Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 12

< 11 December	13 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 03:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Raza

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

Biography that fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC) IQinn[reply]

Keep -- Dog bites man is unremarkable, as dog-bites are fairly routine events. Man bites dog is remarkable. During the 20th and 21st Centuries millions of individuals have been locked up, without charge and held incommunicado in secret detention. Possibly 100 million individuals were held without charge in secret detention. We don't have articles out most of those individual because sadly, seizing individuals, and holding them in secret without laying charges, without access to the legal avenues they might use to try to free themselves has been a common practice -- for totalitarian regimes that don't honor the rule of law.
Almost all of the 99,999,000 of the individuals held without charge are as unremarkable as the dog who bites a man. The other 1000 or so are the Guantanamo captives, who represent a very rare phenomenon -- individuals seized and held in secret by a democratic country that, normally, honors the rule of law. So, when we have enough information to flesh out an article on one of them I believe we should do so. I believe the WP:BLPPRIMARY concern expressed above is a red herring. Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess that could be one of the most poetic !votes done at Afd done by the editor who has created all these articles and i wonder what has driven him to such a reply. Please understand we have policies and requirement what should be included into Wikipedia. While your poetic explanation was fun to read it does not show that the article fulfills WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. It does not and you are welcome to provide policy based arguments and evidence concerning these policies. Thank you IQinn (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person does not gain notability for being held in "secret detention". Indeed,the creator's own allegation as to notability displays that his contention of notability is based on the fact this individual is alleged to be part of a lerger whole. As IQuinn states, the article itself violates WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. The sources are not reliable secondary sources, and the individual has not been the subject of significant coverage by news organizations. My suggestion would be to save this artyicle on the creator's own computer, find some sources, and re-add it at a later date if reliable, secondary sources can be found.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been some not unreasonable objection to articles containing no other source but the DoD summaries, but there are two other sources for him totally independent of that, so the argument about only primary sources is in this case simply false. That another ed. endorses the false statement is only explainable as an honest comment, if they have read only the nomination and not the article. But what is really breath-taking is that the nominator has removed most of the content from the secondary sources from the article after nominating it--and the material removed shows the secondary sources actually covered him in detail! DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "really breath-taking" is that almost all editors (many) who have put forward Guantanamo related articles for discussion over the years were accused of bad faith or met with uncivil comments by a small group of people. I would also like to note that you recently admitted some kind of involvement in helping out Geo in the past. I think we agree on the following. Primary sources do not count towards notability WP:BLPPRIMARY. That leaves us with only two sources. 1) The Nation This source as far as i remember just list his name as one of 17 who have been released from Guantanamo. 2) Daily Times That does not provide more information on the subject than already included. These two sources are not enough to establish notability WP:GNG, they do not provide enough information on the subject and these sources are not enough to write an BLP under our strict rules for BLP's. Almost all information now are based on the interpretation of primary sources in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. In conclusion it fails basic requirements for BLP's like WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I help him, but in many cases that help has been to advise him to withdraw quite a number of the challenged articles. I frequently have occasion to say it to those I support generally, as they are more likely to follow such advice when it comes from a supporter. There is nobody here whom I defend unconditionally, because nobody is perfect. I don't think there is any regular contributor here I oppose unconditionally either. I am indeed sufficiently involved that you see me at the GITMO articles only making comments, not closing, or otherwise using admin powers. I've never used admin powers with respect to someone I'm involved with positively or negatively; to avoid doubt, I rarely use such powers at all except to delete unsatisfactory articles from new contributors. That's me; as for these discussions, only a very small group of people have consistently opposed the GITMO articles-and a small number defended them--there were more in the beginning, but I suppose they became tired by the repetitiveness, as usually happens here. It's quite normal that only a few people here care sufficiently about a narrow subject enough to be persistent in either direction, & is not your fault or mine. As for the article, I see you do not deny that it is not true that there are only primary sources. As for the primary source, of course official government sources contribute to notability. The previous debates have been whether inclusion of them alone is enough to show notability, and I think the conclusions was it depends upon the authoritative nature of the source and what it says. I agree many AfD discussions where the DoD document has been the only source have been held to not provide sufficient evidence for notability. As for what is included in the second source, , anyone who wants to check what is said can read the actual source, [1]. And anyone can check what you deleted at edit [2] -- 3 paragraphs about the man. They don't have to judge by our argument, nor should they. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT: "As for the primary source, of course official government sources contribute to notability." That's incorrect WP:BASIC: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

WRT: "The previous debates have been whether inclusion of them alone is enough to show notability" I have never doubt that there are only primary sources. There are two secondary sources but they do not satisfy WP:GNG.

WRT: "They don't have to judge by our argument, nor should they." All information concerning the subject of this BLP from that source has been included in the article. This article together with the other secondary source that simply mention his name does not provide enough information about the subject to establish notability WP:GNG, they do not provide enough information on the subject and these sources are not enough to write an BLP under our rules for BLP's and WP:GNG. Almost all information in the article now are based on the interpretation of primary sources in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tridib Mitra

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable third party sources found. Only ref recently added is not a WP:RS. Notability concerns (notability self-asserted). Article promotional in tone having been largely edited by an editor with a possible conflict of interest. Plad2 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No third party proofs of notability. Reads like a promotional.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be notable. I am faintly surprised that "the poster-boy of the Hungry Generation Literary Movement" isn't mentioned at all in the Time article on the Hungry Generation. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCI Froward Point

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

One of a number of lookout posts that doesn't appear to have a particularly notable existence, other than being remotely involved in various minor incidents ninety:one 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub, is well referenced in reliable sources, is notable in that it is a permitted use of a battery observation point rather than simply repurposing an old coastguard station, has played a part in far more incidents than the one quoted, incidents for which I have not yet achieved finding reliable sources. It is a working lookout point that will, with the proposed UK reduction of Coastguard rescue centres, become substantially more significant as time passes. It is one of a growing number, currently 44, NCI Coastwatch lookouts in the country, and is part of a relatively young organisation (founded in ~~1944~~1994). It is not the number of rescues and other incidents that of themselves make such stations notable. Rather it is the fact of their existence at all. It does seem somewhat previous to nominate a well referenced stub for deletion so swiftly. Such actions discourage the further building of an article. Perhaps a better route would be for the nominator to find references and add them to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added all the incidents I can find. While I have not yet found media references for them they are a matter of public record. All incidents in such facilities are logged formally and reported to some relevant national authority or other. I'm no expert and have no idea how to find them. Additionally I have noted that the lookout was featured in the ITV Southwest Regional News programme. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article being merely being a stub is not a reason for inclusion, nor is the fact that it is well-referenced. Indeed, it's not the number of incidents, but the notability of them. I can assure you I'm no deletionist, but the only way I can think of the subject of the article being notable is if it played a key role in a major incident. The incidents you've found, whilst useful, don't establish notability. Seeing as one of the more notable elements of the subject is the reuse of an old and historic battery, I think it would be quite feasible to merge it (with a redirect)with Brixham Battery, perhaps under a new section about the modern day use of the site? ninety:one 00:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is not provided exclusively by incidents. It is provided by that notability, all of it, being asserted both in the article and in reliable sources. One of those sources is the ITV Regional News Programme, substantial mainstream media. Other sources, sources which I am adding, will likely be necessarily local, but no less reliable for that. An eventual article on the Brownstone Battery itself should refer to the current notable use of some of the buildings, certainly, but the uses are distinct. By no means all uses of a building or a set of buildings are to be gathered in detail in the same article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article appears to be strung together from a series of bare, in-passing, mentions [in cited sources] that do not demonstrate notability. No "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The yachting magazine is significant national coverage. The ITV regional news programme is significant coverage. Notability exists both in the fact that it looks after a very busy local area of sea and that it has significant media coverage. The writing style is the writing style. All style issues can be fixed without deletion of the article. I'm trying very hard to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments here, though it seems to me that we have a huge number of articles that are less notable, less well referenced and less well written that survive deletion discussions with a large number of folk !voting 'keep' as a matter of course.

