Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 December 14 December >

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 speedy close. This article does not exist. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had nominated this for deletion in March 2009 because it didn't have enough content. It's still just a list. Delete until someone is interested enough to write a full article. --Mblumber (talk) 18:49, 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) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring Success: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations

[edit]
Enduring Success: What We Can Learn from the History of Outstanding Corporations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable forthcoming book by non-notable author Pontificalibus (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book is an extension of a Harvard Business Review article (lead article in 2007 July-August edition). Ideas have been widely discussed following this article and book is expected to have similar impact. Is published in Stanford University Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It looks like it will be a notable book and will have an article in February when it is published. However the opening sentence saying it "...is a book" is not true. I don't think WP can start out an article with "will be..." by WP:Crystal. Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but book is already on Stanford Univeristy Press page, plus available on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notable can be mediocre. looks like the ideas are widely discussed online (more than 100 pages come up) and the book has solid endorsements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabare99 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added criticsm to the article. The structure of the article is now identical to the one for 'Built to Last' - a book that covered a similar question but for US companies (this one is on European companies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakarima (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is? Would you mind supplying some evidence that it's "widely discussed?" That being said, several of my own publications are available on Amazon and B&N, but that doesn't mean I pass WP:BIO or the GNG. Obvious WP:CRYSTAL violation, possible COI; make mine Delete.  Ravenswing  17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, and turned up the HBR article. That is not, however, this book, and the subject of the article up for AfD right now. Do you have some evidence to proffer that this book is being widely discussed?  Ravenswing  20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • meant the HBR article - covers the same points but I guess you are right, this is about a book and not just the content it covers. Sure you know better, I am new to this WP editing Kabare99 (talk)20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. Otherwise, Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No independent reliable references - Amazon will sell almost anything online/on demand. There must be an element of COI involved here too - I can't see anyone unconnected with the book putting up an article on something like this. People do put articles up about famous authors' next works, based on speculation, and they get deleted. This is too detailed to be speculation, and I wouldn't exactly call the author famous - at least, no-one's put an article up about him here yet anyway. The publisher is notable, but as the book's not out yet (for nearly three months, even...) I don't think an article is called for yet. Peridon (talk) 15:52, 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 speedy delete per G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hudson's Speed Thinking

[edit]
Dr Hudson's Speed Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not a notable way of thinking Pontificalibus (talk) 22:19, 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) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banter Records

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

Non-notable organisation. No assertion of importance, or significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not remotely notable. Most of the references in the article are MySpace, Facebook, youTube, blogs, etc. Various searches have also failed to provide any evidence of notability. For example, a Google search for "Banter Records" Stalybridge produced only the Wikipedia article; a search for "Banter Records" "Ashton under Lyne" produced the Wikipedia article, a facebook page, and various pages on www.bantermedia.com, and that was all. Very similar results came from pairing "Banter Records" with other names and phrases from the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Liam Andrew Wright#Banter Media. Can't see any case for notability, but that aside, almost all of the information in this article is either someone's opinion or not reliably sourced, or both. The few bits of factual information seem to in the Liam Wright article, and any other bits of information that anyone wants to preserve can go there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:30, 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 merge to Exodus (band). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Demo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
1982 Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:16, 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.

Christipher Alvàrez is a beast😇

Christopher Alvarez

[edit]
Christopher Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jordan Rodriguez CCA Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find stats on this player, but that alone isn't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played professionally. It also doesn't help that the article looks like it was copy-pasted from somewhere. Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:02, 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 speedy delete under speedy deletion criterion #G11. Airplaneman ✈ 21:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLANC SQUARE

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

Violates WP:ADVERT; article was initially submitted for CSD, but that template was removed by someone else connected with the organization. mhking (talk) 20:55, 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. LFaraone 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Skimming

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

Wikipedia is not for things that were just made up or that are going to be up and coming in the future. I found evidence in a search that this sport exists but it is very new and there do not seem to be any reliable sources with anything that could be reasonably described as in-depth coverage of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 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 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Boilesen

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

Premature article about a young footballer who is yet to play a first-team game. Speedy denied so this has to go through another AfD. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:43, 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 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David N Rice

[edit]
David N Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A user has been spamming Wikipedia over the past few months to try and get some sort of page about this guy and his gambling business up, and they finally came up with something that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but the notability of this individual is questionable, and sources are scarce. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 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 delete under WP:A7. Airplaneman ✈ 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Visions for Public Schools

[edit]
New Visions for Public Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not for profit organization of very questionable notability, 4 of the 5 "references" are self references to their own website, the fifth "reference" simply proves their existence, and says nothing about this groups notability. WuhWuzDat 19:35, 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) 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howes (actor)

[edit]
Thomas Howes (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor of questionable notability WuhWuzDat 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This news article gives me reason to doubt the nominators claim of non-notability. Also, it's a brand new article, which explains why the article hasn't demonstrated the subjects notability yet. There could very well be reliable sources out there that demonstrate notability. --Piast93 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that article is an interview with the Mr Howes about quite a variety of off topic trivia and drivel, and the only "claim to notability" in it is a passing mention at the end that he is playing the "2nd footman" in a tv show. WuhWuzDat 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me clarify my position. I don't believe that that interview by itself proves notability. It would take more than that to substantiate his notability. What it does do, however, is cast doubt upon your claim that he isn't notable. Instead of deleting this article, I propose that we give this article a chance. Another reason I advise caution is because the creator of this article is new, and, if we delete it, there's a very real possibility of them leaving wikipedia. It goes without saying that would be bad for the encyclopedia. Given those two reasons, I believe that it'd be a net positive to keep this article. --Piast93 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Downton Abbey turns into the next Upstairs, Downstairs, perhaps Howes can be reevaluated, but for now, his credits are far too slender. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's usually seven days in one of these discussions. If there is anything more to add, please add it. At present, there's nothing to show beyond second footman and one episode of ChuckleVision. (For the benefit of Americans, the Chuckle Brothers do a sort of panto style show all year round. I don't watch TV, but I have seen them live and they are funny - though possibly hard to understand if one is used to US comedy. Their shows are very popular and have been going a long time. Playing 'Young Ralf' in one episode is hardly Hamlet.) Peridon (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The YP interview is an indication that the paper considers him worth interviewing, and mentions 'stage'. The credits given in the article doesn't mention stage. Possibly there is something there. "Another reason I advise caution is because the creator of this article is new, and, if we delete it, there's a very real possibility of them leaving wikipedia." - That's no real reason for keeping the article. One hopes they will learn from this and stay. And when notability for this subject is established (assuming the AfD goes for delete now), they can re-create it and show his triumphs. It's still early in the career for someone obviously not picked for Harry Potter type stardom at 11. Peridon (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
  • Delete the one-sentence article and return it to author. Per WP:TOOSOON this career is as yet too short and fails WP:ENT.. and he does not apear to have enough coverage in reliable sources and so fails WP:GNG. If this changes in the future, we can certainly do better for this guy than one sentence. And to User:Piast93, you are welcome to work on an artcle for this fellow in a sandbox until it becomes suitable for mainspace. As it stands, one six word sentence does not a BLP make. HOWEVER, and as this sourced stub article was nominated for deletion only 7 minutes after creation, I am quite willing to reverse my decision IF this article improves markedly over the next few days. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 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) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sauchyar Gardezi Sabri

