be of any use to anyone? Dr bab (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? It only lists international organizations (well, its supposed too). INdiscriminate would be a List of organizations. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there's 40K International NGOs alone. The definition is too broad to be of any use list-wise. Indiscrimate: Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective:. Yep. –Moondyne 23:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That still relies on the "to big to be useful" argument. Its simple enough to break it down to smaller lists if that is what you want, just like years have been (eg. 1945 1946 1947). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple {{sofixit}}. There's so much nonsense in here already, it needs to be re-scoped and rewritten from the ground up. –Moondyne 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. Although there is one negative vote besides the nominator's, I think WP:SNOW clearly applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Fesmire

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

Page Move: Page has been moved to Francis M. Fesmire during deletion discussion.

Keep This article is about a notable individual with thousands of Google hits. It needs cleanup and a more neutral tone. But I think this article should be kept. GauravGMa (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently notable, if barely, but article seems like spam. Not enough to G11, but too much to keep? Discussion needed, but I say delete. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:ACAD, but probably could use a rewrite for tone VASterling (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hagiographic spam. ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the one hand, I don't think we specifically need to have articles for all of those who have Ig-nobel's, but in this case, the Ig-nobel doesn't seem to be the heart of the article. When I went to the find sources scholar link, I got over 100 hits, one of which is the actual formal article on which the Ig-nobel was Awarded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)
Keep: Definitely needs improvement, but the subject seems notable. I've tagged the page with {{Rescue}} and {{expert-subject}}. -- BenTels (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BenTels (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you search FM Fesmire on google scholar you get over 1000 hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyfon9 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page has been moved by Tyfon9 to Francis M. Fesmire — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass WP:PROF. Has some coverage outside the Ig Nobel, including for being named a "Hero of Emergency Medicine".[23] Has an H-index of around 20, according to Google Scholar. Fences&Windows 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clinical medicine is not a high-publication, high-citation biomedical field (like say neuroscience). Nevertheless, WoS shows this person has >70 publications with an h-index of 18 and with >900 cumulative citations. This is a conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1. Article may need fixing, but it's not a candidate for deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Needs major cleanup though. We certainly don't need a gargantuan list of every paper the guy has ever written. SnottyWong ^confer 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes the notability guidelines, per Snotty Wong. High h-index. AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn by nominator, request close as speedy keep — Per Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin and snow. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quarry Road

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

Delete. Non-notable road, unreferenced, disputed prod. WWGB (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Also completely unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is a notable road. Note: if this is a section that is concurrent with a numbered route (State Highway 21, as the infobox claims), then it would be more appropriate to create/expand an article on that numbered route and include any sourced information there. Numbered routes are generally considered notable, but the myriad named streets that they run along in any given town do not necessarily have stand-alone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not demonstrate the subject's notability under WP:GNG. As is stated above, national or state highways are generally notable because thy government funds and maintains the road, the general public takes an interest in their highway systems and the press covers them as items of interest, commerce and mobility. The individual component streets used in a larger highway's routing need to demonstrate that those streets are notable on their own, and not "borrowing" notability from the larger highway. At this time, this article does not pass the test, but if it can, I would be willing to keep the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Road alone does not appear too important. Dough 48 72 20:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon on ABS-CBN

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

Non-notable television block. This article has been recreated after being deleted via PROD weeks ago. -WayKurat (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WayKurat (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not to mention it's written in a style halfway between advertising and complete nonsense. Second sentence: "Team Animazing gives quality kid-friendly time in the all-new "Nickelodeon Time."", whatever the hell that means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable television block. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable TV block, as said. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Was so ready to cut this down as a hoax, but an overly excited press release from the Philippine Star website (SpongeBob is apparently an "information-filled ride") proves it's real. Still not a real high-priority block though and not needing of an article. Nate • (chatter) 19:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMServ

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

Weak assertion of notability. --ZhongHan (Email) 12:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Invensys. -- BenTels (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, WP:NOTPAPER is about something else completely. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Pathogens

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

Reads like WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, and is written with a conclusion, so WP:POV. — Timneu22 · talk 12:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an attempt at a scientific paper and does not belong on wikipedia per wp:not paper. The concept it describes, pathogens as metaphor for the causes of accidents in a corporate environment, is mentioned several scientific papers and might make a decent article subject if somebody is willing to wikify the article. However, "Corporate Pathogens" gets no hits on google scholar [24], so I do not think this is the correct article name for the concept. Yoenit (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Yoenit: wp:not paper. -- BenTels (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Hairhorn (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driving factors for power management

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

Contested proposal for deletion. Original prod reason was "personal essay, no references". The author has contested the prod, adding references. The article, however, still remains a personal essay and thus violates WP:OR. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lead duplicates that of Very-large-scale integration, which isn't itself a deletion issue, but speaks to the fact that this is, apparently, an Essay. Power Management might be a notable topic, but the Driving Factors aren't. If this were the title of a book, and the article were about the book - ok, maybe. But this article appears to be Original research. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it does not seem to be in the proper form for an encyclopedia article, although the information is important. Borock (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Move to a talk page. We do have an article on power management, which in its current state is already almost entirely about microchips and computing. While this title probably isn't suitable as a redirect, and the current text contains a fairly stiff dose of original research and speculation about global warming and the like, there's enough references here to at least make this worth preserving on a subpage of that article's talk. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VLSI. -- BenTels (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Obsession (Shayne Ward album) to Shayne Ward and Gotta Be Somebody (song) to Gotta Be Somebody#Shayne Ward version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (Shayne Ward album)

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

Two Shayne Ward articles (album, single) presenting no real information, no reliable sources, violates WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG, WP:CRYSTAL. Suggest delete or redirect for both. - eo (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Shayne Ward until such time as they become notable. AnemoneProjectors 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, someone just wrote that the single is a cover of the Nickleback song "Gotta Be Somebody". If that can be shown to be true then it can be merged there. AnemoneProjectors 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yes, it is [25] so I shall change my !vote to Redirect Obsession (Shayne Ward album) to Shayne Ward and merge Gotta Be Somebody (song) with Gotta Be Somebody. Anemone Projectors 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, they will become notable I guess but not at the moment... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, Gotta Be Somebody (song) to Gotta Be Somebody#Shayne Ward version. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with redirecting to the secton as Gotta Be Somebody (song) could still refer to the original song. Anemone Projectors 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above i.e. Gotta Be Somebody (song) to Gotta Be Somebody#Shayne Ward version. Obsession (Shayne Ward album) should be redirected to Shayne Ward. Adam 94 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SJWS