It is behind a paywall, but at "0.15 pages" long, it is unlikely to be "significant coverage" -- and no, Yachting & Boating World is not "national coverage". Likewise being a single stop on a TV programme about a walking tour is not "significant coverage" of the geographical feature, let alone the NCI Lookout Station there. And no this is NOT about "writing style" -- it is about CONTENT & sourcing. "Bare mention"=trivial coverage (as WP:N defines that term). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exceedingly well referenced article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is no longer a stub article. It both asserts notability (and importance locally) and has that notability verified in multiple references, some national, some local. Further incidents have been added and references found even after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s comment above, from HM Coastguard and the RNLI, and a national government source as well and a substantial number of other references have been added. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article continues to be "strung together from a series of bare, in-passing, mentions". Is there even a single cited source that gives the subject more than a single sentence? Maybe, but if there is it's well hidden among the remainder of trivial mentions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) All the article has to do is to assert notability, and then verify that notability. An item can be notable in one single sentence or in a paragraph. The notability is well asserted. The location is a busy location and many marine sources refer to it. It is newsworthy and attracts local news of all flavours, ranging from charitable events to support it to incidents recorded by the MCA and the RNLI. It does that in spades. If you want flowing and gushing prose then Wikipedia is not that vehicle when the article is short. Almost all short articles are bare bones articles constructed of verifiable facts. Many of them don't even trouble to verify the facts they state. Now I have presented you with a short article containing: incidents that were life threatening (you seem to require life threatening incidents for notability, but those are absolutely not the be all and end all of notability); the history of the station; news of local charitable works to support the station; minutes of the local parish assembly meeting discussing the station; the real time weather station for the benefit of local seafarers; the fact that it is a notable landmark on the South West Coast Path and so much else besides. It seems to me that you want it to be involved in a drugs bust, or need a shipwreck on the rocks below it for it to become, in your view, notable. This is a simple notable local resource whose existence and notability are both present, asserted and verified. Now that is as good as it gets for pretty much any Wikipedia article. Now, frankly, I no longer care. I've done enough in any normal circumstance to secure this article its place in WIkipedia and you can argue as long as you like for its deletion. You may even be successful in getting it deleted by your rhetoric against it. You may end up feeling great satisfaction by arguing strongly for deletion, and joy should it go. And, by doing so, you will create a climate where no-one puts other notable articles of this nature here. And you may rejoice at that because you have created what you believe to be a better Wikipedia. But you are wrong. Never mind. The same article appears at Ship Spotting World where it has existed simultaneously. [irony]It will obviously make wikipedia better to remove it from here[/irony]. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that 10 facts from 10 individual sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. Mathematically and semantically they are identical. Articles are made from individual facts, and Wikipedia discourages using a single source. It is more convenient for the editor when all the facts can be garnered from an existing news article or existing encyclopedia, but an article is measured by how many facts there are, and each one should have a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." [emphasis mine] From this it is clear that "one sentence mention"s are not "significant coverage". The difference between "10 facts from 10 individual sources" and "10 facts from a single source" is (i) that the latter is more likely to provide depth of coverage than the former (ii) that the former provides no indication as to relative importance of the facts (so no ability to give appropriate WP:WEIGHT) & (iii) that the former is likely to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines WP:INDISCRIMINATE topics as

Plot-only description of fictional works
Lyrics databases
News reports
Who's who
FAQs

I don't see the article as being anything like any of the things listed here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WP:INDISCRIMINATE (i) states in its section title that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", (ii) states that "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." & (iii) Provides the above list of examples, with no indication that the list is meant to be exhaustive. [2] I see that you have failed to address either: the explicit wording of WP:NOTE; or my points (i) & (ii), in my immediately previous post. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[irony]All very interesting and very amusing[/irony], none of which explains your one editor crusade against this article. I expect you have your reasons, but it is just looking rather like a sordid little battle right now, and wholly disproportionate. Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. You've made some sort of point or other. A load of wikilawyering, and a load of points scoring, none of which are anywhere near the target, that's all that can be seen here. So, just to be clear and to get back to the point, notability is asserted in the article. It is verified in the citations, it's as plain as a pikestaff. It just looks as though this lookout tripped you over one day when you went for a walk and you want your revenge on it. Arguably your comments have produced a better article because it now has substantially better references than it had before, but that is at the expense of my becoming more than a little disenchanted with the attitude you are displaying here. It really doesn't matter how often you state that white is black, it remains white for all to see.

You have obvious energies. Why not devote them to something more productive that merits your attention. This crusade against this one small article isn't going to improve Wikipedia, you know. All it's doing is making me wonder what your underlying motivation is.The picture I have of you in my mind after this set of harangues is not, I think, the one you would wish me to have. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"One editor crusade"? ROFLMAO! Have a WP:TROUT & get a clue. I have spent less space on this AfD than you have. So who is 'crusading'> Stating how WP:NOTE explicitly defines "significant coverage" and "trivial mention" IS NOT "a load of wikilawyering".

"So, just to ~~be clear~~[obfuscate] and to ~~get back to the point~~ [ignore policies and guidelines]..." ... [bunch of argument by assertion & argumentum ad nauseum that turns WP:Notability & WP:INDISCRIMINATE on their heads]. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that reinforced my view. Well done. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG The Steve 11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this discussion may have gone a little off the rails. What Hrafn is trying to say is that although it is well sourced, those sources merely contain what are, by and large, passing mentions. Whilst such articles may be valid as sources, they cannot be used to establish notability. The only one that really stands out as meeting the criteria is this. Now, normally this would not be enough, but this is such an otherwise well-written and well-sourced article that I really can't see that it would be at all conducive to the interests of building a better encyclopaedia to delete it. In addition, the large number of other reliable sources rather outweighs any further argument about sourcing. I think a merger might still be the best idea, but I'm not going to get hung up about that. It would be an abuse of process for me to attempt to withdraw the nomination at this stage, when so many arguments have already been made, but I no longer stand in support of deletion, which leaves me as neutral. Note: this is not an endorsement of FF's arguments or conduct above, which I believe to be less than perfect in a number of regards. ninety:one 19:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct? What an interesting stiletto point you deploy? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the obvious merit of the coastguard station, the article might be expanded to tell more about Froward Point as this is a significant coastal feature. We do not have a separate article about it (I've just created a redirect) and so this article is currently the best foundation for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lots of refs but many are only tangential or passing mentions; I think it only just scrapes past the GNG line. bobrayner (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anne Marie Ballowe Dawson-White

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

Well sourced, but ultimately notable for only one event, appearing on an MTV special, and even then not very notable in that itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Never heard of her. Not notable person. --Manway (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, not having heard of her is not really a suitable argument for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schmidt. You're absolutely right. That is not a good criteria. I took the liberty of Googling "Anne Marie Ballowe" (without the quotes) and the first page results are as follows:

mylife.com imdb.com facebook.com latimes.com (photo only) myspace.com askville.amazon.com wikipedia.org 123people.com whosdatedwho.com

I thought it might have been a fluke. SO I went to the second page:

wikipedia.org ebay.com ebay.com blogs.salon.com mcomet.com mylovelykia.blogspot.com kosmix.com wapedia.mobi wikipedia.org evri.com

Don't see anything reliable there. But I learned a lot about pornographic actresses. --Manway (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than you wanted too, quite likely. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Close forthwith. Whether -you- haven't heard of her isn't a jot of difference. It's whether her WP:NOTABLEness is established from WP:RS, and it is everywhere from the LA Times to Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross Foundation to AVN to MTV to Luke Ford to IAFD and on and on. Is it not notable for someone to be assjammed 50 times in a row by a lineup of guys in succession and to be at the centre of an HIV scare that chilled the entire US porn "industry"? Grace Quek and Jasmine St Clair suckfucked their way to high notability in similar fashion. Add to the previous her -196- credited appearances in commercial film and video including one release where her name stars in the title. Because there's CLEARLY MULTIPLE and RELIABLE sources for the notability as is also patently evident from googlesearch of either her current or performing name then this should be closed forthwith as illconsidered WP:SNOWBALL not worth the distraction to further consider. So I'll call for admin ruling on that at this juncture already.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you'll also notice she's already accepted in 6 foreign language versions of wikipedia as sufficiently notable. So where her entire body of work, her language of education/discourse and the official language of her primary nationality is English, it begs a rather bizarre question to propose that en-Wikipedia's the only one of the seven languages in which she can't meet the notability test.Thoroughgoodness (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that she was accepted by other languages is not indicative of anything. For all I know, the articles there are just deserving of deletion. Second this plays into a longstanding problem in deletion discussions, I'll sum it up below:

Sources must demonstrate the notability of the subjects they cover. The simple presence of sources has no bearing on notability.

This is something that lots of people miss. For example, the LA Times article mentioned this person in passing, the focus of the article was on the industry. That's not a good source. Then there are facebook and youtube, those are never good sources. A few porn blog or two that have no editorial review, again, not sources. The simple fact here is that the sources that exist suck, and there are no replacements. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #2 did not mention her in passing. The LA Times conducted an audio interview with her to go along with their 'See No Evil' story.--TQ (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E does not apply to actors, no matter their genre, as acting in multiple projects is what actors do. To determine notability, we instead look to coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Part of the problem with trying to establish if this person is notable is that the article had been moved - arguably the subject is much better known under her pseudonym of Brooke Ashley. But as it stands, she is notable for one event: being a porn star who was infected on the job. Is that enough for her to warrant an article? I dunno... and the reliance of the Wikipedia article to a article written by Shelley Lubben (who has an axe to grind against the porn biz - for instance, she's been throwing statistics regarding infection which were proven to be false) doesn't sit well with me. Ultimately it comes down to WP:BLP1E... and as the article stands she's not notable. Tabercil (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her notoriety is not "one event" & is bigger and broader than what you state. It's that of:

A porn actress infected on the job making her a newsworthy person in the adult and broader press at the time of the '98 HIV outbreak pinned on Mark Wallice. She really should be at least as notable as him, considering all that may be asserted regarding either of them. His career was longer and he was a director which she was not, but he disappeared from sight in a way that she declined to
Someone who has joined forces with the notable Shelley Lubben and Pink Cross Foundation, insofar as telling her story through them. It does add just a little notability when someone comes out in public and effectively rolls over on their former lifestyle, associates, ideology, perspectives, etc. Michelle Avanti, Nadia Styles and Linda Lovelace did similar.
A former porn actress who has publicised her own religious conversion. A la Linda Lovelace and Ms Lubben and a little similar to Larry Flynt.
A person with a key featuring role in an MTV documentary of note.
Seven years as a credited performer in adult film, including at least one release titled after her performance name (Violation of Brooke Ashley). 7 years and close to 200 releases really is veteranhood and longevity as far as porn careers go.
The owner of notoriety for a world first sex act ie. being the 1 in a 50-on-1 anal gangbang. Re this also the filming of it achieves special notoriety in adult film and for her as the star and title performer. The seminal character of her contribution to that cinematic subgenre is further enforced by the rather unique circumstances of her later comeback as an acknowledged HIV+ hardcore performer in a commercial release garnering more-than-usual publicity heat.
The legal notability of her successful case for workers compensation. This may have ramifications in the future for health and safety measures in that line of work and for the perception of the relationship between the workers and the commissioners of their work (ie. they are employees, not 'independent contractors'). The case was at least an appeal and probably one at a high level because of the length of time until it finally resolved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.119.107 (talk • contribs) 02:50, December 7, 2010

Well... as porn is such a controversial field, perhaps best to simply consider her as a prolific actress who happens to be in the porn genre. Ignoring her long career and concentrating on one event in that career, is akin to ignoring Rock Hudson's long career in film and claiming his own contracted illness as a one event. Of course, that stretches a bit, as Rock was mianstream and had mainstream coverage. What kind of coverage did/does this person have in sources considered reliable for her genre? And ignoring the genre, does she have enough coverage meet the WP:GNG? And if so, is the coverage to be ignored because it is pertinant only to that genre? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe she's notable in the same sense that Tricia Devereaux, Lara Roxx, and Darren James are notable. She passes the GNG from the book hits under Brooke Ashley. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Morbidthoughts comments, the book hits do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Connors–Lendl rivalry

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator is correct that the article as it stands is just a list of results and does not discuss the rivaly at all. However it is listed by both The Boston Globe and Sky (and others) as one of the greatest rivalries in tennis. [3], [4]. Article just needs writing. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wjemather. Don't see how an article about a very notable rivalry meets the criteria of WP:NOTREPOSITORY, even if the article as it stands now is rudimentary. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Clijsters – V. Williams rivalry

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to assert that this rivalry was particularly notable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport–Hingis rivalry

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J Maher

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scant evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Pink Bull 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting notability guidelines. References are his blog, ezine articles, etc - all self-referential. His alleged book cannot be found at Amazon or anywhere else online except his own website. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. L Faraone 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Limit is home

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

Non-notable book by (now deleted) non-notable author. Rodhull andemu 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, and as Wikipedia is the only g-hit for this book, I would consider it non-notable. There is one outside g-hit for the author - his resume (well, I presume it's his...). This doesn't mention the book. I can't even blame lulu this time - they do get g-hits. Whichever way this has been published, it can't be selling very well - unless there are grave errors in the title and author's name given here. If it were not for the resume, I would have seriously thought there was an error, but that shows the existence of the name in this form. 'Chris Allight' gives a little more - but seemingly no book and nothing that could be considered reliable anyway. I'm almost inclined to go for a speedy as 'hoax'. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above two, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self published at www.lulu.com/product/paperback/your-limit-is-home/14266820?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1, Sadads (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nice work there. No wonder I couldn't find it - published December 12, 2010 and still doesn't come up on Google over here. Changing to speedy delete as pure spam. Only a book by someone like J.K.Rowling or Prince Charles could achieve notability that soon. (They'd probably be notable before the publication date anyway...) Peridon (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does come up now - with an apparent publicity campaign starting in blogspot and such. Not that there's anything wrong with that - that's how you can get sales. But not on Wikipedia. That's not what we are about. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangs (rapper)

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

Other than the one reference currently in the article, I can't find any other reliable sources on this musician. As such, I can't find any evidence subject meets either the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for musicians. Unless further source can verify notability, article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I notice that this article was previously deleted in February 2010 for the same reasons, other than the 1 additional source, it seems even more apparent that this should be deleted. As mentioned there, it may be that in the future subject qualifies, but not currently. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I was actually going to AfD this myself but Qwyrxian beat me to it. --Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very much reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICIAN as quite non-notable, not much very significant coverage found. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita O'Byrne Curtis

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

Lack of notability: refs are her page at the school and a brief mention in a short article in a college magazine. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article carries automatic notability, and the lack of references (and I found absolutely nothing using Google News) does not suggest the person passes WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Secondary school headmasters do not get automatic notability, unless their school is Hogwarts. Ray^Talk 16:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, anyone considering renomination should consider if WP:HEY applies. Courcelles 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whetumarama Wereta

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

Delete. Non-notable person -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the commission was notable Wereta does not seem to be. Mattlore (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a BLP1E case. The only coverage I have found was in connection with the service on the Royal Commission on the Electoral System, and even that coverage consists only of brief/passing mentions. Nsk92 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person, no sourcing at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content and sources. She seems to be a fairly active and respected Maori representative in NZ affairs. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems now well referenced and sufficient evidence of notability in terms of Maori influence on New Zealand electoral reform - and Maori Statistics. For both of these searching on Whetu Wereta seems more productive. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sh*t. I saw the name written "Whetu Marama Wereta" a few places, but a search on that term (in quotes) does not show up much. It did not once occur to me to try "Whetu Werata". More to be added... Clearly notable. Keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The article is now much better, well done Aymatth2! There is still not one big achievement that is inheriently notable (maybe the royal commission?) but there is enough minor achievements to keep the article IMO. Mattlore (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per expansion by Aymatth2 and clear indication of notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Another Not Another Movie

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

Fairly sure this is a well executed hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Had the nominator had a little look around he might have realized that the project is not a hoax,[5][6][7] and indeed has such persons attached. However, it does seem to be caught in production hell and does not have the coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Let it be undeleted later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look around, all of those references are based on a non existent hollywood reporter page, having a imdb page proves diddly squat and the "homepage", has very little evidence this is real. The contact details are the same as ones of the company that apparently designed the website, and the production companies it lists are "Instinct productions", the only company i can find with that name is a music company, and I can find no mention of Color green films. Add to this that the page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This horse is both dead and moot. The horse is dead because eonline, TV Guide, Le Journal de Québec and others report it exists. For our purposes, it exists unless reliable sources say otherwise. It's a moot point, though, as his recommendation is delete, as is mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - QSchmidt seems to have hit all the points here: insufficient coverage, WP:TOOSOON, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time, as measured by RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. This film has been dragging along for a while now, starting to wonder if it will ever happen. In any case, it's definitely not a hoax. —Mike Allen 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments made above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razhel Gee Mengullo