[edit]
Shah Sauchyar Gardezi Sabri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced sub-stub that gives no useful information or context as to who the subject is. The article seems to imply through an image, and an unhelpful entry on List of shrines - that he's in some way involved with a fairly impressive-looking shrine in Pakistan. I can't find any information to source or expand the article, but given my lack of knowledge of the area I thought I'd bring it for discussion rather than simply speedy deleting it under A1. ~ mazca talk 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wow, this is a really good mystery. Regular searches turn up little and what there is in Pakistani(maybe) that is giving the translator trouble and coming garbled. This may be a stretch but he seems to be some kind of musician to me. Often sites have him in relation to Melas, which are festivals in the Hindu tradition on the subcontinent. Melas in March and April 2009 especially. I suggest adding to more lists of related discussions to expand exposure: Hindu, India and Musicians perhaps. I don't know how to do this, hopefully someone else can. Outback the koala (talk) 09:01, 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, CTJF83 chat 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find anything either, and there is an almost complete lack of context in the article and in previous edits by the article's creator here and at Commons. This article, more superficially substantive than most no context articles that are speedily deleted, simply lacks the information necessary for anyone to work on it. It's the picture that makes it look more than it truly is, I think. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 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 G12 by User:PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edcucation, Experience or Talent by Malkam Dior

[edit]
Edcucation, Experience or Talent by Malkam Dior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to simply be an essay on employment, rather than anything that constitutes a purely factual encyclopedia entry. The subject and content are not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Friginator (talk) 18:23, 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 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym FGI

[edit]
Acronym FGI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a hoax. Some schoolchildren claim to have made up something in school one day. We all know (or should know, as Wikipedia editors) that they didn't in fact invent this, and that this article is a falsehood. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise, in any case. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 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 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ParenteBeard

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

Non-notable company. A recent expansion has turned this article into pure promotion, but even before the recent edits, there was nothing in the article, nor any results from a Google search, to indicate that this firm is notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgoldsmi (talk • contribs) 02:28, 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. LFaraone 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recife FC 3

[edit]
Recife FC 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability of this event is not apparent. It included few, if any, notable fighters. The promotion does not have its own page, and is unlikely to pass general notability guidelines if were ever created. Separate pages for its events seem unnecessary according to WP:MMANOT. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:40, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Mitchell

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Brian David Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Inarguably, this blp's subject has been involved in a crime and related investigations and proceedings that are extremely notable; that said, he retains to-date zero notability independent from these closely related events. (Yet, of course, if this article is to be deleted, a redirect from Brian David Mitchell to a subsection of Elizabeth Smart kidnapping--one containing essentially the same biographical info about Mitchell contained at present in the separate blp (such as, for example: this)--would be imperative.) Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep but merge/turn into redirect ...after which, when someone would type in "Brian David Mitchell," they would directly go to, say, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping#Biography of Brian David Mitchell--after which they could simply scroll up the page if they wanted to peruse/read about the kidnapping, etc., itself. And, likewise, if they will type in, Google or otherwise surf to "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping," they then could peruse the info about its convicted principal perpetrator if they want, simply as they scroll down the page to where his biography would be included. (And btw another factor to consider is that WP readership stats show that but a small percentage of readers click a link to a related or sub-article thus someone who comes first to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping likely will never click over to read Brian David Mitchell and vice versa! <smiles>)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think Mitchell–Smart is like the single Roeder–Tiller WP article: a topic that is essentially intermingled. Both of these are distinct from the pair of Hinckley–Reagan WP articles is that in Hincley–Reagan there is but a few seconds of confluence between Hinckley's and Reagan's life, with the psychotic wooing of Jodie Foster having zero to do with how the crime affected the Reagan presidency or the life of W.H. Press Sec'y Brady; whereas in Mitchell–Smart the various threads of the preceding psychosis and pathology of Mitchell has everything to do with the quasi-Stockholm syndrome experienced by Smart for 9 mo.s as well as all the trials and media coverage (the only thing that doesn't fit in with these threads is Smart's subsequent activism, which is actualy found within her own separate blp). LIkewise, in the Army-of-God militant Scott Roeder – George Tiller, M.D. case, there is nothing yet compiled by Wikipedians about this assassination separate from Roeder's crime and its psychopathology and thus no need for separate articles. (Yet in the case of the alleged so-called "Craigslist Killer" (Markoff–Brisman), Philip Markoff's biography and the murder of Julissa Brisman that he was accused of before his suicide are covered in a single article, fwiw.) Nevertheless, in the case of the interwoven subjects of Mitchell and his kidnapping of Smart, should Mitchell later become notable for some kind of future events essentially distinct from this crime, then the issue should be properly raised again, of course.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hodgson-Burnett re: "quasi-Stockholm syndrome experienced by Smart" point is that it wasn't Stockholm syndrome at all, but the result of a skillful criminal who manipulated and controlled his victim via threats, intimidation, abuse and mostly torture. Stockholm is more of a voluntary attachment or sympathizing with your captor which wasn't Smart's case. Then he went on to manipulate a set of shrinks who should have known better. And, although this isn't relevant to the voting here, Mitchell will be studied more and more as the unique criminal that he is, separate from Smart who is rather done with all this once he is sentenced in May. So it would be better to have a more complete article of this crim as the years go by and as we all study him more closely. Just my opinion though Wombat24 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Philip Markoff seems to have his own bio page now (I didn't move it by the way), but the Assassination of George Tiller one was is a good example of the problems with joining articles that are extensive and have massive amounts of information and two pictures: they become unpractical to read and they aren't very user friendly simply because they are too long and have too much information Wombat24 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      However with Mitchell: today I found a good reference that covers only Mitchell and the religious issues surrounding him, ie is he insane or just an extremist religious zealot. Please read this article here | Line between inspiration and insanity is a narrow one, The Christian Century, I'll put it in the Mitchell article soon too. Wombat24 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Merge criteria are
    1. Overlap - "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap."
    2. Context - "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep....Reaches standard for exemptions applicable in WP:BLP1E such as high profile individual and WP:BIO1E "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified":
    • Comments
    1. The trial was "The United States vs Mr Mitchell" not Miss Smart, she was just a witness albeit the main one, and its covered that way in many news outlets.
    2. Some of the references in the articles are only about Mr Mitchell and not specifically the Smart kidnapping like "The Makeing of Immanuel, Brian David Mitchell and the Mormon Fringe"(Sunstone) and the Charles Montaldo references in crime.about; his notoriety currently reaches the level of "Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category"(WP:BLP1E) and "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"(WP:BIO1E)
    3. And, again, wikipedia is full of articles of single criminals know for one crime or one event but who are covered enough all in the media to justify a bio page, eg Bruno Hauptmann, Curtis Allgier, if we delete this Mitchell page then the standard would be to delete all those people know for one single event although a well known and well documented even.
    4. I started the page back in June 2010, after asking an administrator to free up the name from redirecting to the Smart Kidnapping (User talk Mitchell) which an administrator did do; I could be seen as having a vested interest as the first editor but I don't have any other vested interests, my interests in Brian Mitchell are purely academic; the page views have increased significantly now that a verdict of guilty is back as the stats clearly show, increasing to 6.1k the day the verdict was returned when previously it was only a few hundred or so viewers, so people are interested in seeing Mitchell's bio and background in wikipedia
    1. *Speedy keep : Because only two editors seem interested in discussing this page delete Wombat24 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *Comment - Single editor immediately above has cast a compound vote.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    *What? Only listing the reasons one by one, but if it's supposed to be done different let me know or just fix it Wombat24 (talk) 10:06, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Childism