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

Contested prod. Promotional article for a non-notable software product. May also be a trademark infringement of a Sun product, "Sun Java System Web Server", often referred to as SJWS. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NOTHOWTO andy (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For all the reasons cited by andy. There are many Java-based HTTP servers, this is just one of many. Same thing for template engines. This one isn't notable enough as yet to be on Wikipedia. -- BenTels (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence that the initials SJWS are a trademark of Sun or Oracle. However, I couldn't find any reliable sources to support notability at this time. — HowardBGolden (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Poliaček

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

PROD (seconded) twice removed by creator, without comment or improvement. The article is comprised mainly of unsourced appraisal of the subject's work (WP:POV). Of the references provided:

http://worldtrip.tv/themap/index.php?archivoffset=22 (Spiegel Online is just a very brief mention
http://designtaxi.com/news.php?id=2252 - very brief mention of the subject, site or its article is not about the subject
http://www.zivel.cz/index.php?content=article&id=283 is something he has written on a blog and is neither biographical nor autobiographical
http://www.czechdesign.cz/index.php?status=c&clanek=780&lang1 a non notable website having an article about an exhibition that includes an extremely short mention of the subjec's name. Kudpung (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish notability.Jeppiz (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:CREATIVE. Poliaček wrote an article for Živel (a very good magazine, btw) and he is briefly mentioned at the website www.czechdesign.cz. That's not enough. The information on his award (Excellent Design Award) is unverifiable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Last few comments established that this single has charted and therefore meets WP:NSONG. Shame too because it would have been cool to put "Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye" in the deletion log :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na Na Na (Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)

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

Apparently non notable single; hasn't charted, passing mention only in a couple of sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Chemical Romance - Whilst it's NN now, it'll probably lose one of those "n"s when it's released. Redirecting means that it's easy to bring it back when that happens. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This single will most likely chart within the next week or so. This entire discussion will be moot before it is closed. Basically this discussion is just a waste of time. – Zntrip 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys until it chart. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Zntrip. WereWolf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danger Days: The True Lives of the Fabulous Killjoys for now. Article currently fails notability criteria for albums. The redirect can easily reversed after the single was released and charted. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Artist is easily notable enough to have their first single in 4 years have its own page. Addug (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, can any of you !voting keep point to a policy that supports keeping this article? According to WP:NSONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Even if the song charts, is there enough material in reliable sources to flesh out a detailed article? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot argue with the assertion that the article was created prematurely, as it most likely was. However, this single will be officially released next week and more information, including chart positions, will be available. I understand that many editors do not consider this a valid argument as it is not supported by established policy or precedent. However, I appeal to everyone's notion of common sense: this single will most likely meet the requirements for notability within the next week or so; I am not invoking WP:EFFORT or WP:CRYSTAL, I am simply saying that this discussion will most likely be moot before it is closed and that editors should practice some degree of self-restraint when nominating articles, such as this one, which have a high probability of meeting basic article requirements in a reasonable amount of time. – Zntrip 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball, so I'm not able to predict which insufficiently sourced article's subject will become notable in the future. My question remains unanswered--even if the single charts, is there enough material in reliable sources to flesh out a detailed article on it own? According to policy, charting alone is not sufficient. I've looked around, and I sure don't seem much of anything out there now. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources already: MTV and KROQ. However you don't need a crystal ball to know that the single will be released on Tuesday: official band site and Amazon.com. All I'm saying is that it is more than a reasonable assumption to say that there will be more sources next week when the single is released. As I have repeatedly said, this discussion is moot if you take that into consideration because this discussion will most likely not be closed by then. – Zntrip 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:NSONGS, if this song is not notable, it should be merged or redirected to the album article rather than deleted. But if it is scheduled to be released as a single in a few days, it makes sense to withhold judgement until then. Rlendog (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article can be recreated when (if) this single gains notability per WP:SONG. LK (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Might chart" is not a valid rationale for inclusion. Nymf _hideliho! 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been officially released worldwide now as a single, and has gained considerable radio airplay. 125.237.240.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep has now charted on both the Billboard Rock Songs and Alternative Songs charts (which will be refreshed Thursday). Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, according to WP:NSONG, charting alone is insufficient. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NSONG:

Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources — Yes, I counted at least a dozen articles that refer to this song after searching on Google News.
"The musician or ensemble is notable" — Yes, the band has its own article
"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts ... are probably notable" — Yes
"Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." — This article is not a stub and, as stated before, there are multiple sources.

– Zntrip 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage for the song exists in multiple reliable sources such that WP:NSONGS is satisfied, in my view. For example, these four articles - [26][27][28][29] - each provide more than trivial information on the song. Given these sources, and probably others if required, an independent article is appropriate at this time. Also, just to follow up on the earlier comments regarding chart info, and as User:Yvesnimmo noted, there is a Billboard link showing the song's debut on two of its charts [30] which has been incorporated into the article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started "Background" and "Critical reception" sections using the four sources previously mentioned plus two others - [31][32]. Gongshow ^Talk 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charted single, decent coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ethnic Cleansing (video game)#Sequels_and_similar_games. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Law

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

Primary sources only; notability is questionable, because unlike its predecessor, this game received little to no media attention. Stonemason89 (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, the game has not received coverage by third party sources to prove notability. Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:52, 24 September 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) 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethnic Cleansing (video game)#Sequels_and_similar_games where it is discussed... Hobit (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aviad Meitar