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

This article is on a non-notable junior karate competitor. I can't access the references from the local paper (which is still insufficient to show WP:N) and the other references either don't mention her or fail to show notability. This article was deleted at AfD last year (as Razhel Mengullo) and then recreated under its current name. It survived another AfD nomination as a "no consensus" because of a number of "keep" votes from people associated with her school. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron.jjska®ate 空手|道® 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razhel Gee Mengullo jmcw (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Notable karatedo practitioner in the country. Won many major tournaments including Philippine Olympic Festival and Philippine Karatedo Federation National Open, the highest karatedo competition in the country.jjska®ate 空手|道® 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were these senior competitions or did she win junior age division titles? The Olympic Festival is not the same as tryouts for the Olympic team, correct? Papaursa (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes are not born professional; others maybe gifted but some are made champions step by step due to constant training and discipline.jjska®ate 空手|道® 02:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It would be very unfair in wikipedia if it will only recognized professional athletes and olympic sportsmen. We should also consider the performance or level of competition of every athletes. Professional or not; olympic sports or non-olympic sport event. There are number of athletes that are performing well from school base, regional up to national level tournament. National tournament of USA would be very far behind compared to any "3rd World Countries" national games.DamakDamak (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets guidelines for notability by participating and won medals in the national level competitions. Accomplished athlete in her early age. Very promising fighter, we should give credit for her achievements.1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 01:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop (the article). Notable athlete, meet WP:ATHLETE criteria and keep on winning in her chosen sports.— MMaAsia ^{Sambon Hajime!!} 03:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient in form and in substance. Clearly a notable karate practitioner and a national champion.DamakDamak (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that the competitions that she won are sufficient to establish notability. That she is now a freshman at university, all these competitions must be junior age tournaments. I counsel the closing admin to look over the edit histories of all the participants of this AFD. jmcw (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From this reference[8], in 2009 she was competing in the 10 to 11 year old girls kumite. Not notable for Wikipedia: please keep to the school blog. jmcw (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.jjska®ate 空手|道® 01:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ATH says "Sports figures are presumed notable if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." It also says "local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications" are excluded because that coverage is considered routine. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: move to WikiPilipinas.[9] jmcw (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already there.[10] jmcw (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable and the subject is leading to a potential article. Winning in the national level championship is also an advantage to show notability. PulisPatola (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSPORTS#Generally acceptable standards, as has not "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." Appropriate standard for Karate would appear to be the Senior Karate World Championships. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, karate is not an olympic sporting event and there are numbers of major karate competitions climbing up in the national level is already far an achievement. National winner athletes deserved notability. 1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guideline -- "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" -- "national level" competitions are clearly not applicable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails WP:ATH. I also looked at her education awards and the references are 50 page lists of names--hardly exceptional or unique. The editor who said this is "leading to a potential article" might want to look at WP:CRYSTAL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to emphasized is that, the article is gaining credits to pass the standard of wikipedia based on the achievements of the athlete in the national arena.PulisPatola (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point--if you're notable you can have an article, the criteria is not that you might be notable someday. Astudent0 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable enough to get ample coverage in the news. This is apparently something major in that country. And this is a national competition. We're not talking about local small town papers listing who won the T-ball tournament. Dream Focus 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Philipines have 4 cities with populations of over a million, but the only sources are from a local paper? Logically that means either the event isn't "major in that country" or there are so many divisions they couldn't list all the winners. Either way I don't see the notability or how she passes WP:ATH. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The population in the Philippines today is more than 90 millions with 7100+ islands and to be included and won in the national level competition really speaks of a very satisfactory performance. PKF National Open Championship is a major event of karatedo in the country.1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 00:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither underbelts nor juniors are usually considered notable and she's both. When she successfully competes at the highest level (which means nationally and internationally as an adult blackbelt), then she deserves an article. Astudent0 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The country is divided in 3 areas, the Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. To be chosen in hundreds of sports athletes to be the "teamplate holder" of Visayas Delegation really an advantage compared to other athletes joining the Philippine Olympic Festival, a major national competition. 1 ^{Hoy! Pinoy ako.} 01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: PKF is a regular National Sports Association member of Philippine Olympic Committee with affiliations to IOC, OCA, SEAGF.jjska®ate 空手|道® 02:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject clearly meets WP:ATH by winning several national tournaments in her country.122.55.22.253 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. A three-time national winner is definitely notable. This article stayed in wikipedia for more than a year and for sure it won't last a week or two if it doesn't pass the notability. We're talking about national champion athlete here and not an intramural MVP.空手道® ^{"avec les mains ou les pieds"} 06:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many articles are tagged for questionable notability for years and we're talking about a junior age group underbelt competitor here, not a champion who defeated all comers regardless of rank or age. Jakejr (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that almost all of the keep votes are either new editors or connected with her karate school (JJS).
Delete I looked at the dates and pictures in her article. Her first "championship" was in 2006 when she was about 8 competing with orange and green belts (i.e., beginners). I see no way that winning an 8 year old beginners division makes you worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I see nothing that shows she meets the standards of WP:ATH--competing at the top level. Astudent0 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage of school sports in local papers does not establish notability under general notability criteria, nor under notability for athletes. With respect to her winning competitions, these are not the highest level of competition in her sport so they do not meet the criteria as set out in notability for athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets every Wikipedia standard for sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue isn't sourcing, it's notability. Can you show how she meets WP:ATH (competing at the highest level) by winning child underbelt divisions? Papaursa (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. I attempted to access all 22 on-line references listed in the article (there is also one printed reference that I do not have access to). Regrettably, most of them appear to be unavailable for technical reasons, but the ones that were accessible only mention the subject in a passing manner or do not mention her at all. Looking at the actual article names of the references, this is the only one that appears to be specifically on the subject (and it is currently returning a 404 error). It would seem that almost all of the references provided do not focus on the subject herself, but I stand open to correction if the sources do become available again and prove otherwise. Turning to the article itself, I do not see anything there that indicates the subject is notable within the context of martial arts articles on Wikipedia. Incidentally, I notice that this appears to be the second nomination for deletion of this article; for those who are interested, here is the discussion on the first one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razhel Gee Mengullo (July/August 2009). Janggeom (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the nominator's introductory comments, here is the other earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razhel Mengullo (January 2009). Janggeom (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might also be of relevance or assistance in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengullo, Randy (February 2009). Janggeom (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet the notability requirements in WP:ATH. I don't know how much precedent and consistency matter on WP, but I did see that the articles on both the World and European Junior Judo Championships were recently deleted at AfD, and if those don't meet notability standards because they're junior events, I see no way that local or even national junior underbelt events or competitors are notable. If this article is deleted, I also recommend (like so many did at that the previous nomination) that the closing administrator Salt it before it comes back as "Razhel G. Mengullo" or some other variation. Jakejr (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly this person has not participated in major senior competitions of the kind set out in WP:ATH#Generally accepted standards. DreamFocus's is the only keep vote that seems to get anywhere near the mark here, by referring the sources and a potential WP:GNG claim. However given the raft of deadlinks that constitute references to the article, it is very difficult to assess. I agree with Janggeom that the titles of the articles tend to give away the fact that the sources do not devote significant coverage to the subject of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brittain

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like an AHL rookie fresh out of major jrs. Can be recreated when/if he becomes notable. Bhockey10 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable player yet, WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Rask

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

Undrafted junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reso lute 20:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can be recreated when/if he becomes notable. Bhockey10 (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some junior hockey player that isn't yet very notable, WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he actually meets the criteria since he is playing professional hockey. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is he playing in the Elitserien? I couldn't find anything that said he was. Remember just playing pro is no longer the requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to incubator. It seems fairly clear that there is a consensus on this; as pointed out, when the sections of the article that are already duplicated elsewhere are removed, there is very little sourced material left. It would be better to move this out of mainspace until it can be fixed (which I am sure it can - though having survived in this state for so long may suggest otherwise). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs and machines in the Matrix series