    [edit]
    Childism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

    Delete: The title seems to be a coinage of a single person and is not found elsewhere with any scholarly credibility. In addition, the topic of the article itself is not scholastically significant, its meaningful associations already described in articles on ageism, adultism, and pedophobia. Even the title is semantically inaccurate. (Discrimination of children would more accurately be called "anti-childism." Childism suggests the privileging of children, just as adultism is the privileging of adults.) Wolfdog (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "coinage of a single person and is not found elsewhere with any scholarly credibility" - It's used by many people, of course; I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean to imply that because one person invented the term we should not have an article about it? We don't need "scholarly credibility" for inclusion, we just need notability - see wp:NEO. But we have plenty of "scholarly credibility" anyway; a scholar.google.com search yields many results. As an example see [1]. "topic of the article itself is not scholastically significant" - again, doesn't matter, but it seems "scholars" spend time on it in any case. "its meaningful associations already described in articles on ageism, adultism, and pedophobia" - this isn't an argument for deletion. However, if one of those articles describes "childism" in detail you could have Childism redirect to the appropriate section of that article. You don't need an afd for that. WRT Semantics - you might be right, I think, but once again, it doesn't matter: the term is used the way it is used and the article absolutely should use it the way it is used. Wikipedia doesn't fix things. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually a quick scan of the Google Books and Scholar search results linked above appears to show at least as much use of the word "childism" to mean taking a child's or child-like point of view, as to mean prejudice against children. The topic of this article should either be covered in the ageism article, of which topic it is a subset, or, if found notable enough for a separate article, under an unambiguous name such as prejudice against children. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In the first place, the article is a single-sentence definition. In the second place, a Google search indicates that the term may be used in several very different and in fact contradictory meanings. The definition given here is one such meaning, namely prejudice against children, but it has also been used to mean promoting the interests and rights of children (comparable to feminism). I see the term as defined here has been added to Wiktionary but I wonder if that was wise, since there are other meanings and other usages besides the one listed here. In any case this is not an encyclopedic article, and as Phil Bridger suggests, if an article about prejudice against children is needed it should be better titled. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Courcelles 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Emma Jones (journalist)

    [edit]
    Emma_Jones_(journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    I've marked this for deletion as the entire entry has only one verified source, and the link is broken. Alternatively more resources should be added/updated Saigon2010 (talk) 17:12, 10 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 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GKR Karate

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

    A lot on non reliable third person sources to demonstrate its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Corbett, Val (March–April 2004). "Qualified Privilege: Reynolds Comes Home to Roost". Independent Law Review. 1 (2): 37–42. ISSN 1649-7244. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-17. In GKR Karate v. Yorkshire Post Newspapers, the defence proved successful. In that case, the defendant published information alleging that, inter alia, the plaintiffs were 'doorstep salesmen flogging dodgy karate lessons.' It was held that the public (in this case the local community) had an interest in receiving such information.
    • GKR Karate contains one sentence about "Doorstep salesmen karate". That sole sentence is "Recruitment - A significant proportion of GKR's member base is from its door-to-door recruitment system." I don't think the above source is enough to justify an article about Doorstep salesmen karate, so I still support deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 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 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Genwakai

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

    An obscure martial art with no independent sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:40, 10 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 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Goddess of Pop: The Remix

    [edit]
    Goddess of Pop: The Remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There is little to no information on this page and just one reference from what appears to be a Cher fan site. It fails to meet the WP:NOTE and WP:NSONGS notability guidelines. XL XR2 (talk) 20:54, 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 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gohaku-Kai

    [edit]
    Gohaku-Kai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A sparsely sourced article which of question value. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:37, 10 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 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of HTML editors

    [edit]
    List_of_HTML_editors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    Delete per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LINKFARM#LINK


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of culinary fruits

    [edit]
    List_of_culinary_fruits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opentag (talk • contribs) 2010/12/09 19:16:34

    I am strongly opposed to the deletion and I think deletion of articles, except if really necessary (in case of hate speech, for example), is completely wrong and not in accordance with the founding principles of this project. So were the articles about me deleted, without any strong argument, except for the fact that I am "not known enough", despite millions saw me on BBC, ARD and other international media. --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mercedes-Benz 300D

    [edit]
    Mercedes-Benz_300D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    It's poorly written, unreferenced (since 2007), unneeded and confusing as there are main articles about both Mercedes-Benz W115 and Mercedes-Benz W123 series which are of good standard and they're including info about this model. This model doesn't need separate article also because it has no extraordinary features which couldn't be found in other W115 and W123 series cars. It's been redirected to W123 but since it was also in W115 series it will be better off if it's deleted completely as it adds up to confusion.

    SHAMAN

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Polly Higgins

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

    Lack of neutrality Amvros (talk) 17:10, 10 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 Procedural Keep. IP editors can nominate articles for AFD, as this one did, provided that they then have an editor or admin create the debate here and offer their rationale for deletion. This didn't happen here, so we have no nomination - and thus no AFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rory Girvan

    [edit]
    Rory_Girvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    This page should be kept as all points are clearly cited and relevant, including Spotlight and IMDB, widely respected actors pages. Additionally it has received a number of hits since its addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammysoutherner13 (talk • contribs) 2010/12/10 11:51:41

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After the article was improved, the consensus is clearly to retain it in some form. A move to an article on the "event" (eg Execution of Tahvo Putkonen) has been suggested to overcome any WP:BIO1E concerns. Because the move was suggested late in the AfD there's no consensus for it here so "move" is not part of the AfD's outcome. However, it is a sensible suggestion so I recommend a requested move be opened, or if any editor feels particulary bold, carry out the move unilaterally. Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tahvo Putkonen