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

CSD7 template removed by page creator. Article lacks any reliable and third party sources (WP:RS). Notability is not asserted under WP:NRVE and fails at WP:FAILN. Searches have not turned up other RS within the meaning of Wikipedia policy. The subject may in fact be notable, but it needs proving. Kudpung (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found three articles from Romanian newspapers that were entirely about him. Please try some BEFORE and click Google News, they're all right there. Silver seren^C 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sub-notable, being a CEO is not in itself enough for notability. The book is published by Booksurge, the print-on-demand wing of Amazon. Hairhorn (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how about the fact that he, essentially, brought Pepsi to Romania? And it doesn't matter how the book was printed, what matters is that it was covered by reliable secondary sources, as was the subject himself, as shown by the references. He easily passes notability standards. Silver seren^C 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Aviad Meitar isn't like any CEO's. There are several good reasons to maintain this article. We are talking about a man who brought one of the most important companies to the top level, in Romania, in a communist country, with all the challenges. His book just came out and will have a lot of publicity in the next coming months. He already won an award of the best business book of the year. (http://www.books-and-authors.net/BooksoftheYear2010.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella7272 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he brought Pepsi to Romania? Big deal. I'd have been more impressed if he'd taken Silver Spring's Dandelion & Burdock to the top there. I find a lot of promotion for a book that is, essentially, self-published. If the book achieves great notice outside the promotional whirl, then an article may (note 'may') be justified. Not until. See WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the book doesn't matter, what does matter is that there are multiple reliable sources that are talking about the subject, the person, not the book. The person is notable, even if the book may not be (but this article is not about the book). Please explain to me how the sources do not satisfy notability requirements. Silver seren^C 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the refs in the entry, I don't see it. Only one is an article article about him, the others are a short piece about the book and a press release about the book. Still fails the notability criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, please. Silver seren^C 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Current sources used in the article include the subject's own website, a blog, and three websites that are commenting on his self-published book. While other entities may have standards of coverage that recognize self-published sources, the criteria of Wikipedia to support notability prevail in this forum. Accordingly, the subject lacks notability and the article should be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again, there are sources that establish notability now. Silver seren^C 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added further references to the article. The major one to note would be this. Also, I would ask those voting delete to remember WP:INHERITED and WP:NBOOKS, which states that the author of a notable book does receive notability from it, as a principle work made directly by the author. And the number of reliable sources talking about the book (regardless of it being self-published), as the self-published section] on NBOOKS does not say that a self-published book is immediately non-notable, as there are exceptions, shows that the books seems to be notable. And sources that make it reach the GNG would show it to be an exception. Silver seren^C 19:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wall-street.ro is not a "major" source. I don't see any mass tonnage of sources making this book particulary notable, one of the refs given is a press release. Romanian wikipedia does not have an entry on this person. Hairhorn (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does the Hebrew Wikipedia - [33]. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have stated above that the article should be deleted due to lack of notability, the claim that the article is not appropriate based on presence or lack thereof in foreign language Wikipedias is an argument to be avoided. See ATA. Cindamuse (talk)

I don't understand. Are you saying that Wall-Street.ro is not a reliable source? Because it looks completely reliable to me. I said it was major because it was an interview with him that also has extended information about his history. Combined with the other interview and the other references I found, plus the apparent notability of his book, he passes the GNG easily. Silver seren^C 23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to be notable enough by the sources given. Wolfview (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and sufficient sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella7272 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tallest buildings in Mumbai. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberoi Woods Tower

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Galactic Traveller (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Mumbai, as this tower is only notable for one thing, but is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect per Armbrust. The subject doesn't pass WP:N, though a redirect is better. [34] gives a different figure for the height. Hut 8.5 10:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Also, I believe it is three towers (see towards bottom), similar to the Oberoi Spring Towers.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alanah Rae

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

Notability has not been established according to criteria presented at WP:PORNBIO. Has not won awards or been nominated; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; is not a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Therefore, I recommend the deletion of the article. Cindamuse (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she is a hottie, she still fails notability criteria for pornographic actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any awards or independent significant coverage to establish notability. Also, if you can't tell, she had her breasts enhanced, so they aren't truly natural. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, thus not very notable. Fails WP:PORNSTAR. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. I tried to save it, but failed when I could not come up with any awards or significant news coverage. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Chicotsky

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

Insufficient notability ; president of a college democratic club is not notability, and the sources are not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of a college democratic club has been deleted from the biographical information thereby satisfying the complaint. The references do satisfy the uncontested information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipGruen (talk • contribs) 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC) — PhillipGruen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN to say nothing of the conflict of interest. andy (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not an elected official, just a guy doing day jobs (like all of us). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree. Completely and utterly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and failed andy (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This person is clearly non-notable. Sources aren't good enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS indicating any sort of notability. Not even a politician, just a staffer of some sort. Obvious WP:COI given the history of the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable as student body president and Obama volunteer. Just kidding: delete with all deliberate speed Also, the image's license is inadequate. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicotsky.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk)
Delete. Nice try, kid. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I think this one could be a speedy under A7, as in no importance is asserted, and, in addition, no importance or notability can be credibly asserted. Ray^Talk 22:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As many of the keep !votes are not backed in policy, the reslt is delete, for reasons including that we are not a directory, and the notability of the line itself. Courcelles 02:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (2010 toy line)

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

Article does not establish notability for this product line. Sources are mainly pages at TFW2005, at least one of which appears to be about a then-uncomfirmed toy, likely stolen from a factory. Which is why it was sold for auction before they could properly identify what it was called. This is the kind of source TFWiki would avoid, since the information was from a non-reliable, not to mention (likely) criminal source. NotARealWord (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's s simple list article, with a variety of sources. Mathewignash (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Isn't this kind of list in violation of What Wikipedia is not? It seems to be an indiscriminate list of products, which would look better at a Transformers fansite or a shopping guide. About the sources, it's a big fansite. Plus there's that bit about the stolen toy. NotARealWord (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you decide to delete this article, why don't you simply delete each and every toy list article here on Wiki (and I'm not just talking about Transformers)? Maybe one of these days, someone will start an article titled "The Wikipedia Transformers article holocaust", which tells of the mass-deletion of dozens of Transformers-related articles.

What I don't get is why only Transformers articles are being singled out in this whole AfD fiasco. If you go to the Robotech articles, you will see that they're much worse in terms of management, references and notability - Areaseven (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I'm waiting for an answer. Is anybody home? Bueller? Bueller? - Areaseven (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, Areaseven:

Commenting that "Other stuff exists", might not win an argument.
Unless the "TF-article holocaust" gets significant outside coverage, it's not gonna be an article. Wikipedia stuff can't get articles unless they have notability outside Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush. But I do have a list of TF-related AfDs from August 28-ish to September 8-ish here. List may be incomplete.
I don't know much about Robotech, so I don't really deal with articles regarding that... yet.
There are people who will notice this. Be patient. -NotARealWord (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of complaining about the removal of TF articles, you should be complaining about the non-removal of Robotech, He-Man, etc articles. Are ALL the many and varied articles from other fictional universes actually about REAL-WORLD NOTABLE things from those universes or are they articles that would be better served on dedicated sites. I think Wikipedia is a very poor place to keep these things, dedicated sites (like Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, and tfwiki) would serve the purpose much better. --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to keep this article, really I do, but tw2005 is the only source - and that doesn't cut it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why WP can't have an article about a WP article, if the NYT has an article about the article. Having said that I think that we really don't need lists of toys, just an article explaining about the toys: Why they are important, etc. Borock (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, some stuff currently redirects to the article "Transformers (2010 toy line), those should be deleted too if this article is. NotARealWord (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see my response in the discussion with Areaseven above for rationale. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new sub-section of Transformers (toy line). Honestly, this is just too much minutiae and detail for a topic that doesn't see coverage in reliable sources, it is all from the same, tired fansite. Summarize this entire thing in a paragraph or two and put it in the main toy line article. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are as follows:

Transformers: Hunt for the Decepticons
Dust Storm (Transformers)
Tail Whip (Transformers)
Backfire (Transformers)
Breacher (Transformers) (which was an article that I nominated for deletion)
Crankstart
Firetrap (Transformers)
Oil Pan (Transformers)
Sunspot (Transformers)

These redirects would be meaningless when this article gets deleted. Since these characters have never appeared outside this specific toy line, the redirects should get deleted. Although, the first one could redirect to the page on TF toy lines in general. NotARealWord (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that point to targets that are deleted are eligible for Speedy Deletion (Criteria G8, as I recall). A bot would tag them thus, and an admin with time to kill would delete them. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not merge. Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue, and the entire thing is exclusively sourced to a fansite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the stuff currently redirecting to the article discussed? NotARealWord (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much about the redirects with "(Transformers)" after them, as I don't magine many people will ever type that into the search box, but that said it someone wants to retarget them to the list of Autobots or whatever then they can go right ahead. Redirects are cheap, after all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, they might still need to exist for Disambig pages and other articles. For instance If someone wanted to look up character from a TV series, and their name was a commonly used word, like Wheelie, who was recently deleted, I'd want links to it from other article to continue to forward to the 2009 Transformers movie character page, not just be dead links to be removed. Mathewignash (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the names "Breacher", "oil Pan", etc. have never been used before in TF, and if they ever are again, it would likely be for entirely unrelated characters, possibly of different faction than he original. Plus, redirecting o a TF movieverse-related list wouldn't be appropriate, considering that we're not quite sure if these guys live in a movie-related universe. So yeah, redirecting anywhere after this article gets deleted isn't a good idea, or it won't be after Hasbro reuses those names for entirely different characters. NotARealWord (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent, reliable sources to grant independent notability. Thus fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is weakest of all transformers weak notability and poor "sources". Dwanyewest (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify -- The list of actual products should be axed per WP:RS and WP:NOTINFO. I would not be surprised, however, if various toy-focused news outlets discuss and comment about the pending release of the figures/reaction to them. I'd be fine retaining the lede and expanding with critical commentary. Might also be appropriate to merge the lede, esp. reference to joint release with book series, to an overarching Transformers toy article, if one exists. I note the ARS tag, and think this might be a rescue-able article if there's third-party material [I don't know the Transformers press coverage world to know] -- if their efforts come up blank, however, with no significant third-party sources by the time the AfD winds down, the entire article should be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The toys of such a notable series are notable. Year by year for organizing them is fine, there enough information to fill up the individual articles. Anyone wishing to study toys or whatnot would find this very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 23:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it's notable, there should be sources besides fansites. Plus, there's that stolen toy bit I mentioned above. NotARealWord (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another WP:ITSNOTABLE to discount. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment the sources are WP:FANSITES and are therefore unreliable. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:FANSITES is a section of hte External links guideline, not the references guideline. NotARealWord (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whisher

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

Reason for Nomination: Article has been prodded for Notability since September 2008. Fails to establish notability. Does not meet guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) KVIKountry (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added several references that indicate notability. The company achieved a high level of recognition for its contribution to the WiFi sharing communities, and is one of two WiFi related companies in Spain. Nullzeronull (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another potential source.

That is a reproduction of the CNET source that was already in the article. It exists twice in the article now.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there enough for notability if the negative BLP material sourced only to an industry blog is removed? DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barest of keeps: If I were writing the article, I'd think I'd have just barely crossed the bar of notability with the present sources, but I'd also keep working, cut back the unsourced comments, and find more sources. Alternately, move and expand to Wifi.com, enh, maybe. Relist it another week. JJB 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP. Coverage of company died down in 2008. Also, the reference for "several press mentions and awards since its inception" is a blank page along with the wording being vague. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP claims of notability are a BLP-problematic (not to mention rather run-of-the-mill) financial lawsuit, and a vague claim of recognition which, as noted above, is sourced to a blank page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fixed the reference to the press mentions and awards by pointing to other sources. Also added one other source of ongoing information regarding the lawsuit, which is not run-of-the-mill, as it involves Swisscom, one of Europe's largest telecommunications operators, with public participation by the Swiss government. The BLP negative info is not untrue nor libelous, but based on factual information.Nullzeronull (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (CET)

I didn't see it recieving an actual award in any of those references, just being a finalist. The press mentions along with the sources are from 2007-2008. With that, my concern remains that this company drew some attention at its launch but didn't follow through. The law suit section has two reference, one of which is from the company and not independent. I can't find much else on the law suit issue aside from what you added. That is why I question the comapany and its lawsuit's notability.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager (metal band)

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

Non notable band. Does not satisfy WP:V, no sources besides social media pages (myspace and youtube). meshach (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article about Voyager (metal band) should be deleted. It is being used as de-facto free advertising for the band. The posters on the page don't appear interested in the history of bands called "Voyager". Any mention of those other bands by that name are edited out by them. In other words, anyone looking for a full appraisal of how/why/where/when the name "Voyager" came to be used for a band is given a very restricted picture, pointing them exclusively to this band, and only this band. If this article is to remain, its title should be changed to reflect that it is ONLY about ONE specific band.Thereisnohope (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC) _{Moved from the talk page. meshach (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

They didn't remove the info about your band, I did and I have nothing to do with either band. This article is about ONE band called Voyager, not about others which share the same name. If your band is notable (see wp:band) then an article can be made about them, but not with the info you have been adding as that appears to be purely original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a review in dB Magazine, a small article in Central Coast Express ("VOYAGER - GET OUT" on 11 November 2009) on the band and an article in Guardian Express ("A law unto himself" on 24 November 2009) about Estrin and his band, Voyager. IMO getting close to the coverage needed. They got a WAM Heavy Rock Song of the Year from the WA Music Industry Association and "and I Am the Revolution has become Album of the Week in Romania on their biggest metal website", neither good enough for me. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed to reflect actual article content, I was half thinking of another unrelated article when I made the mistake. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band with not verifiable or reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's not verifiable or reliable about the sources I provided. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all it fails WP:V, also I fail to see how it is classed as reliable. Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do the sources I provided fail wp:v? We have a link for one and the papers names, articles title and publication dates for the others. It being which one? What about the other two? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to duffbeerforme above). You ask "How do the sources I provided fail wp:v?" Those are self published sources. YouTube and MySpace should not be linked from this page and they do not confer any notability to the article. I have removed both links. Please read the following page: WP:RS. meshach (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What make you think dB Magazine, Central Coast Express and Guardian Express are self published? What does YouTube and MySpace have to do with those three publications? I have read WP:RS and see nothing to make me question the Verifiability of the three articles I introduced to this discussion. My question still remains. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has NOT "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". Fails WP:BAND. WWGB (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trendio.com