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

Uncited, trivial in universe list article. As much as I like the Matrix, this doesn't cut it. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the unusual name, this is simply a "list of characters" article limited to nonhumans for a major fictional franchise. As such, there's no reason other content can't be merged here and/or trivia be condensed out of it. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to explain why it should be kept over the worst reason of them all. Lack of sources? Without sources how can we determine if this isn't full of original research. And keep in mind there is a List of minor characters in the Matrix series, majority of what's on this list, I don't see why they can't be on there. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly a rehashing of the story, which should have already been given in the main article on the series. Borock (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this article desperately needs references (many of which could be easily pulled from the main articles that it links to), the overall concept of the list is valid. It doesn't duplicate List of minor characters in the Matrix series, and it clearly differentiates itself as a list of non-human minor characters. The lists could be merged, but at that point would probably run into WP:LENGTH issues. There are also plenty of sources available for this material, as many books have been written about the movie series and its story. See [11][12][13][14][15]. Searching for any of these programs and machines in those books will yield results. Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm thoroughly confused as to why someone would simultaneously nominate an article for deletion and rescue. If you believe the article is "rescue-able", then why would you nominate it for deletion instead of fixing it yourself? SnottyWong ^gossip 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree that the title of the article is awkward. Are there any suggestions for a better one? The only one I can come up with is List of non-human minor characters in the Matrix series, which is equally awkward. SnottyWong ^speak 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article could be rescue-able if it has sources, although I wasn't succesful in finding any, that doesn't mean anybody else couldn't. ;)− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion is a very strange way to ask for help with finding sources. Also, I found sources in about 30 seconds. Where were you looking? SnottyWong ^comment 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am a strange person. I have seen AFD's help before, thanks to that rescue thing. And I also tagged rescue because I thought maybe there would be people like you that would want this article to stay and maybe fix the article instead of moping about why it should stay. I already did a few changes on the article already. Now if you have sources, then by all means, put them down. Because googling sources is not my talent. And I was looking for third party sources not primary sources. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Replying to the name changing comment of Snottywong. If this article is kept. I will purpose a name change for the article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I found are listed in my original !vote above. They are not primary sources. SnottyWong ^converse 20:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw your sources. I never thought of going to Google books or thinking that as a reliable source. Sounds less third party. But hey, don't listen to me. You know what you are doing. ;}− Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notice how many of the characters listed have their own well referenced articles? They get ample coverage. Dream Focus 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Them having their own articles could be argued as redundant. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice how none of those sources are in this article? —Mike Allen 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. But there are the least of the worries since they already have their own articles. The main worry is the ones that don't have articles. They are the most essential of this article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - See the five books that I listed in my !vote above. They could all be used as sources for the more minor characters which don't have their own articles. Some of the really minor characters (i.e. some of the characters which only appear in video games) may need to be deleted from the article if sources can't be found for them, but that is no reason to delete the entire article. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources and real world details could be added. I'm not going to say Delete because the article could be improved through regular editing. Real world details (which includes sources) should definitely be added. This is nothing but plot information. We have Wikia for that. —Mike Allen 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I regret putting this at AFD because deleting this is not really what I want. For example some machines like the Sentinels need to be introduced somewhere. But what I really want is this be more like a Wikipedia article. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷
Delete: This might seem harsh, but this article has been tagged as being original research and also written in a primarily in-universe style for more than two years and nobody has lifted a finger to help it. Wikipedia isn't a random collection of unsourced information. If it couldn't be fixed in two years, I don't see why we have to wait forever for it to be fixed, just because it's really a character article. Too many times now I have seen AfDs with people advocating keep because there really are sources out there, and gosh we just need to add them and we'll be fine! Either add them by the time this AfD expires or delete the dang thing. It's hard its two years in the spotlight, and failed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument for deletion is that cleanup tags have persisted on the article for too long? What exactly is the threshold when persistent cleanup tags require the deletion of the article? 1 year? 2 years? See WP:IMPERFECT. SnottyWong ^yak 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the threshold of tolerance for articles that have persisted without sources, as original research and written in in-universe style? Or should we just accept all junk that exists because 100 years from now someone will get around to adding sources? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hammersoft. This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. —Mike Allen 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate: The article as it stands now fails general notablity guidelines and does not warrant inclusion in article space. However this does not mean that the article is incapable of meeting this criteria as Snottywong has pointed out. I propose the article be moved to the article incubator until it is ready to be reincluded in article space.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that idea. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with incubation. —Mike Allen 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I find the topic to be a valid grouping of elements. There is bound to be redundancy between certain articles, and I believe it is okay here. The article does focus too much on in-universe detail, but there is room for improvement. The Matrix franchise, especially the films, is very thoroughly covered, and it should be possible to balance in-universe and out-of-universe detail. There ought to be plenty of production information, not to mention critical analysis by academics. I suspect, though, that the video game programs and machines are not as well-covered, and I would support a more concise description of them. The way to approach this article is through others. For example, Agent Smith is also lacking a balance of content, and if it were a better article, than there could be a summary section of it in this list. At the same time, sections like the one about the Trainman could be improved. For example, one result at Google Scholar says, "Further, the Trainman, introduced in Revolutions, furthers the Africanist narrative of the film in that he runs an 'underground railroad,' which is used to transport rogue programs from the central core of the Matrix." There are also citations about his similarity to Charon. Basically, the Matrix articles as a set could use some loving from an editor willing to put in the time to find resources and boldly reform the content to strike the balance that's needed on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...A balance that has been asked for over two years, with nobody doing anything about it. Again, how long are we to keep unreferenced junk lying around? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is considered notable, then the presence of unreferenced content does not justify deletion of the article itself. The unreferenced content within, per WP:BURDEN, can be pared down, especially interpretative passages. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced content, if removed, would bring this article to...one sentence. It's been that way ever since it was created 4.5 years ago. For half of that time, it's been tagged as original research and in-universe. I'm all for improving articles. But, when an article has languished for this long, the timer has expired. If someone wants to port this to user space, or the incubator, or wherever it is they want to work on it, fine. But to keep it in mainspace is absurd at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it not be a list of the non-human roles and the actors who played or voiced them? Perhaps with a one-sentence description for each? I specified interpretative passages because we cannot go beyond a basic description of a character when we reference only the primary source. Primary sources are largely used here, despite actual presence of citations. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but isn't. It hasn't for 4.5 years. See User:TriiipleThreat's Incubate proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already incubated it. Although if this article does stay, I will probably just request speedy deletion on it. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to our esteemed colleague Jhenderson777, he should have waited for the outcome of the AFD first, then moved the entire article to the incubator if that is what is decided so that the revision history and talk page would also be kept.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Triiiple Threat, (although I agree with you that I rushed it) it doesn't matter anyways, the article is going to stay with the result of keep or no consensus. Although I don't regret bringing this to AFD because that's sometimes what needs to be done for people to realize that an article needs work and due to editors like User:Erik, that's exactly what's been done. So this AFD was not a bad thing like User:Snottywong was feeling like it was. Now my reasoning for already putting it as a incubator was because I was concerned that if the result was more on the delete side, it could have been deleted before saved. Just because three people voted that incubation was a good idea didn't mean that was the final result. But as I said it doesn't matter because I feel that this article is going to stay, so I am going to speedy delete the article incubator with no problem. By the way, thank you for all your votes and concerns everybody that wrote here. You all made valid points. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sections for the Trainman, Rama-Kandra, Kamala, and Sati. I also reduced the content of the video game characters to be more discriminate. A good way to find references is to use Google Book Search or Google Scholar Search, e.g. matrix wachowski trainman. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I rewrote the section about the Merovingian and Seraph. I also removed the original-research "Exiles" section and merged the subsections to "Programs" under "Films". Some other sections were shortened, too. The references in the article also cover some of the other characters, such as the Oracle. The Keymaker in particular has a reasonable article whose contents could be summarized for this list. The references themselves can be explored through Google Books Search or Amazon.com (the "Look Inside" feature). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this, or perhaps merge it somewhere. Incubating it, and growing it, would also be options. Babying is better than deleting or negating something. I actually found something that I was looking for here, and I want other people to be able to do the same. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.251.196 (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really want the information deleted either. It being rdirected/merged, incubated or fixed is more of I what I had in mind even more than deleting. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: largely unsourced in-universe WP:FANCRUFT. Also given the theme of these movies, "programs and machines" are a fairly ubiquitous component of them (a bit like a List of fish in Finding Nemo). A non-list article on the use of the theme of artificial constructs in these movies, that would "provide non-fictional perspective" (per {{inuniverse}}) on them, might be a worthy inclusion, but not this list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the characters with third-party sources already have their own article, like Merovingian (The Matrix) and The Oracle (The Matrix). The remainder have no sources and have stayed that way for many years. I can only draw the conclusion that it's impossible to WP:verify notability of all these programs and machines or that the list has become so indiscriminate as to cover things that really don't belong in Wikipedia. Leave the template and the notable characters, but delete this list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purity test

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

Not a notable concept, however popular it might have been on Usenet. Over three years and no suitable references. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some references to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stupid, but if Ann Landers and newspaper newswriters reported on it then it's notable. I took out the criticism section as OR but it really should have some sourced mention of the obvious silliness of the whole thing. Borock (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stupid stuff abounds at Wikipedia, and we decided long ago that even junk (or is that junque?) should be here. This article meets WP:GNG by being well-sourced and describing why it is notable. This is a well-documented meme or factoid that existed even before the Internet, but has continued unabated. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bnai Haman

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

The fact that this organization was formed to comment on a notable event does not make it notable in and of itself. Of the links provided, some are dead (but those are only from the university blog and would not indicate notability anyway, because surprise, school newspapers write mostly about school organizations), some are press releases from the organization itself, and the only third-party source with a non-dead link (IvyGate) thinks it's total fringe. Google doesn't bring up any more sources to attest notability, either. Roscelese (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Blogs and press releases don't cut it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Google News search [16] finds only press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Mahon

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

Unreferenced BLP, and from what is in the article he does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Echetus Xe 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced article about a non-notable footballer, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 15:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lawwell

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

Is a Chief Executive notable? He isn't an owner or a chairman. Echetus Xe 18:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether a CEO is notable depends upon what he is CEO of. In American terms, the CEO="Commisioner" of the NFL is notable (and each one of them has a long article here), and so is the president of the National Football League; about half the heads of the Arena Football League have articles; for the various semi-professional leagues, none of them do. . What is this particular league the equivalent to? It would seem to be that if there is an organization where the mere playing in it makes a person notable, then the coach and owner of each team, and the/President/CEO/Commissioner of the league certainly must be notable also. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't say that this person is the CEO of a league, just of a team in the league. What this person is CEO of really doesn't matter, though. It's whether xyr life and works have been properly and publicly documented that matters. If that hasn't happened, then whatever this person is a CEO of, a biography cannot be written. Sources like Halliday 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHalliday2003 (help) are a start, but more than that is needed for a full biography. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Halliday, Stephen (2003-09-26). "Lawwell to help Celtic get down to business". The Scotsman.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of CEOs with articles, see Category:Chief executives by nationality, but what is more important is whether this one is notable. A google search suggests he is sufficiently notable to have is job prospects discussed in the media. (e.g. Arsenal shortlist Celtic's Peter Lawwell in search for new chief executive, Lawwell on Arsenal shortlist) There are also articles about him in his current job (e.g. Man with the plan: Peter Lawwell, Sunday Herald, Natasha Woods, Nov 13, 2005 and Celtic almost debt-free thanks to good housekeeping from Peter Lawwell) and the tabloids are even interested in his living arrangements (e.g. Celtic chief Peter Lawwell splashes out £1.5m on new mansion.. with heated driveway). In short, he clearly meets the general notability requirement. Rockpocket 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about passes WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has received significant coverage for his work, as noted above. I think there may be a difference here from most UK football clubs in that Celtic are one of the few remaining plcs, with the chairman as more of a figurehead and the chief executive really in charge (like most large public companies in the US or UK). In Celtic's case the present chairman is rather notable anyway (!), but Lawwell is the man in control of the organisation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Whoriskey

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

Does not seem to have achieved notability. Echetus Xe 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as a quite non-notable footballer. Unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ramsey (Scottish footballer)

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Echetus Xe 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - now this is an interesting one. I can't find any evidence to confirm whether he played for Partick's first team or not (which wouldn't be enough to pass WP:ATHLETE anyway - as far as I can tell, they were in the 2nd Division at the time). However, it seems he attracted a fair bit of publicity in Iceland for killing a man in a nightclub brawl. There's no refs in the article at the moment, but earlier versions of the page contained some English language refs about this incident, and a few more can be found on Google (English [17][18]) (Icelandic [19]) Question is, is this a single event issue or would the publicity (English and Icelandic) about this incident be enough to pass our general notability guidelines? Bettia (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. His brush with the law violates WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 13:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soccerbase confirms that he never played higher than the Scottish second division, so fails WP:ATHLETE. The BLP1E issue has been mentioned as well. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Begbie