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

    Not notable as there seem to be no reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (pssst. It was Jack Merridew who tagged it, not the ARS. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. The wording of the {{ARSnote}} template is somewhat ambiguous and should probably be updated; I don't think it is intended to mean that the tagging of the article was necessarily performed by an ARS member, but instead that it has been tagged in the hopes that the ARS will rescue it. SnottyWong babble 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hesitate to ascribe any particular motivation to Jack Merridew, as I fear my head would not look well stuck on a sharpened stick. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless sources can be found. I haven't found anything in multiple sources. I have found sources that indicated the last execution was in 1824, rather than 1825, but I think all of them go back to a single communication from a finnish court of appeals judge, none list the person executed by name. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a Finnish entry for this person. [5] The history of the article shows that after the first person created it, the next came and tagged it as rubbish. No references there either. I tried using Google translator to find out some Finnish words and search around, but didn't find anything. Google books has results, but they look like the books that just print Wikipedia content. Dream Focus 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: unreferenced bio, no assertion that the topic meets WP:BIO & no reliable sources identifiable through Google News or Books, beyond a brief mention on a German site, apparaently dealing with the subject of the death penalty. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Hold it, please. The person is notable because he was the last person in Finland to be sentenced to death to receive the death penalty (peace time). Here is a whole lot about the person and his crime in Finnish (section Putkonen, Tahvo Tahvonpoika [note: in Finland it's common to name person in the form <last name>, <first name> <second names>]). I'll try to put the inline references in place to the en-wiki article. --hydrox (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most other people on that page have an article as well. Why make an exception here? Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. With the references at hand I can easily promote this article to an encyclopedia-grade entry (just give me a moment please). --hydrox (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, by your reasoning, if someone else is beheaded in Finland in the future, then this person would no longer have a claim to notability, since they will then be the second-to-last person beheaded in Finland? Saying that no one will ever be beheaded in Finland again would be WP:CRYSTAL (even though it is unlikely), and saying this person is notable simply because they're the last person to have been beheaded is invalid because notability is not temporary. SnottyWong express 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this person has significant coverage in reliable sources for being the last person to be executed, then they are notable. What might or might not happen in the future is not relevant. If he is notable now, he will always be notable - if the death penalty is reinstated after such a long time, is someone going to come along and unwrite all the articles written about him? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can understand from the Google translation of those sources, they appear to verify this person's existence, the details of the crime, and the fact that he was executed by beheading. In other words, it documents that this person exists, that he committed a crime, and that he was put to death for the crime. I don't see how these sources establish why this person was notable. SnottyWong comment 21:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's whole lot about the crime and the evidence based on which he was sentenced to death. --hydrox (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sources now confirm the information. Being "the last person to receive the capital punishment in Finland during peacetime" is something that makes him notable. I wonder how many Finnish textbooks and other books have this fact in them. Dream Focus 21:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if Finland should ever change its mind, reinstate capital punishment, and sentence someone to death, then what happens to the notability of Putkonen? This is not a valid basis for notability because notability is not temporary. SnottyWong speak 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument here is flawed. Yes, notability is not temporary, but all that means is that if the death penalty were to be reinstated, he would remain notable for being the last person to be executed before the long period during which death penalty was abolished. Following your logic, nothing is notable because the universe might not be eternal. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he would still be notable. Being the last person to receive death penalty for almost 200 years now makes him notable, even in the unlikely case that death penalty was reinstated (currently impossible per European Convention of Human Rights) --hydrox (talk) 08:00, 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. LFaraone 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomahawk (Transformers)

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

    A threadbare article with a "source" of questionable repute to support this article with even more questionable notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:33, 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. LFaraone 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WFCA - Fight Arena: Latvia vs. Russia

    [edit]
    WFCA - Fight Arena: Latvia vs. Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The notability of this event is disputable. I looks like it only received a mild amount of regional press coverage, and it included few, if any, notable fighters (see WP:MMANOT). The promotion's page, WFCA, needs some serious editing if it is retained. Since it is not even clear if the promotion itself is notable, a single event it held is very likely not. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:45, 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 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Part exchange

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

    This article has nothing to do with "part exchange". Part exchange does not "refers to the swapping or bartering or exchange of goods or services". It refers to a discount when giving up your old item when buying a new one. This is done mostly in the car trade. Anyway, the rest of the article is mostly unencyclopaedic content with POV phrases such as "So successful is" and "given a whole new lease of life". "Part exchange" would be better as a Wiktionary definition, not an article here. 91.85.135.167 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: this is not my AFD, I am submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice to reposting a sourced article. This is an encyclopaedic topic (although one I think would fit better in barter), but there's far too many unsourced statements open to dispute, and this particular article doesn't seem to have anything worth preserving. And picking one company which offers a part exchange service is very dodgy. Should someone wish to rescue this article in mid-AfD, I will reconsider. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Yet again we have calls for deletion, rather than editing, of an imperfect article on an obviously notable subject. User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has demonstrated that there is no need to delete this article before embarking on improvement. I would suggest that the nominator and seconder check the current state of the article and reconsider their positions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Change to keep now that the article has been rescued. I maintain that when there's nothing in article of encyclopedic value, and it would require a considerable amount of work to put any meaningful article in its place, deletion is a valid option, because I don't see why other editors should expected to do the work instead. But since someone's voluntarily chosen to work on this, it's a moot point. Good job with the rescue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:30, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tycoon Productions

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

    This appears to be a non-notable organization. The fact that the article is referenced to only a Myspace web page is an indication of lack of reliable independent sources mentioning this organization. This is also probable self-promotion considering the username of the editor that created it is also Tycoon Productions. Peacock (talk) 17:06, 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. LFaraone 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Audacity!

    [edit]
    The Audacity! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 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 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Homo Hadalis

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

    nn plot thread of nn novels Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:50, 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 22:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mostafa Hegab

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

    Does not meet WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. Egypt league is not fully professional according to the list. EchetusXe 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that list exhaustive? Egypt is not on the list either way and the Egyptian Premier League article calls itself professional.--TM 16:49, 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) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald I. Barker

    [edit]
    Donald I. Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I have tried a variety of searches and permutations for this person's name (Donald I. Barker, Donald Barker, Don Barker) and keywords (netscape, software), and I cannot come up with a single reliable source containing biographical information (per WP:GNG) or reviews of his work (per WP:AUTHOR). Nothing here indicates he would pass WP:PROF either. I gladly stand corrected by being shown reliable secondary sources on this person and his work. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ray, It is not surprising that searches using permutations of this person's name (Donald I. Barker, Donald Barker, Don Barker) and keywords (Netscape, software) do not result in reliable sources containing biographical information. And you are quite right that, "...the claim that someone wrote the first of anything cannot be sourced to the book itself, rather it requires a source that says it was the first." Given that 98 percent of the information on the Web is hidden in databases from search engine spiders, it is difficult to locate such information. However, I was able to find a reliable independent source of biographical information about Donald I. Barker at the textbook publisher Cengage Learning: http://www.cengage.com/search/productOverview.do?N=0&Ntk=P_Isbn13&Ntt=9780538755986#subTab_4. I will add this reference to the article on Barker. Philip December 13, 2010
      • But what you added is from his publisher, as you said--and it is not independent, nor should it be deemed a reliable source. Sure, much information is hidden in databases, but that does not prevent us from properly sourcing and writing hundreds of thousands of biographical articles. Moreover, I didn't point at just biographical information--it is my contention that absent meaningful reviews of the books those titles don't rise to the level of notability, which would be necessary for the subject to pass WP:AUTHOR. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • With claims of being first to publish book, it would seem logical that most empirical method of verification would be simply to search for the first book published on subject. For example, the claim that Barker is the first to publish a book on Windows could be established by searching and sorting Amazon.com. Although not an exhaustive list, it is certainly the most extensive. I checked several of his titles and claims, and they do appear legitimate. What else should I search for? In other words, what would constitute sufficient evidence? For example, an article making these claims in say the Chronicle of Higher Education. Personally, I would trust my own research over that of journalist's fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipJFry2999 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that is what is called original research, and while what you find may be true, it's not easily verifiable. But even if it were the first, how could we call that important unless reliable sources have noted that it is important? That is one of the cornerstones of the entire project: verifiability. Personally, I'd trust my own research on some topics over the CHE, but why would you trust mine over theirs? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the question is not the trust of a person, but the methodology and (as you wrote above) the "verifiability" of the claim(s). In this particular case, anyone can conduct a search of Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, and library databases to "verify" that these books were published before others on the same topics. Hence, whether that investigator is a CHE journalist or a Wikipedian, it is the empirical, repeatable process that matters, not the trustworthiness of the person or even the organizaiton. As a former journalist myself, I can tell that even the most professional routinely take biographical information provided by an interviewee for granted--unless there is a reason to suspect its authenticity. Therefore, citing such sources (no matter how reputable), lacks the credibility of an empirically verifiable claim. In regards to the contention that the absence "...of meaningful reviews of the books those titles don't rise to the level of notability...", textbooks (unlike trade books) are rarely reviewed, and only then by obscure library or academic journals. Does it then follow that we should exclude textbook authors as notable? Furthermore, my addition to this article makes no claims regarding the "bestseller" status of these textbooks. In my original investigation, I corresponded with the textbook publisher Cengage Learning and they "claimed" that (with a few exceptions), Barker's textbooks were bestsellers. Can we trust the publisher of the textbooks regarding these assertions? Obviously not, because there is no way to verify them. I even sought an independent source. However, the only ones I found that track textbook sales are industry-specific research firms. This exploration revealed two things. First, most of these firms simply don't keep information about individual textbook sales that date back into the 80s and 90s. Second, for those that do, they won't provide it for free because they make their living off selling such information to textbook publishers and other interested parties. Where does this leave us? Should we exclude individuals from Wikipedia based on the formal "notability" requirements, even when unpublished empirical evidence exists for anyone to check that the person is notable? If so, we do a great disservice to our readers and those individuals who have contributed so much to education and, hence, society. As an example, there is no biographical article in Wikipedia about "John McCarthy, the textbook author who wrote the most influential principles of marketing textbook in the last fifty years. Why? Because of the very requirements discussed above. I was going to write a biographical article about McCarthy as well, but now it would seem a waste of my time. Even though I could find countless marketing professors at major universities who would readily attest to the fact that his Principles of Marketing textbook is the seminal work in the field, the question would arise about my trustworthiness as the "reporter" of these comments. If I published these same claims in a piece for the CHE, then they would "miraculously" gain credibility as an independent source. I fully understand the need for independent sources, but when they simply don't exist for clearly noteworthy individuals and when empirical data does exist that anyone can verify, it seems that the "notability" requirements are too restrictive. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate these criteria and possibly expand them so that groups like textbook authors, who codify the knowledge of a field and educate our youth, are recognized as notable by Wikipedia.