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

the website has closed, was is notable enough to have an article ? Melaen (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Delete, weakly. Yes, this was a website that was briefly written up in the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, which certainly count as multiple A-list sources. It was flash and then fizzle, like so much Internet- and tech-cruft. The guiding philosophy on Notability in Wikipedia is indeed "long term historical notability", and this web gimmick had none. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. I changed all of the verbs to past tense and replaced the link to the defunct web site with the last Internet Archive version (2008). I found a mention in a Montreal newspaper and suspect there may be some more. A minor player, yes, but maybe worth preserving as a (mildly) notable Internet artifact. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still a keep (I'm not affiliated with this site nor heavily invested in its rescue). Same reason. An interesting artifact of a bygone site. An internet footnote, but a footnote nonetheless. Note: For some reason my early "past tensing" didn't take (I probably didn't hit SAVE PAGE or something like that). Fixed now. Article is past tense and points to archived final recorded page. --Quartermaster (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention in the 2007 Ottawa Citizen to the article so notability is being (albeit weakly) claimed by mentions in WSJ, Time Magazine, and Ottawa Citizen. Except for a couple of blog mentions, no other sources come up using Lexis-Nexis Academic database. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently this was a complete and total flop, but it did get attention in its (very brief) day, mostly due to its weird concept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is thin at best, but it's there per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Witness (band)

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

Unresolved A7 CSD question open for discussion: Is Mediaskare Records an "important indie label" that meets criteria #5 of WP:BAND? If so, then #5 is met because their prior album was definitely issued through an important indie. My opinion: Mediaskare may be on its way to being an important indie, but isn't there yet. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaskare is an important indie label, and they have recently become associated with Century Media Records for distribution. http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=90490 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkornek (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's some significant coverage in Le Journal de Montréal [35] and in SooToday.com [36]; this one also verifies that the band had a "full" tour of the US. And for what it's worth, I found a number of US newspapers that at least verify the band's tour of the States (often the headlining act), although I could not find concert reviews. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Welding Bureau

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the organization is noteworthy, but the article is in need of cultivation and TLC. The organization offers courses across Canada. PK T(alk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it gets some coverage. [37]. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steel in Africa

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

Delete. "Steel in Africa" is not a topic than can be covered by an article. What about iron? Should it be about steelmaking? Or mining iron ore? Why limit to a continent? The article has not gone very far since 2009o. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't share the nominator's concerns about the nature of the article, only the minimal content currently present. I added a few sentences; a quick review of literature indicates there is discussion of this in the professional economic literature. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - complements Iron ore in Africa. Tabletop (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator only gave reasons for possibly expanding the scope of this article, or for creating other articles. Neither of those processes requires deletion of this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Diesels

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

Cannot find any indication the film has started filming. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for reasons above.
HiT Entertainment announced in 2009 that they were working on a theatrical 'Thomas' movie. This we have a reference for (see Thomas and Friends). The reference states neither a name nor an actual release date. A new reference added to the same article yesterday (about the impending sale of HiT and/or the 'Thomas' brand by its current owners Apax) noted that a particular screenwriter (can't rememember his name off-hand) was working on a latest re-write of the screenplay, so it would seem the project is still live. This new reference (from a theatrical? business site) did not mention a name or release date either.

The one 'reference' in Day of the Diesels is the Thomas Wikia, which is run and monitored by Thomas fans and is usually fairly good for checking some of the more wild claims added by fans in the pages of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Wikia includes an article on Day of the Diesels, with no information on where this name came from -- hence it is being re-added as a 'fact' to the Thomas and Friends page on a monthly basis (along with four or five other suggested names for the film). I sincerely hope that HiT makes a formal announcement soon, as I am fed up of cleaning that page!

-- EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (from WP:THOMAS)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per too soon for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Additionally, I can see some bits in this article that are certainly obvious that this film has not been revealed yet:

1. The plot section is completely blank. UPDATE:The plot that was on this page was considerably copyrighted from [38] which is a Wiki type of site and like the Thomas Wikia mentioned above, it is has no mention of where the name came from or any sources.

2. The running time for the film is listed here even though when Toy Story 3 was released the running time for it was not revealed until May 2010 (one month before the film was released).

3. When I type in the first few words of this title in the search box there are numerous results coming up including Day of the Dead, Day of the Daleks and Day of the Dove. The user may have been faking the title of this film with the first one.

4. The film's release date would have been confirmed if this film would be released next year. Cars 2 for example which comes out next year has already confirmed the release date (June 11, 2011).

5. The Characters section only lists 2 characters (Thomas and Percy) and then it says "Diesel, Diesel 10, The Fat Controller, and the rest of The Steam Team are likely to appear" which is written as being speculative and therefore is also a WP:CRYSTAL. UPDATE: Dennis, Victor and Kevin have also appeared in this section now.

In the Google searches the only results (other than this article) are trailers from Video sites (Youtube, AOL, etc.) and one of them is titled as a "Fan-made trailer" therefore stating the obvious that the trailers are completely fake. The user who created this article HoorayforOliver deleted the PROD tag (that this article was proposed for deletion earlier) and wrote in the edit summary "It WAS CONFIRMED BY THE EX. PRODUCER AFTER A YOUTUBE USER INTERVIEWED HIM. HE CAN BE FOUND ON YT AS 'THOMASPERCYANDTOBY2'. STOP DELETING YOU DUMBASS." and of course Youtube is clearly not a reliable source in most cases. trainfan01 20:52, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28th SEA Games

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

Massive WP:CRYSTAL violation with unsourced speculation. Previously deleted at AFD and then re-deleted by speedy for recreation; the article's proper name (2015 Southeast Asian Games) is protected against recreation for this reason. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also per WP:NOTNEWS. It's far too early to build a sensible article out of what we got, without it turning into a news article with blow-by-blow coverage. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears as speculation right now, and I doubt there is truly any credible information on the event apart from the fact that it will be hosted. If the event was as major as say the Olympic Games, then it can be retained; but clearly its not and there's a paucity of reliable info. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk ♨ 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 FINA Diving World Cup

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. The article contains an unsourced lead, and an otherwise-useless piece of statscruft. PROD contested. Possibly could be kept as a stub but that wouldn't be of much use at this time. Delete, but with no prejudice against creating a significantly different and improved version of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is certainly lacking in prose, I don't see a reason for deletion. Medal tables and lists of winners are standard for sports events like these and definitely not stats cruft. In fact there is a large number of featured lists about olympic medal tables and lists of winners (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Featured). Yoenit (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Yoenit. While the article could use some fixing up, the format is similar to other tables/lists of winners of sports events. (Also, there is an article for the 2010 FINA Diving World Cup that is not contested.) --Julie22193 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly because whatever prose is in there is at the very least sourced. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article itself isn't in the greatest shape. but the event itself certainly was notable. I don't think the thinness of the prose, or its present stub condition, warrants deletion. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garlic Brown