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

Doubtful that this player played a fully professional match. Echetus Xe 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a (former) non-notable footballer that fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Coll

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Echetus Xe 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as a non-notable footballer. Article is completely unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Zanoni (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Howard

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

Has not played in a professional competition. Echetus Xe 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without significant coverage in reliable sources, and no appearances in fully-pro competitions, he clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 15:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Fernández Navarrete

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

Photographer and film maker, no reliable sources yet have been found that can establish notability. Bringing it here for consideration by the community. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any coverage. [20]. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single source does not show notability either generally, or for creative people. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime and manga featuring omorashi

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

This list meets most of the criteria of WP:Listcruft: it's 'of interest to a very limited number of people', 'Determining membership of the list involves original research', 'The list is unencyclopaedic', and arguably 'The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. This list is almost entirely unreferenced, and essentially composed of original research, since 'omorashi' is a fan term without much use in reliable sources. Generally, 'list of media featuring X subject' is a bad idea for an article in any case, but this one is particularly bad. Wikipedia does not exist to help people feed their sexual fetishes. Robofish (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Listcruft and Wikipedia:DIRECTORY. I do not see why this list should be on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR points #1 and #6. The only connections these anime and manga have with each other is that a character peed on themselves, even when such scene is non-sexual. Omorashi, however, is a sexual fetish that appears frequently in pornographic anime and manga. So much so that it is the equivalent of oral sex. We don't have List of pornographic films featuring oral sex because the scope of the list would be too broad. —Farix (t | c) 13:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany High

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school with no demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources and none found. TN X Man 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a longstanding consensus that high schools are notable.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are considered notable. Coverage such as this article verifies the school's existence. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it was worth noting this comment from WP:NHS, which covers situations like this: "As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were unable to independently verify more than the school's existence, and sometimes not even that much." As I stated, I cannot find any reliable sources for this school. TN X Man 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only per long standing consensus that all secondary schools are considered notable (there's no sign consensus has changed), this has had plenty of independent secondary coverage.[21][22][23] --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oakshade's rational is perfectly correct, and nothing has hanged. See:WP:WPSCHOOLS. Normally however, in other cases, sources whether reliable or not do not confer notability, they just confirm it. Kudpung (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 15:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Education Society, Malleswaram

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

Contested prod. Article is about a school with no demonstrated significant coverage in reliable sources and none found. TN X Man 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a couple of references to satisfy WP:V. Keep per WP:NHS -- Nayvik (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to find any links; only one of the links added by Nayvik is helpful, and it only mentions the school in passing; the other merely links to a "find a school" tool. However, map links confirm that it exists, and yellow pages listings indicate that it is a secondary school, which would make it notable. I wonder if it is the same thing as the Bangalore Educational Society, which is mentioned here? --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab: The Overdose

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

Future recording per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL for several reasons. It says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The release of Rehab: The Overdose is a notable studio album release (Lecrae's last studio album peaked at number 17 on the Billboard 200) and it is almost certain to happen—several sources have reported the album's release date (January 11, 2011), including Lecrae's own record label. Additionally, the album is available for pre-order through several online music stores. Also, Rehab: The Overdose is not an "individual [item] from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names". The article isn't "Lecrae's Fifth Studio Album," it's a specific event almost certain to occur, as confirmed by the record label and artist themselves. Before you choose to delete, please read the article and check the sources. If you have any questions or problems with what I'm saying, you can add them below or contact me on my talk page. Thank you, Tim Mckee (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tim Mckee is right. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits vague speculation about an unknown future. If something is definitely going to happen in the near future, it is not speculation to say so. This is a viable "future album" article until Jan. 11. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got that from the WP:CRYSTAL guideline, but if you read the guideline in its entirety, you'll find that what you said is NOT a reason to delete. It's just a statement that qualifies someone's research of a near-future event that may or may not be confirmed. This one is confirmed, so the statement you quoted does not mean that it won't happen. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Albums of notable persons are notable per WP:NALBUMS. Tracklist, name, coverart and release date are all confirmed and sourced. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mick Rose

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

No evidence that this guy even existed, despite an apparent sixteen year career. I didn't put this as a speedy as an afd allows for those with access to specialist sources to check that he does exist. Echetus Xe 11:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is absent from this list.--Echetus Xe 11:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he was ever on the books of Crystal Palace then he never actually played for the first team. Delete unless someone can provide evidence that he a) existed and b) played professionally for anyone else. I find it beyond implausible that he would have spent SIXTEEN seasons with the same club without ever being picked to play for the first team, so if he did exist he must have spent time elsewhere -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer, perhaps even made up, as nom said. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quick check at home last night in Barry Hugman's "Football League Players' Records 1946-1984" reveals that the only Mick/Mike/Michael Rose to play professional football in England between those dates played in the late 1960s. Therefore this Mick Rose either never played professionally or never even existed. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and a possible hoax. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units

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

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

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

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

Per WP:NOT#STATS, there's no discussion of this vast array of numbers and it's not clear what purpose is served by listing offical specifications as no conclusions are drawn from the "comparison". It may be useful but that's not a reason to keep as it's not encyclopedic. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you could nominate the whole category in such manner... seriously the article got plenty attention from the admins and noone got idea it must be deleted--Prandr (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should be deleted. It not a question for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.241.13 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles also should be removed. They also do not differ from those articles.