    <--Let me take just one of the questions, which I think stands for all: "Should we exclude individuals from Wikipedia based on the formal "notability" requirements, even when unpublished empirical evidence exists for anyone to check that the person is notable?" Yes. That is how Wikipedia works--see Wikipedia:Verifiability, and its opening sentence, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Drmies (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <--This is (what in philosophy) we call an insular argument. Wikipedia defines verifiability as published reliable sources, hence, one can not be notable without published reliable sources. There is no way to win such an argument, unless Wikipedia adopts a more scientific definition of verifiability, such as empirical evidence that can be demonstrated repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipJFry2999 (talk • contribs)

    • That's specious. One can easily 'win' this argument by making reference to reliable sources. Writing an encyclopedia is not a science--it is simply compiling reliable information that already exists in reliable (i.e., published) form. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I searched for substantial coverage in reliable sources in July and didn't find any, which is why I added the notability template. I can't find anything sufficient now, and the debate certainly doesn't show something substantial. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I see no coverage bout him or his published works that would represent the coverage necessary to establish notability for an author. His volume of work would indicate that he probably earns enough money on the work to keep him in that line of work, but merely being a a published author is not notable. As for the claim of being the first to write a textbook for Windows, even if that claim were true, that doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 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 delete. LFaraone 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray Bohlin

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

    This person does not seem to be notable. The article is sourced by primary sources, his own writings and related websites, and by the briefest of mentions in the press. Google searches that I tried show that he exists but that's about all.Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:29, 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 Article has been speedily deleted under criterion G7, as the author requested deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Killum

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

    Delete. Lacks notability according to WP:ENT. Career limited to supporting roles in episodic television. Cind.amuse 14:21, 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) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club

    [edit]
    Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable organization, fails WP:CORP. The article has been in existence since March 2007 and has never had any references or indication that it is notable. Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable local club. No references at all, and no suitable independent reliable sources found. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider in context of other, similar, articles I'll declare a weak interest, as Great Hucklow is the nearest GC to me, though I'm not a member etc. British Gliding Association#UK gliding clubs list 35 clubs, of which 14 have their own WP articles; some of the other wls are redirects and the remaining clubs have links to their websites. Several of these articles are sparser than the one under discussion. Not a reason for keeping D&LGC, of course, but maybe we want to delete several. There is a mention of the field and its association with the World Gliding Championships in Great Hucklow, and this could be slightly expanded and linked. Alternatively, we could build the D&LGC article to the strength of the better GC pages (I'd guess):Derbyshire and Lancashire together is a large area, the site has its WGC history and AFAIK the club remains active; what would make a more GC notable? I'm arguing for consistency here, so if the answer is nothing, they all should go.TSRL (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Well the standard is WP:CORP, so if none of them meet it I would suggest they all be nominated for deletion. I found this article when someone linked in an article I was watching, did a search for refs, found nothing, PRODed it, had the tag removed and brought it here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment WP:CLUB criterion 1 rules out any local sporting club not operating on a national scale. Since there is no UK wide GC club league far as I know, they all should go. I think criterion 2 might well be meetable, but that's not relevant if 1 fails.TSRL (talk) 17:07, 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 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamilla Perry

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

    Delete. Lacks notability according to WP:ENT. Child actress. Career limited to supporting roles in episodic television. Cind.amuse 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 19:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    General methodology

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

    This article is essentially a personal essay, offering an original analysis. Although the article gives a list of references, at best these refer only to individual details of the content of the article: there is no evidence that the overall concepts of the article has received any coverage. I said "at best", because in fact many of the "references" are not even citations to other works at all, but simply statements by the author of the article, such as "Liebniz's monadology is an ideal reflective scheme example", which is a statement of opinion, not a reference to a source. Thus the article constitutes original research, at best a synthesis of disconnected pieces, and at worst not even that, as much of the material looks to me to be completely novel. In addition to this, much of the article is incomprehensible. For example, it is very difficult to know what is intended to be the meaning of such sentences as "Special epistemological analysis shows, that form of fixation, reproducing and organisation of methodological knowledge is methodological scheme, leading every real human practice and activity", or "Development of Heuristics, Alternative Rationalities and Methodological Analysis program means that developed version of general methodology should provide instruments of analysis for at least next forms of rationality", etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would be perfectly happy to work towards improving rather than deleting the article, but there are two problems which make this impossible. One of the problems is that the article is in language so different from recognisable English as to be largely incomprehensible. I cannot correct your English because it is so bad that I honestly don't know what it is trying to say. The other problem is that, instead of trying to help other editors to understand so that they can help, you angrily dismiss anyone who says anything you disagree with. The only plausible possibility of saving this article from deletion is if you can help us to understand it. I am not promising that it will then be saved, just saying that it is very unlikely to be saved otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, man, I understood. 1) "there are two problems which make this impossible" - there are no problems, just some misunderstanding. Sorry, may be I was too aggressive. 2) "the article is in language so different from recognisable" - it's not a problem! you can always help me with that, and I can always help you with something in Russian: if I understood everything o.k., "wiki" is a greatest international project. If so, there is no any problems, dude!)) 3) "you angrily dismiss anyone who says anything you disagree with" - no! everything I ask is a expert suggestions - that's all. 4) "The only plausible possibility of saving this article from deletion is if you can help us to understand it" - O.k.! That is not a problem at all, - just ask me to. 5) "just saying that it is very unlikely to be saved otherwise" - sorry, dude, it's your personal comprehensions, I'll be glad to fix everything. With respect to all of you, Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although, if YOU ALL so STUPID to understand idea of this article, I can't make you able to. Sud off. Everything you able to - just to wipe letters from your keyboards. I'm sorry, wallies. Don't worry, die happy. With null respect, Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That comes immediately after the previous comment from the same editor, in which they denied that they "angrily dismiss" those who disagree with them, and also apologised for maybe having been too aggressive previously?? The amazing thing is that, in the light of experience of this editor, I actually don't think it's meant to be a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:46, 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 speedily deleted by administrator Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) RayTalk 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From translation to translation studies