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

The subject does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources, see the general notability guidelines for what is required for a subject to have a stand-alone article. Most of the links and sources in the article as it stands now are essentially directory listings or "anyone can edit" type sites, like ReverbNation. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you mean this isn't an article about cooking? Other than one Myspace link, all the prominent Gsearch links are food related. Or just redirect to garlic ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Brasse Vannie Kaap, as article fails notability criteria for musicians, no notability outside the band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to this redirect. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect - There seem to be just enough sources to establish notability under WP:GNG but a redirect to Brasse Vannie Kaap could also be a good solution as they don't appear to qualify under WP:MUSICBIO (although I'm sure with a bit more digging through the food articles something could be found). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please be so good as to cite one of those sources here that you feel helps satisfy the GNG? I'm not sure which ones you are talking about. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Since the initial nomination for deletion I added two substantial references and thinking the matter resolved removed the article from nomination. Or so I thought. Since then someone else has added a third reference concerning the Hip Hop Connected musical, a very notable event. Brasse Vannie Kaap was a very big group in the history of South African music, even performing for President Nelson Mandela, and Garlic Brown's career, while not as well known, is an ongoing and burgeoning story. As user:panyd says, a superficial glance at the search results for ("garlic brown") will not yeild much, but try (knoffel bruin). He's featured on Die Antwoord's album, which has been downloaded and streamed over several million times. He's connected to Jack Parow, one of our countries biggest stars. South Africa's musical history has not been well documented on the internet but carelessly deleting attempts to establish one is not helping. Remember, wikipedia was not built in a day. Es-won (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Es-won, would you please clarify which of the sources in the article you feel satisfy wp:GNG? Or even sources not in the article yet? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With respect to the references, the first doesn't mention the artist at all. The second is a database listing, which doesn't go towards notability. The third item I don't have the complete text for [39], but even if it did provide significant coverage of Brown (as required by WP:GNG), would not by itself establish notability, more than one article is required. I also attempted some souring searches myself, nothing via Gbooks/Gnews using either name, and while the musician clearly exists, none of what references I can find via Gweb (and perhaps I'm missing something) go towards satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Note: I have no problem with a redirect, though. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reber

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this name that would justify an entire article. D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a few Rebers on Wikipedia, this could give basic information about the surname and link to those articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, we could have the article that was originally here before it was hijacked. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the name of that company be something like Reber Automobile? And it closed over ne hundred years ago after being open for only a year, hardly the first thing that comes to mind for Reber. I can't even Find Reber as a car manufacture in Google easily, but create an article under the actual company name and add a link to it from the Reber article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a company. It's an automobile, and its name, as you can find by looking it up in Georgano and Andersen's New encyclopedia of motorcars (ISBN 9780525932543) is the Reber. Uncle G (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per Uncle G, restore original article. If there's consensus to keep the current content -- and why not? there are plenty of other articles about individual surnames -- create a new article "Reber (surname)" and disambig. Jimmy Pitt talk 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Strange nomination. Valid as both an article and as a dab page. i've recreated the original at Reber (automobile). This should now serve as a dab page I think.Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican Freemasons

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

On its face, it seems this article is superfluous, containing information easily found elsewhere. Also, to what extent of granularity do we travel in supporting lists? Should we have "Freemasons from Macon, Georgia" or "Freemasons with one ear missing"? If we decide the article's topic is notable enough to keep, it's gonna require some copyedits to clean it up. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the spotty edits; I'm new at this!) I neglected to mention this article was also subject to a contested PROD and seems to fail the criteria listed in WP:N. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly specific topic. Some of these entries may be able to be Merged into the broader List of Freemasons (However, reliable sources that verify Masonic membership will be required for that list) but at this point there is no need for that list to be broken up into "by country" sub-articles. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree this is an overly specific topic. The two references currently on the article are both primary sources from the masonic lodge in Puerto Rico, the first one is the lodge website and the other is a press release. Looking through the linked articles, only two mention Freemasonry. One confirms he was a Freemason. The other just says he was accused of being a Freemason and was jailed because of the accusation. The one confirmed Freemason is already listed on the List of Freemasons so there is nothing to merge. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discovered in NPP and original prodder. Prod was removed in therory "By Accident" but becuase it was removed it was contested. 'List of X that are Y', WP:LISTCRUFT apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This strikes me as an acceptable list — long enough without being too long, providing easily understandable inclusion criteria, potentially of use to Wikipedia users, and providing significant blue links. My concern is with the sourcing, which is non-existent. Carrite Sept. 24, 2010.

The lack of sourcing is a serious problem, with potential BLP issues (accusing someone of being a Freemason can have religious consequences). So is the fact that fully a quarter of the names on the list are redlinks. Are these notable people, or vanity additions? Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I looked at everyone of the blue links and only 2 of the blue links even mention freemasonry. 1 of the two said the person was accused of being a freemason, but does not say he was a freemason. The other one does say he was a freemason. All but one of the blue links should probably come off the list. None of the other ones are sourced at all. There is no indication that the redlinks are notable either. So if we remove all the blue links where their article does not mention freemasonry and all the other because there is no sources and there is no indication they are notable, we have a list with one name. Not much of a list. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds conclusive to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I understand the article is not in a perfect state yet, but could be really useful to Wikipedia Puerto Rican users. The info is not superfluous or as mentioned before easily found elsewhere;please remember that masonry tend to have a secretive tradition and in Puerto Rico they were persecuted for a while. For that same reason the current biographical articles in wikipedia not necessary will include the fact in their sketch. Also please remember that Wikipedia is a work in process and not the final authority, again because the linked articles don't have the info does not mean is not true. The same could be said about the names in red, they are not necessary "vanity additions" is just that they have not made it to wikipedia yet...(but they will soon!)Finally, i will like to add that if every of the linked article are read carefully you will notice their notability in Puerto Rico's history and that the connection with the principles of freemasonry will give insights to the reasoning and circumstances of this Puerto Ricans and their work. --Caferato (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that still only 2 members of the list have claims of masonry in their articles. An example I could think of would be claiming that a politician was a member of Skull and Bones after they had died. Nobody can provide public sources which say that they are, and nobody can definitiveley say that they were not. I would prefer to error on the side of not including them Hasteur (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I also add that there is already a Wikipedia category call "Freemasonry by country" which shows that there have been a need for the topic to to be broken up into "by country" sub-articles...I suggest we do the same with the list of freemasons, especially when a country have more than 30 historical figures like this case!!--Caferato (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caferato... a laudable idea... but do you have sources to support what you say? If so, then we can create a Freemasonry in Puerto Rico article... but if not, then we should not. It all comes down to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone Horror