List of Intel microprocessors
List of Intel Atom microprocessors
List of Intel Celeron microprocessors
List of Intel Core microprocessors
List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors
List of Intel Core i3 microprocessors
List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors
List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors
List of Intel Pentium microprocessors
List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors
List of Intel Itanium microprocessors
List of Intel Xeon microprocessors
List of future Intel microprocessors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.241.13 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all A list mentioned a few key parameters of the models out of the immense amount of available data is not a violation of NOT DATA. Even the part numbers are not excessive detail, because they're the link to other sources of information. Lists are organizational devices,and also ways of collecting information of items of the same sort that are not separately notable. Many of the items on these lists are individually notable, and I would support an arguments for all other ones also if there is sufficient coverage in the technical press DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the models listed in the tables have their own articles. This is a simply an excessive list of primary data. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the individual models may not have their own pages, but all of the product generations do (e.g. GeForce 256, GeForce 400 Series). --ElTchanggo (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Keep These two articles (and the other comparison articles as well) do qualify as "encyclopedic" by the way they use the information and fact concerning each product, to inform simple and straight forward about the products. If this article qualifies for deletion, then all articles about CPU's and hardware must also be in the same qualification, which is absurd. I don't understand of all the millions of articles on the English Wikipedia, that these article should be nominated. They have been active for years, with many users contributing, and never have anyone doubted their encyclopedic value. 88.88.19.14 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these are essentially navigation pages to existing articles in the series of processors with some technical specs that differentiate the various processors. The prose part is in the individual linked articles. I am not sure prosefying the stats will aid the reader since comparing in a chart is much easier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I find these pages very useful when I am trying to quickly find info on various processors. (User:Dzhozef) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep all These pages are extremely useful and convenient. They are by far the best compilation of this kind of information on the web. WinstonKap (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep all. This is kind of article as "WikiLeaks", "Georgia and Russia south-osetian conflict", "George Bush and 9/11". This is kind of information that is unique, extremely hard to find, not to mention to summarize, extremely informative, page that has high value AND high number of clicks, page that highers Wikipedia noveau in direction of "source for priceless information" instead of "well written, well known, dead, uninteresting and useless nonsense". Extremely strong keep. Even page about Doom - the game from 1993 is less important than this one. 78.34.108.211 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is solely trust-able source on the internet for the comparison between GPUs from NVIDIA. Rather than to search for each card separately it saves the hassle by keeping all the information streamlined. Comparing it to other pages this avoids the diversion of advertisements by keeping only the details out and remove the unnecessary stress on the new innovations themselves. prafiles - Prakhar Shukla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prafiles (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Not encyclopedic? We have articles ranging from gossip on celebrity relations to pedicures, and this is chosen for deletion? As can be seen from their references, the entries above have a history of reliability. Contrary to the opinions of some, an encyclopedia is not restricted to prose & media. Charts are not just viable, but necessary. This table collection organizes and outlines a history of GPUs that wouldn't be easily grasped through lengthy explanations for each card. Wikipedia is not limited to the tastes of a few elect but a database for all people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.183.92 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (probably all, although I haven't looked at any besides this one; if they're in the same format, they should be treated equally). At best, this is a list of statistical data collected together into some nice tables. Helpful information, sure, but WP:NOT in the least bit encyclopedic. At worst, one could argue this is a form of adverstising, as the "article"'s purpose is to list detailed specifications of products without any context. Some above mention things like "it's an organizational list"--no, no it's not--if it were, it would list only the name of each item with links--instead, it's full specs. Another mentions that Wikipedia is "a database for all people." No, no it's not--it's an encyclopedia, not a database. Our job is not to collect every fact in the world, and it never has been (insofar as policy and guidelines are concerned). Others are concerned that converting this to prose will make comparisons more difficult--good, I say. Again, we aren't here for people to look up details to do comparison shopping. WP:NOT exists for a very good reason--because the project needs clear limitations on what counts as encyclopedic information and what does not. That some find this useful is not enough; I'm sure there must be some that would find every possible piece of info (true or false) to be potentially useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who would advertise a ten year old processor? A new one comes out every 18 months, and just two generations, or three years, might as well be 100 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Comparisons and lists are one of Wikipedia's best features in technology related articles. They are my first source of unbiased reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng40s (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to posting and editing here but having looked at most of these pages several times I could assert that these pages of wikipedia are a valuable resource for like minded individuals who are interested in both the facts about new technologies and background in the area to look and see where we are coming from and get ideas about what may lie ahead. since when are charts and lists not included in large articles in an encyclopedia? granted these pages (the ones on graphics cards in particular, but the ones on CPUs as well) are not a typical encylopedia page but link to pages on generations or families of CPUs or GPUs that may or may not have parts of these charts/lists as part of their contents as well as prose on advances and features that are constantly made/added to/with these items. I might suggest changing the name of the graphics related pages to "list" instead of "comparison" to make them better match the ones on processors and make changes to links from other pages to them accordingly. altermately, I might make sure that the relevant portions of the lists/charts are a part of their related pages before any serious consideration is made of deleting the master list. I will say is is quite convenient to scroll up and down the page backward and forward in time to compare the details of a company's various families of Graphics processors, but i suppose one could look at adjacent open windows or tabs of the individual pages but you would probably have to get there from the likes of the nvidia gforce or amd radeon pages and switch windows and tabs to do it. i would mention that I have seen other lists of this nature with links to other related pages and I don't see them as candidates for deletion. does someone have a bias towards not having this sort of information readily available to the masses here versus other questionably less valuable content? Please give careful consideration to any major changes in regards to the pages in question. I guess I am in favor of either keeping all, moving data to other related pages, or maybe making some relatively minor changes in an attempt to make the gods in charge of this stuff look at these things with more favor than perhaps they do now.Jtenorj (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL | Whats the point of an encyclopedia if there is no reference material? I understand that there are those who like discussion, however, there are those of us who look up this information an a regular basis for reference. Considering the pace of the computing industry this is a great reference to compare the latest technology with older technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyk Yevarh (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All This is a well-organized compendium of relevant, easily-verifiable information about a notable series of products, not an indiscriminate collection of data. The table format aids the user in comparing two specific products and reaching his own conclusions. Any further discussion about a particular product, if/when necessary, is included in (or can be added to) the articles about a specific product family (e.g. GeForce 400 Series and Evergreen (GPU family)) and the wikilinks and references therein. ElTchanggo (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I routinely use several of these pages (ATI, Nvidia, Intel, and Opteron). Without them it's virtually impossible to make any specific use of the information on their relevant Product pages, to compare products from various vendors -- or even to compare a single vendor across multiple product lines. I am not aware of any other reasonably organized source of this information; the vendors sometimes provide similar database information (for example, ark.intel.com has a subset of this information for most Intel processors) but such sources are vulnerable to the vagaries of the vendors' marketing departments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.131.186 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All It is encyclopedic and personally I find it highly useful. Google lists it 9th place simply by searching for nvidia. If you don't like the word comparison then rename it to listing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.180.207.201 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, key statistics of notable products are encyclopedic, and list/comparison articles like those under discussion are very good in presenting that encyclopedic information in a useful way. Amalthea 15:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All I work with a research group with several projects in GPGPU technologies; these articles are extremely valuable for such endeavors. Because the vendors attempt to obfuscate this information, well referenced tables with explanation and vital statistics (which is, by definition, encyclopedic...), like the current articles, are critical, and ARE the central point of reference for tracking down technical information on GPUs. PAPPP (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All These tables of otherwise difficult-to-compile information are valuable resources for professionals and enthusiasts, consumers of all grades. Losing these tables would be a serious loss for anyone who needs to look up or compare specifications. One could reasonably say these tables are, for their target audience, just as important as the ones found at Conversion_of_units. Tabular data is not necessarily un-encyclopedic just because of its format. Dan.liberatore (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have lists of products of other major companies (see List of Olympus products, List of IBM products, although some of these could be improved and this would be something of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.) I don't quite understand "...as no conclusions are drawn from the "comparison"." Is WP supposed to endorse some product here? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was - this is simply an echoing of primary data - if we summarised secondary sources that made a comparison and reached conclusions, then this comparison article would be valid, but to simply list numbers is not encyclopedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons and conclusions are better left to the individual pages about a particular product or product series. For example, you could add information and links to the GeForce 400 Series page, summarizing reviewers' complaints about excessive power consumption, noise and temperatures. Also, these are not "simply numbers". The context for these numbers is provided by the articles about a particular product generation, and each of these numbers has a meaning (e.g. shader processors, TDP) that an informed user knows, and that an interested novice can find out by clicking on the wikilinks. The way I see it, the reason for making one big table with specifications, as opposed to moving this information to individual product/product series pages, is to provide one tool for Wikipedia users when they are trying to compare different products, e.g. GTX 480 vs. GTX 570. --ElTchanggo (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The author arguing for it to be deleted at one point states '... this is a list of statistical data collected together into some nice tables' and then goes on to say '...as the "article"'s purpose is to list detailed specifications of products without any context.' and again '--instead, it's full specs'. 'Statistical data' and 'detailed specifications' are two completely different things. I would be inclined to say this article contains summary specifications, organised such that it allows much easier comparison than weblinks would allow. Also, 'detailed specifications' tend not to have a 'context'; they can be standalone.

Strong Keep All These tables are extremely valuable. Don't delete them. Mattst88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The author has posited that it is 'advertising' and then asks the question 'Who would advertise a ten year old processor?' ! Well this article is NOT an advert. By your own statement - it would be pointless advertising products that are no longer being sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morfeus63 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that the result will almost certainl be to keep this article, but I still believe that would be against policy, so I want to clarify some misconceptions above. As far as I can see, the majority of keep arguments focus on the issue of "usefulness." As far as I know, that is not nor has it ever been a criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia. In fact, WP:NOT explicitly and clearly rejects a large amount of information that is undeniably useful. For instance, I would find it extremely useful to have a full, complete list of the corporate phone numbers of all major internet service providers in the United States. Such a list could not be found elsewhere on the internet (as it would be a national list not fully and easily compiled anywhere). However, WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly rejects this as not being appropriate to an encyclopedia. Similarly, I would find it useful if major experts in the field of Rhetoric were able to post information about their own current research in one easy to research, organized page. That, too, would be unacceptable per WP:NOTWEBHOST. In other words, being useful is not and cannot be a sufficient criteria for keeping information on Wikipedia. If it were, one could easily argue that every available piece of data should be completely replicated here, as every piece of data (even false data) is potentially useful to someone. Finally, with regards to the advertising point; I was unaware that some of these are so old, so I guess I should have used the word "promotional" rather than advertising; note, for instance, that we reject external links and even just informative sites if we deem that the primary purpose of such a link is to promote the outside site. I argue that the nature of product specs without context is inherently promotional. So, for me, while it's clear that an overwhelming majority of people "voting" here support keeping this and associated pages, I believe policy explicitly states that the pages must go. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate on an individual basis Batch nominations are evil (unless all the articles in the nomination were created at the same time and are substantially similiar). A lot of these lists have directory issues and external links issues, but they need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Qwyrxian's point above about WP:NOT and our scope is well taken. Them From Space 07:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated two articles, an IP replied by listing a whole bunch - they are not part of the nomination.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, I think most of us here made the mistake of thinking you nominated two dozen articles under this heading. It seems to have spoiled your AfD. :\ Them From Space 09:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all, per above. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep This is a convenient mass of data for those out there searching technical specifications on computer hardware. Deleting this would be a tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.90.192 (talk)

Extremely Strong Keep I work with heterogeneous GPGPU/CPU systems at my university and this is the main source of information regarding architecture differences. Information is concise and always up to date. These articles can be thought as providing "architecture differences/evolution current/in time". They are very useful for people in the computer science field, especially those in the HPC - high performance computing - sector. Deleting them would be in my opinion a mistake - lupescu, UPB

Keep This article captures the history and evolution of a significant component of a socially relevant aspect of the computing landscape. It would be a shame if we were unable to refer to this body of knowledge in the future because we forgot to write it down, or worse, dismiss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecaveh (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.85.252.190 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong Keep all These articles include information that is very hard to find and arrange it in a very convenient way. They are sourced and they are notable. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction keep all 'List of'-type articles consist of feature and property tables of the their respective subject matter. There are many similar articles in the 'List of'-category regarding nation states that consist of numerical tables of their gross domestic products, populations, military expenditures, literacy rates and so on. These microprocessor and graphical processing unit articles similarly consist of tables of technical features. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy to indicate that such tables violate policy. Pontificalibus's and Qwyrxian's assertions regarding policy violations are completely without merit.94.101.3.3 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples. Also consider Table 1 in the page about fructose, which lists the sugar content of different fruits; at its core, it's just a list of product specs. Even if you take it out of the context of the article, I would not consider it, in Qwyrxian's words, "inherently promotional;" it's merely informational, and as such it has a place on an encyclopedia. The same argument applies to a list of graphics card specs. My impression is that a) the lack of context does not necessarily make information promotional, and, in fact, b) the context can turn a collection of information into a promotional tool. --ElTchanggo (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion basically is dead. 88.88.126.205 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are required to run at least 7 complete days, except in very rare circumstances which don't apply here. Thus, sometime after 19 December an admin will review the comments and determine consensus along with considerations of the policy issues raised. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dan Servos