    [edit]
    From translation to translation studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    like all the other articles from this user, this is pure OR and an ESSAY. this guy has created a number of crap articles like this, and they are all speedy material. A shame we're forced to go to AfD just because the guy removed prod with no rationale. — Timneu22 · talk 13:15, 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 delete. Courcelles 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdul Baqi (Guantanamo detainee 656)

    [edit]
    Abdul Baqi (Guantanamo detainee 656) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:BIO. Half the article (everything but the lead, actually) is not about the same person as far as we can tell (see article talk page for some discussion on this). The actual topic, detainee 656, has no reliable independent sources about him through Google Books or Google News archive. Fram (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Not a notable individual for Wikipedia and even the press has showed no interest. The article needs major revisions and require a lot of more research before it can be used. Ubot16 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete no interest and needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:07, 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, withdrawn by nominator. AD 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A535 road

    [edit]
    A535 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A country road with no notability. Can't find anything significant about it on a web search. AD 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, i.e. Keep Entirely contrary to Wikipedia:Notability (highways)#United Kingdom, i.e. "roads that are classified as motorways and A roads are notable and are suitable for inclusion". S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Entirely contrary to some essay? Please explain how this road is notable, other than simply existing. Maybe you could expand the article beyond its present two sentences to show its notability? AD 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: This is not for me to do. It is for you as the proposer to make the case. Perhaps you would care to cite a successful deletion of a United Kingdom A road in support of your contention? S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If an article does not meet inclusion criteria (such as this one), it should be deleted or redirected. As you undid my redirection, I brought it here because it does not merit an article on its own. "Suitable for inclusion" does not mean an article necessarily. A list is as good, but you've undone that. I've explained my case - no sources, no importance, no notability. Now it's time to make yours. I'm not going to search for other A roads that might have been deleted. They are not this road, so cannot be compared. AD 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "oppose" is ambiguous. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes for how to express yourself unambiguously in an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It does seem rather silly to have articles on stuff like this, but there's a slew of em at A roads in Zone 5 of the Great Britain numbering scheme that all have articles. If these are to be deleted then the list in its entirety should probably be addressed. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of them are redirects. I think that many are worth articles (e.g. A555 road, which I created), but the list is fine for those roads such as this one that aren't particularly notable. AD 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to list and remove from template. The article contains scarcely more info than the list. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This articles has only just been created in this form and as yet any full description for the article has yet to be written. If we are referring to the of A roads, what is the point of the list in its entirety, if not to direct users to an article. Little or no point in having a list that consists of main re-directs back the list page --TimMassey (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep These roads are notable. I hate useless redirects into lsists. This should be expanded and written properly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate "it's notable"-type votes when clearly it's not at all. What you like or don't like is irrelevant. Tell us how this average, not particularly long country road is notable. Where is the significant coverage of this road in reliable sources? The two references aren't actually about the road. AD 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you genuinely think that one of wikipedia's most experienced editors votes to keep or delete articles based on a mere "liking" of an article. If you genuinely do then I'm bitterly disappointed with how you view me as an editor. Rubbish. I make a judgement about the notability of an article based on sources and function, this article is an A road so its amongst the UK's most notable roads and if you actually look inside a library and do some proper research you would be surprised, I'm certain of that. In Cheshire county library I'd vouch that there are many documents related to this road's construction and planning as a major public infrastructural work. Road length means nothing, we have full length articles on tiny lanes in London and little town squares.. I expanded an article earlier in which the nominator claimed the same thing "no sources, non notable" and the article now has 20 sources, at least half of them from reliable books, see Anne Rouse. Given time the same can be done with this article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think anything; I'm only going by what you said: "I hate useless redirects into lsists". That looks very much like judging based on like and dislike, but I could be misreading.

            You've managed to add a few sources, none of which discuss the road itself - so far, we have nothing on its construction, its usage, the speed limits, etc etc. We have three references backing up that Jodrell Bank exists nearby, when only one is necessary - and still nothing at all discussing the road. Yes, it's mentioned in places, but no one has yet proven it needs its own article. All this information can easily be merged into the list. AD 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • How long does it take to write a good, comprehensive and resourceful article? A lot longer than 20 minutes... I've done a lot of browsing over British villages and perusing over google maps and have often been really disappointed when I'm viewing a major A road of the Scottish Highlands and seen a redirect into a "List of A roads" which has very limited information on them. I've long thought its time that people invested some time and effort into developing these articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thing is, I'm not against road articles; far from it, I've even created some myself. It's just there isn't really much to say about this road, that isn't already provided in the list. The list could be reworked to have a "notable landmarks" column, which would take up much of the content from this article. I just think that if there is nothing of interest to say about the road itself, there is no point in having an article. Frankly, I was disappointed to see such a poor article as I've driven on this road a few times, and was even more disappointed when I realised there just isn't enough to write a useful article. If I was reading about a road, I'd want to know its construction dates, why it was made, the land around etc. This article has landmarks, but that's about it. It's disappointing, and always will be - a waste of time clicking off the list, if you ask me. AD 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I couldn't agree more. It actually frustrates me more than anything else to see one line unreferenced/poorly sourced stubs on British A roads or redirects. It certainly is very disappointing to also see many British villages as one line stubs. We are used to seeing them for third world countries but with Britain its not good enough.We are very lucky in regards to documents and the recording of information in our history in that it should be straightforward to research these articles properly. But even for the UK the information actually on the web for many places is still in its infancy. I would bet top dollar that some local library in Cheshire, Macclesfield library or whatever does have detailed information on road development and dates and loads of info. Its sad that we can't access it. I did a LOT of local history research in my area to contribute to my studies and I was astounded how much info I found on local roads and settlements, anyting from gradients to bridge assessments. This information does exist somewhere, without a shadow of a doubt. I agree that the information is sketchy at the moment but we should be able to compile some sources for these A roads to at least make them worthwhile. I think in the long term it is much better for wikipedia to have proper articles on these roads. I agree that this road is hardly the M4 motorway but in my view it should be accepted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the excellent work of Dr. Blofeld, could anybody not wish to Keep? TheGrappler (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your kind words. I agree with Aiken that we really want to see more detail about the actual road construction and planning history but I'm afraid until somebody can do the research in a Cheshire library it won't happen. What I'd suggest is that these A roads are expanded like this so at least they have some initial use. If we want high quality articles which are truly comprehensive and top level then somebody somewhere at some point is going to have to do local /county research from documents and papers. User:Hassocks is a prime example of this and has made even small streets and buildings of Brighton GAs because he is exceptionally resourceful with books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Road appears important and article is decently written. Dough4872 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As I've driven on this road. Oh, and the small expansion work showing notability, etc, from Dr B too... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 12:32, 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 speedily deleted by administrator Athaenara (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) RayTalk 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuno Azevedo