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

Non-notable film lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Article Prod was removed by author> Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a pretty non-notable movie. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As the filmmaker is Anthony Porrey and the article author is User:Aporrey, I think COI is more than apparent. The director does have a Myspace page... but film and filmmaker are not even non-notable enough to make it to IMDB. Neither he nor his films has any coverage in reliable sources. Sorry Anthony... get your film releasd, get some coverage, win some awards... and then perhaps someone not involved with the film will write the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open and Shut

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

Dubious notability. Prod declined. Wouldn't make sense as a redirect, as an (equally non-notable) House episode hast the same name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's a CSI NY episode. What if a Lost episode was bad? That would still be put on wiki, right? CSI NY is a notable show. If this were a good article to delete i'd call this "an open and shut" AfD. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be an excuse to have tag on trivia. Best case redirect to CSI NY. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpshot Films

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

Non-notable company. Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources unconnected to the subject. Fails WP:CORP as well. ^Bongo_matic 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as reliable secondary sources are not available and the company appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review, new sources provided. --Wikimanage77 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No new sources, delete. —I-20 the highway 15:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see any notability here. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic appears to be notable. The article just needs some work. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search straight away points to this article [40] in the Seattle Times, talking about the 19 year veteran film producer, and this his company. Wikipedia so far only has one article for any of the movies this production company has created, Max Rules. A production company is notable for its films produced and who it is associated with, just as a record company is notable for its hit albums and what famous musicians have signed with it. Dream Focus 23:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect reading of the guidelines. If the individual is notable, so be it. That doesn't make a company founded by him notable automatically as notability is not inherited. ^Bongo_matic 01:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in the article only prove that the company exists, not that it is notable. Many of the sources never even mention the term "Jumpshot" at at all. The source provided by Dream Focus above mentions it once (in parentheses). SnottyWong ^comment 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DELETED. Nominator also placed a CSD template on this article. Article had no context (A1), and actually was a brief snippet about JoAnne Favors, not about the position of state rep for district 29. Orlady (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee State Representative, District 29

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

Related to the Joanne Favors AfD. Creator removed A3 speedy tag. Really should be speedied and salted for this reason. Raymie (t • c) 00:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as there don't appears to be any other articles on Tennessee State House districts, but they could possibly be created in the future unless guidelies prohibit them. However, there is already an article on Joanne Favors, as she is a sitting member of a state legislature. Salting is probsbly unnecessary unless this article has been created here or elsewhere several times before. There are other ways to handle removal of speedy tags, assumin gthe article was qualified for it in the first place. - BilCat (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1, having no context. Next time a creator removes a CSD tag just warn and revert him. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JoAnne Favors. Redirecting to article about the same subject. However, since this article is completely unsourced, anything merged will also be unsourced so I'm deleting the history per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnne H. Favors

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN – also, borderline G12 if it is too close of a copy of her official site. Raymie (t • c) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, for now~~ - Per WP:POLITICIAN, point #1: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." She is a state legislaturist, so she meets the "generally notable" threshhold. Article need reliable sources, but that can be addressed. - BilCat (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I independently found the other article just now. Suggest Speedy close as Merge, which could have been done immediately, except the nom added the AFD after only 25 minutes, a bit premature in hindsight, and with obviously very little effoer made to confirm the politician was not notable, or had an existing article. Sloppy - if you're going to take the serious step of an AFD, make sure you do it right. - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful additional content and redirect to already-existing article Joanne Favors. (Unless I am somehow mistaken that these are the same person.) She clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN and as well I find hundreds of news sources covering her activities at Google News.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joanne Favors, as proposed by Arxiloxos. --Orlady (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Joanne Favors per the above. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Nikkimaria. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Minear

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

Incoherent mess with little notability: wasn't sure if any CSD criteria applied, so brought it to AfD. Raymie (t • c) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note A7 speedy tag added as I was doing the AfD. Raymie (t • c) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete thanks to the speedy deletion tag. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of the Heartless Monster

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

Nothing is really known about this album and no content has been released yet. It was formerly known as Black Mangic and nobody can predict if it is going to be renamed again and when it comes out. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* As creator of the article, I ensured that there was plenty of sourced information about the article. If see and check the amount of references of the page, there is plenty evidence to suggest that this album does exist and is currently in production - more information about the album regularly comes to light too. No one needs to predict if the album name will change again because no one's job on wikipedia is to "predict" information - only to located information and use it as reference. If 50 Cent changes the album name again, then so be it. Remember his "Curtis" album? "Before I Self Destruct" was in production before it until he switched the albums around - it's not like anything like this has not happened before. As aforesaid, if you think nothing is known about the album, take your time to read every reference on this page - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this album DOES EXIST. 92.4.11.151 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) — 92.4.11.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article is very notable, and why does it matter if he changes the name of the album. Does it make any of the information on the page any less correct? ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the information on this page are incorrect, the problem is that little is known about this album. We have no tracklist, no songs and we don't know if this is the final album title. So it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER, and that is why it should be deleted or at least incubated until further information is availiable. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NALBUMS applies here, only future albums with confirmed release dates can have an article. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. LK (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No release date in sight or coming anytime soon. Wp:CRYSTAL. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Hardy

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

A "semi-professional tournament blackjack player"? A tournament win and a couple of TV appearances don't equate to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No sources. Even the single external link provides very little evidence of notability. Cresix (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? A pro blackjack player? I could post videos on youtube and i'd be more notable than this. Might be an advertisement. But even still,
Agree to the comment above. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some poker players are notable, but blackjack? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poker is a televised sport, blackjack is not — despite the experimental efforts of a couple shows to test whether it is. —Carrite Sept. 24, 2010.