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and lack of reliable sources. PK T(alk) 22:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in himself. The article contains many links (mostly done as external links rather than references) but they are all about his business ventures, not about him - and they are mostly not from Independent Reliable Sources. Similarly, a Google News search [24] finds his name mentioned, but only in reference to one of his companies. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

85th Hakone Ekiden

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Christian Dragon fiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preamble to the United States Constitution/text

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

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

Delete: Article already created. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource if it doesn't exist there already. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be in the template namespace, at Template:Preamble to the United States Constitution text until someone moved the template to the article namespace. And it was created because of Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/Archive 1#The "text". Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's further discussion, pointing out that this used to be a template and why, at Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/text#Maybe this should be a template?. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason not to move it back to Template:Preamble to the United States Constitution text? If not, that's my !vote per Uncle G and Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/Archive 1#The "text" THF (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still violate WP:TMP. (See third quotation in nom.) --Cybercobra (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreate the template if need be, but there is no reason for the continued existence of this as an article. We have a very intelligent article called Preamble to the United States Constitution that includes the text and gives it the encyclopedic treatment. Mandsford 14:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- … and whose talk page is as hyperlinked-to above and which transcluded this very template for over a year, for the reasons given on that talk page, until the nominator here undid that transclusion a mere day before then nominating this template for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't correct; the template was moved to mainspace in 2009.[25] It makes sense to remove the transclusion when there's an AFD template on the transcluded text. THF (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is, in fact, correct. Here is the May 2009 edit where the transclusion, taken off in the December 2010 edit just hyperlinked-to, was made. That's one year seven months. And you'll notice that Cybercobra didn't say anything about AFD when untranscluding the template. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The applicable guideline was cited however. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't follow the rules as either an article where it currently resides or as a template where it was originally created. Prior to this implementation the main article had significant vandalism to the text of the Preamble. Moving the actual text off the main page and into a protected subpage/template eliminated much of the vandalism to the page. Comparing the two links I provided, 250 edits post creation go back 11 months with some vandalism included but 250 edits prior to it creation went back only 4 months and a lot of it is vandalism and reverts. So it appears to me that this page is useful in combating vandalism. I believe the page should be maintained either here or somewhere. In other words I am saying ignore the rule because it makes the encyclopedia better. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guidelines discourage this sort of hack, which is not worth the added complexity just to selectively semiprotect one part of an article. Just semiprotect all of it if there is too much vandalism. Sandstein 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

2010 Philippine network television schedule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Pursuit

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete - I do not know the RS status of the GameFAQs review [26] but I think the Mania review [27] is RS. – Allen4names 19:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue hair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. There are breeds of rabbit called "blue", but which are actually more of a grey[28] (similar to the 'blue fox'). The "nice picture" in question appears to be an unrelated white breed with lighting giving it a slight bluish tint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL & Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL seem to turn up a similar level of scattered mentions to blue hair -- so I think it would be hard to make the claim that blue hair is in some way special. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cold War / Illumination Band

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (2nd nomination)

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

Let's try to determine which ones we keep.

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

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

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

votes transferred from duplicate nomination page:

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

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

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

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

Caylian Curtis

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

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

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

It was argued here.[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dyne

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

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

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

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

Delete; I don't think he meets WP:BASIC. If he were mentioned substantially in sources like this cited in the article, I might change my mind, but so far all I've found is raw press releases, automatically-generated or self-generated profile pages, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think he does meet the WP:BASIC. I did some more research and he is clearly an important player in the Skype world which is now a trend setter. Over 14 references to him in the Skype S-1 document filed with the SEC and a Director of Skype. [30] Also verified signature to the master settlement agreement in the Skype - Joltid Litigation that lead to the control of Skype back to founders [31] Jojorev (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep He is mentioned in multiple articles including [32] in other capacities. Clearly a major behind the scenes player. See also under [33] and in our own Wikipedia Management Buyout definition and example. see under [34] -- Droppinghunter (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No significant coverage, [35] [36] are the only refs here that are half-way usable, but more than two sentences would be a stretch. Hits are basically profile entries or short mentions of the same fact. Being "important player" does not by itself warrant an article. The above keeps have not to me demonstrated any significant, reliable, secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly a high level figure. And while the references are a little light, if the unreferenced text is correct we should definitely have this guy. @Nuujinn While passing mention might not enough for a standard blp I can AGF on this one, but if nothing changes in a few months, then I would change my mind if you renomed. Outback the koala (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Canada–Tonga relations

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

much of the article is a direct copyright violation from [37]. no real significant relations, applying WP:BEFORE most of the coverage relates to rugby matches [38]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment -- I am sorry, but since this article is a blatant copyright violation, I have templated the page per our requirements at WP:CV. Editors interested in rewriting an article without infringing text can rebuild the article using the "temporary subpage" link on the template. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury, and look at this: [40] Merge and redirect Oops, the source i found was Australia not Canada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmetyal (talk • contribs)
Comment WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is a shortcut to policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, states "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So the argument "cannot be read as secure links or items for purchase" is irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my comment relates to whether or not we can verify how it contributes to Canada Tonga relations. Does this book include substantial coverage of Canadian relations? Does this actually cover relations in depth. almost of this coverage only touches the subject and does not treat it in depth. most of it can be inserted into Foreign relations of Tonga. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to read a source which another editor asserts is relevant, then what a normal person would do is to ask for an emailed copy, maybe. Or you could head over to the Resource Exchange and ask there.
But discounting it because you happen not to have access is completely unacceptable. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 23:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on DGG as an admin I assume you checked most of these new sources for their indepth coverage? to me they seem to only touch on the topic sometimes only getting one mention in the whole article. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I think the closing admin might want to know the answer to this as well in deciding how much weight to give your contribution. According to your contributions log you !voted keep here less than a minute after you !voted in a previous AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I requested from Treasury Tag on 5 December "please list the sections that specifically explain in detail "Canada Tonga relations". I assumed good faith and gaive Treasury Tag one week to provide additional inforomation. No information has been provided to this request, I will have to assume that those secure sources do not contain indepth coverage of Canada Tonga relations. Thus my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio Removed -- I have removed the body of the article because it was copied from [41]. A revised page for this article was not created during the 7-day grace period, therefore there was nothing with which to replace it. At this point, any editor who wishes to rebuild the article can do so -- but please use original language only. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep The sources are fine. They trade together, they have news coverage of the leader of this nation visiting them[42], and they have ample coverage of their Rugby tournaments with each other. [43] Canada has given them some money in foreign aid, they not doing that with every country there is, so they must have a reason to favor this one. There are over 24 thousand results in Google news archive search if the names of the two countries are both searched for, and two thousand less if you remove any with mention of "Rugby" [44]. Hard to sort through all of that. Enough sources have been found. Dream Focus 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What you deem to be not significant coverage is different from others' opinions. I also think these are enough coverage already. But here is another amazing source [45] from the Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately there is no direct High Commission in Tonga; Canada and Australia have an agreement whereby citizen of both countries can go to each others high commission for assistance. This is a prime example of why that agreement was made. Either way I hope this adds to the significant coverage. I think a travel report that is valid for this month is definitely recent and not out of date. Outback the koala (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The CNC Workshop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Sietz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qabdesh Jumadilov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jud Newborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hornet Archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted the pages text here for posterity:

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

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

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

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

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

CD-ROM and DVD compilations

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

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

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

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

Novak Druce + Quigg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Standard Ballroom Syllabus

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Pocheptsov

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep World famous in Wilmington [46]. Nowhere else, but cut the kid a break.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't find anything other than local coverage. There are a bit of grandiose claims in the local paper that I can't find duplicated in other reliable sources. Taking into account his age and the fact that he's still up and coming in the art scene I think deletion at this state is best, with no prejudice against future recreation if his notability grows. Them From Space 04:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lendl–Wilander rivalry

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. As it stands, the article is as described, just a meaningless list of match results. However there is evidence that such a rivalry exists and is notable [47] so it may be possible to build a proper article. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Henin – S. Williams rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edberg–Lendl rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davenport – V. Williams rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agassi–Chang rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capriati – S. Williams rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edberg–Wilander rivalry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insult comedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cohort (computer science)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clumping (computer science)

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

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

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

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

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

Merge and redirect, as Whpq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celtic Sea Salt

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

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

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

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

Keep - but is it a brand of sea salt? [48], [49], [50], and [51] all refer to this as a type of gray sea salt from Brittany and make no reference to this as a brand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adaptability (computer science)

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

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

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

I'm nominating this page for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rahab (Kushiel's Legacy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arminka Helic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kin-Kon-Kan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonic Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sonic: Night of the Werehog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbonell Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Porn 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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