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

    No reliable sources here to confirm notability; Google / Google News hits seem to be about other people of the same name. Prod removed without explanation. John of Reading (talk) 12:17, 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 DELETE per WP:BAN, WP:CSD#G5 article created by a banned user, Verbapple (talk · contribs) and no substantial contributions by anybody else. I will also note that the last AfD and this one appear to be heavily tainted with disruption by sock puppets and single purpose accounts. This is a WP:BLP enforcement action as well. Note diffs: this [8] [9]. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Elliot McGucken

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

    This was sent to DRV by an IP, whose comments are reproduced below. However, the last discussion was almost two years ago, and I believe the DRV was started to get around the need to create a new page for AFD. Procedural nomination only. Courcelles 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12: No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • reply I think this is a bad way of handling sockpuppets. After all it's not the articles fault. The reasons for creation or deletion of an article should only include WP article guidelines, not user guidelines. If you suspect sockpuppets (which I think your right to do so) open a sockpuppet case.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply excuse me please but the sockpuppet issue is obviously distinct from the deletion case. this article subject is clearly unnotable. however, the problem that i have noticed upon reading the prior WP:AFD is that, even though the article is poorly written and the sources presented are either owned by the subject or only briefly mentioning his name, he got the article to stay by creating a swarm of anonymous ip addresses to repeatedly vote Keep with the same dubious rationality. this is clearly gaming the system and i hope that the admin in this case does not give

    each copy-and-pasted nonsense a separate consideration as if they were from multiple poeple. User:Smith Jones 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Looks like well sourced article to me with multiple references from the new york times business week wall street journal the university of north carolina at chapel hill pepperdine university the charlotte business journal the triangle business journal professional ieee publications professional business journal the arts entrepreneurship educator's network popular science crc scientific publications and more in cluding north carolina state university and business week magazine.

    The major sock puppet seems to be the anonymous ip who obviously has an emotional investment in the deletion of this article. They are likely masquerading as the anonymous jones smiths above and they originally resubmitted the deletion request planning to come here and accuse the new york times and wall street journal and popular science and business week of sock puppetry, when in reality smith jones is the anonymous sockpuppet submitting requests to delete from anonymous ips after failing to get the article deleted before.

    This constitutes abuse and they should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user smith jones is now getting emotional with their "excuse me" diction. They are obviously the same sock puppet who initially tried to get this article deleted numerous times from anonymous ip addresses. The article has far, far more reputable sources than the vast majority of wiki articles on living people. The anonymous smith jones really has it in for mcgucken and it seems his hate has blinded him to the dozens of blue chip sources. Smith jones need to be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 (talk) 23:50, 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. G7 applies Courcelles 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    T. Hayden Barnes

    [edit]
    T. Hayden Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi

    [edit]
    Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Continuing nominations of nonnotable supercentenarians with no more than one reliable source per WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. I intend that, during discussion, any article supporters either find sources or merge sourced material to deal with the indisputable WP:GNG failure (the requirement of multiple reliable sources); without either of these actions, bare "keep" votes will not address that failure. I also intend that any who disagree with the WT:WOP proposal, which affirms GNG for deletion of these articles, should comment at that link. Article-specific details with my !vote below. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Delete as nom 7-sentence article completely about unverifiable longevity OR/SYN. Only source is one Italian convenience copy of an Il Record article not likely to support most of the WP article and insufficient to demonstrate notability. Citation lack and unverifiability already tagged in article since 11/2007. JJB 05:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Only source in article is insufficient to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. Neptune5000 (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She was at some point Italy's oldest person ever, and she was the oldest living person in Europe. Longevitydude (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Oldest person on record born in Italy and she is currently the second oldest Italian ever. DHanson317 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: DHanson317, your contributions to six AFDs each argue based on an implied belief in "inherent notability" for the individual criteria you state. While further consensus is still sought at the discussion link in the nom, I believe it established that there is no consensus for biography-level notability inhering in single-source cases on such broad criteria: the few cases truly inherently notable also turn out to be generally notable. Consensus indicates instead that these individuals have only line-item notability, i.e., one reliable source would permit the individual to be (only) a line-item in one or more list articles: and in your six cases, the individual is in an average of seven WP lists already, which is still excessive. JJB 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep. In addition to excluding JJ's voting for his own nomination (COI), I suggest we consider that JJ spammed all these articles. What consensus?

    1. JJ is the nominator 2. JJ wrote his proposal 3. No one else agreed with him 4. JJ attempts to recruit voters and intimidate those who do vote to keep.

    This shouldn't be a political blog. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia.Ryoung122 00:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you seem to have read WP:COI? Why do you refer to the mere use of boilerplate text as spamming, as you certainly seem to have a habit of such use? Why don't you seem to have read WP:SILENT, or in fact to have noted that when you broke the silence you didn't in fact disagree with any proposal text posted to WP:WOP? Why don't you source your charges of recruitment and intimidation? Why do you feel such a need to make throwaway comments about political blogs? I was going to ask "why don't you source the article" but you followed up the meaningless word "keep" by not saying anything about this article at all; I guess you could accuse me of digressing now. JJB 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Keep. 1)The oldest living person in Europe.Japf (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep For John J. Bulten every supercentenarian is nonnotable, even Jean Calment. He and his friends nominate all these articles about supercentenarians, because of his religious believes. He believes the only notable elderly people are those mentioned in the bible, who claim to be minimum 130+ years old. Now where is the proof these people were really that old? What stops me from "requesting" deletion of articles of every single elderly person from the bible? Who says the genesis is a reliable source? I dont! I do not believe the ages claimed in the bible. And that is my right to believe this, because we live in a free world. So in name of the free world. Let us stop this battle once and for all. I vote to keep all these articles, because if they are deleted, things may get out of control. We are having a battle here against believers of aged people in the bible/genesis and believers of aged people in the current world. Just my two cents. Petervermaelen 07:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for respecting other peoples beliefs even though you dont agree with them, and for the record, I believe the ages mentioned in the Bible, but I understand the rules for validation and I know they didnt keep records back then, some thing we must believe with faith. Longevitydude (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Now is the second oldest person from Italy. A notable person. Amply documented.Cam46136 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Delete This one has absolutely no sources. Since 2007 there's been a tag asking for inline citations. If someone speaks Italian sufficiently well, one might be able to match some facts with this putative "source". That no one has is telling. I'll bet little of this came from there. Many of the "facts" in the article, along with the picture, appear to come from this blog, although the blog may mirror some other source. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Saying it has no sources is not true. While inline citations may not exist, there are SOURCES, in addition to Zolezzi's being notable. As the oldest ever Italian and the only Italian to reach 114 at the time of her death, she is notable. I suggest keep. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a single source on the page. In Italian. I see text and pictures on the page, mirroring your blog. If there are other sources, by all means, please rescue the article. It's not helpful to assert that there are sources (in all caps, no less) without actually putting them in the article. Inline citations are better, but if you don't know how to do that, please put them under a heading called "References" at the bottom of the page. Then someone interested in doing half your work for you can take it from there. David in DC (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for David in DC:

    Here is a university paper on the biology of aging (even if it has debatable entries);

    http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~pfi/pfi/de/lehre/Information-Studenten/Biologie_des_Alterns.pdf

    It includes Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi, of Italy. Any person reading this could be tempted to look up Wikipedia to find more details. An encyclopaedia contains information on the highest mountains, the longest rivers and the oldest people. That’s what an encyclopedia is! By any stretch of the imagination, these people should be included in an encyclopedia. I even think that Maria Olivia da Silva (with an appropriate note) should be included even though she was not verified.