I do not think being televised is the standard for either individual notability or for what counts as a notable sport DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J*Company Youth Theater

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

No reliable non-trivial coverage of this theatre group. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The group does get a little news coverage, but mostly just announcements of upcoming plays. And they have won a bunch of awards from the National Youth Theatre (Southern California Division), but it's unclear how notable those awards are; as one indicator, the National Youth Theatre awards don't have a Wikipedia presence. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Murray

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

This journalist's primary claim to notability is apparently being the model (unsourced) of the protagonist of two Evelyn Waugh novels. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Does not meet notability even it is sourced. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is true--and I beleive it is, from my own reading about Waugh, and the sources exist, then it's certainly notable. VASterling (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just sourced the Basil Seal information. Moreover, Basil Murray is discussed in the autobiographies of Evelyn Waugh and Arthur Koestler as well as Anne De Courcy's bio of Diana Mosley, not to mention several books about the Spanish Civil War. He's clearly a figure of some importance to anyone who wishes to understand upper-class British politics and culture of the 30s. It seems to me that the article is crying out for more research, not deletion.Ritwik2000 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritwik2000's reasoning and efforts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs expanding, not deleting. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it was I who started the article and the only reason I did was because of the Basil Seal connection, which I'd read about in a book (the name of which I've forgotten) on real-life inspirations of fictional characters. On this basis it probably wouldn't meet notability criteria. However if as Ritwik2000 says this could be expanded with further information the article should be kept. Opera hat (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necar Zadegan

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

Only trivial roles; all roles are only one or two episodes except for a single 20-episode quartenary character on 24. No reliable sources found, just IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect her page to the season 8 of 24. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empires (band)

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

notability in question Ubot16 (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. A decent article, but I could not find support for any of the WP:BAND notability criteria except for possibly #1, in the references section. Not sure if that's enough. GregorB (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. GregorB (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Their albums are self-released and they have not won any major award. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is true, but what about WP:BAND #1 (i.e. coverage by independent sources)? I am myself unsure if these are sufficient, but I'm willing to err on the side of caution. GregorB (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Absolutepunk ([41], [42]) which is a forum and Youtube are not reliable. Two reliable sources are not enough. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutepunk is not really a forum, but it seems to feature non-professional reviewers, which would make it a non-RS. I'm abstaining. GregorB (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Utterly non-notable. Fails WP:BAND. First album was free download, and second album is on their own record label??? Give me a few dollars and I'll create a more notable band. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do I need to explain? The references here are a joke. There are five "references," three of them are interviews, another is a press article, and the last is a profile on some sort of forum. Obvious that this should be deleted. Might be a speedy on CSD A7 for a band. This should be closed due to WP:SNOW. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 01:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notabilty is pretty much zero, also no Allmusic page to verify anything. The album HOWL will also need to be deleted. Mattg82 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FK Ohrid Lote

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

Article does not seem notable, nor references reliable. There's always Ohrid leto though. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new reference showing played in national cup, and is therefore notable. Giant Snowman 14:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable club. --Carioca (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the club played in a national cup competition. --Carioca (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought that clubs competing in their nation's cup competition would generally be considered notable. According to the article text, this club advanced to the 1/16 round of the cup competition (not sure which season because RSSSF shows Bregnalica playing another club in the 1/16 round of the 2009/10 cup). If the cup information could be verified, it seems like the club is probably notable. By the way, we also have to be careful in checking for sources that we don't confuse this club with FK Ohrid, which is a notable club, as I have mistakenly done. Jogurney (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a reference verifying the club's 2010/11 cup performance and there are a number of Macedonian-language references available about the club. The article is a mess - I started reformatting it, but I imagine any second division club in Macedonia is notable, especially ones that feature in the national cup competition. Jogurney (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - clubs playing in national cup competitions are generally considered notable. This one is no different. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in a national cup competition. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Shea

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

The article Patrick O'Shea was written and edited by himself, no other editor contributed to the article save for minor grammatical fixes and adding tags. The only notability the subject can claim is a passing write up in a local newspaper, seen here. The only links the subject can provide for sources are his own person website, the website of his employer and a localized wiki which he crated and edited. The subject does not meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Notability (people); O'Shea has not received widespread attention, has only passing mentions of his name even in local settings, he has not produced material which is cited by his peers, he is not well-known in his field and he has not had a significant exhibition. Given O'Shea had to create and edit his own article entirely, it appears more to be self-promotional than providing any benefit. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete wp:MUSICBIO is the relevant notability guideline in this case, not wp:artist. Nevertheless, he doesn't seem to meet either of them. Yoenit (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the wrong categorization, and thank you for fixing the link. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable COI biographical article without reliable sources. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC.VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Non-notable BLP without reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure self promotion per nom.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. clearly fails wp:MUSICBIOTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO and a self indulgent spamfest to boot. ukexpat (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, self promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing basic notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems I have annoyed Xanderliptak by challenging his authority in the field of heraldry, which is dubious, but that is a separate issue. At any rate, this is a waste of my time, so by all means delete the article. However, be wary of the fact that Xanderliptak does seem to use this tactic as a means of attacking those who dare to question his contributions. Administrators should bear this in mind. The article had been up since November 2007 with no significant objections. Only now, when he is questioned on another article, does Xanderliptak lead the charge for deletion. That's fine. Xanderliptak will now have perhaps more attention than he wishes from true experts on heraldry examining his myriad "contributions" (themselves an underhanded form of self-promotion, as he is using Wikimedia Commons as a forum to establish his expertise in heraldry by flooding it with his own art work). Incidentally, if one wants to reference self-serving pages set up by the subject, consider the following: [[43]] Seaghdha (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking me simply because I have found your article and marked it for deletion. It is not uncommon for these articles to exist for years unnoticed, because no one is looking for them or even knows how to find them. Existing on here for three years without any other editor contributing to the article only edifies the notion that you lack notability. An editor marked this article as needing proof of notability, which you removed without providing ample sourcing. I re-added that tag, which you immediately removed again without adding references showing notability. It was only then that I marked your article for deletion, because you insisted of interfering with the tags without providing the appropriate information which is required to removed the tags. As you can see from the vote above, it is the Wikipedia community as a whole, and not just myself, that believes you have failed to adequately provide sources to prove notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to at least see a return to a less strident tone, but my point about Xanderliptak's category page on Wikimedia Commons remains relevant. It is formatted unlike any of the others in the Category, and its title should be "Coats of Arms by...etc." Self-promotion through the back door. Meanwhile, it is not appropriate to refer to a person as "Mr. X" when one is aware that the person in question holds a doctorate. Dissertation abstract is found at [[44]] (but email link is out of date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaghdha (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a category page on Wikimedia Commons, and the convention there is to organize images under a category named after the artist, e.g. [45]. Xanderliptak has done nothing out of the ordinary there. Yworo (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the joy of loopholes... Seaghdha (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to question Xanderliptak's motives for wanting to delete the article, but how do you account for the 8 others who think that this article shiould not excist? What I can't understand is how this article about a non-notable subject was able to last as long as it did. I guess when there are millions of articles to go through, one or two make it through the cracks.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are not notable when you have to create your own article. It looks worse when no one else edits your article. So someone added a tag questioning notability, which you removed. That is disingenuous, considering your obvious bias, since the article is about you and you are the only editor. I re-added it, and again you removed it, basically claiming that you know you're well-known, even if no one else knows. This is why it was nominated. I am sorry you are taking this so personally. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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