    Then there are these:

    http://www.mytag.it/salute-e-benessere/159-genova-morta-a-114-anni-le39italiana-piu-longeva-di-tutti-i-tempi.html

    http://www.ara21.org/Sections-op-printpage-artid-157.html

    http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo289728.shtml

    http://www.ilpiave.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1641

    http://www.wikideep.it/cat/lavagna/virginia-dighero/

    http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/gallerie/gente/centenaria/1.html?ref=search

    http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Virginia%20Dighero-Zolezzi/

    http://www.katagogi.com/Common/New/Ajax/ProfileInfo.aspx?l=AR&mid=bb35f2b8-23ff-4c41-81d7-0bfdabaab593&fid=16175&PreveVal=9692%7CTHGkrqXlvxygjg0ryRiphivOldc/Jw0jmoDfrQXFJgY=%7Cjy990e8jsN76cdgY1jIg9g==1

    and on and on it goes.

    Cam46136 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

    If any of these are WP:RS, please rescue the article with them. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An adjunct: If you read the above stories you will find little discrepancies. So what would I do.

    I would go to Wikipedia to find out the truth!

    Cam46136 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]

    DavidinDC, I'm not "assuming" there are sources, there *are* sources, listed in external links, but not cited to the inline text. Look again. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked again. You're wrong. There's a single source, listed under the word "References" at the bottom of the article. There are no external links. There are four wikilinks.David in DC (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep as of user Cam46136. Elmao (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete agree with above concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. The above editor did not exist before today. Is this meatpuppetry?

    Excuse me, since when is Italy's oldest person ever (from 2005 to 2010) not notable? Coverage established notability, not your opinion.76.17.118.157 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Analysis of putative "sources": provided by Cam:

    Here is a university paper on the biology of aging (even if it has debatable entries); http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~pfi/pfi/de/lehre/Information-Studenten/Biologie_des_Alterns.pdf

    I cannot read Italian, but if your introduction tells me the paper has debtable entries, I believe you. I would not use a scholarly paper that I knew had debatable entries as a source for a wikipedia article. I hope you would not either.

    http://www.mytag.it/salute-e-benessere/159-genova-morta-a-114-anni-le39italiana-piu-longeva-di-tutti-i-tempi.html

    I cannot read Italian, but www.mytag.it does not look like a reliable source. What is mytag?

    http://www.ara21.org/Sections-op-printpage-artid-157.html

    My firewall filter identifies this as a social networking site

    http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo289728.shtml

    I cannot read Italian, but this looks more like a reliable source. If an Italian-speaker could read this, determine if it was a reliable source, and then use it to source facts in the article, that would be swell.

    http://www.ilpiave.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1641

    I cannot read Italian, but this looks more like a reliable source. If an Italian-speaker could read this, determine if it was a reliable source, and then use it to source facts in the article, that would be swell.

    http://www.wikideep.it/cat/lavagna/virginia-dighero/

    This is a wiki, and it's sourced to wikipedia.it. C'mon.
    However, I looked at the Italian wikipedia page. It seems to have about eight sources. An Italian speaker could easily check these out, see if they fit the wikipedia.en reliable source rules and then rescue the article from the sorry, near-sourceless state it's in. I've done it on a couple of these articles (Farris-Luse and Thiers) where the sources were in English. How 'bout someone devoting some energy to rescuing the article with these sources. It's way more productive than listing the sources here and proclaiming "See, there are sources." Be a wikipedia editor. Use reliable sources to source facts in the article.

    http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/gallerie/gente/centenaria/1.html?ref=search

    These are photos. I don't read Italian, but the only text here is the captions to the photos. If the caption confirms some fact in another source, it wouldn't hurt to include this as an additional source. But the caption of a photo, even one published in a reliable source, is less reliable than article text. It would be a very slender reed to use as the sole foundation for any but the most trivial of facts.

    http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Virginia%20Dighero-Zolezzi/

    C'mon. It's an obvious wikipedia mirror. Confidence in, and the credibility of, a list of sources is seriously damaged when the list presents potential rescue articles strewn amidst dreck.

    http://www.katagogi.com/Common/New/Ajax/ProfileInfo.aspx?l=AR&mid=bb35f2b8-23ff-4c41-81d7-0bfdabaab593&fid=16175&PreveVal=9692%7CTHGkrqXlvxygjg0ryRiphivOldc/Jw0jmoDfrQXFJgY=%7Cjy990e8jsN76cdgY1jIg9g==1

    Again, c'mon. This Arabic page is sourced to www.zappedia.com. Click here to see what that is. Here's a hint: Not a reliable source. David in DC (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which way I'm leaning for the article at this point, but along with you I'm calling bollocks on some of the sourcing here. Even putting the zappedia.com thing aside (stretching AGF to its limits, I can see that as a case of LINKROT), most (although not all) of the sources are obviously Wikipedia mirrors. I'm still on the fence, but there's no way anyone can seriously claim some of those are sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:50, 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) 12:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anis Hamadeh

    [edit]
    Advanced search for: 
    "Anis Hamadeh"
    In books/documents 
    Google Books
    Internet Archive  · WorldCat
    In the news 
    Google News: recent  · archives
    Free English newspaper archives
    In academic/legal journals 
    and reference works 
    Google Scholar: academic  · legal
    The Wikipedia Library

    Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
    PUBMED Central
    Internet Archive

    World Wide Web pages 
    Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
    Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
    Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
    Yahoo
    Images (free) 
    Google  · Flickr
    Anis Hamadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article is the work of an single purpose account User:Sschlange, Hamadehs flatmate and friend, so Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hamadeh is author of only one book with an rank of 150.000 at amazon.de and translator of another one. His poems are only published on his own website, his CDs are published by himself, former webmaster of a NGO, one exhibition together with his flatmate and one for his own (both in irrelevant galleries). Most of the sources are his own website or his flatmates and so neither neutral nor reliable. The Article is orphanised for more than six months and gets an average of 2 hits per day. The article is full of irrelevances and name dropping (Chomsky says thanks by mail for being mentioned in a poem…). The Article on Hamadeh has been deleted in wikipedia.de for this reasons de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/25. November 2010#Anis Hamadeh (gelöscht) Maybe the criteria for notability are not the same in the German and English wikipedia, but that deletion indicates Hamadehs irrelevance: Not even in his own land he seems to be important --Feliks (talk) 08:31, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sherbourne Street

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

    No evidence shown that this is a notable settlement. The article Boxford, Suffolk suggests that it is part of Boxford. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:19, 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 Move to MV Adriatic. a move to the notable subject - rthe ship seems the consensus here and then expanding to reflect the history of the boat Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sinking of The Adriatic

    [edit]
    The Sinking of The Adriatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A news event with no indication of enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:51, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lenni Jabour

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

    Extremely poor sourcing for a BLP; pic used in article is also questionable per WP:NFC#UUI #1 and can't find much on individual. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Delete very questionable and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:10, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Genesect

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

    Doesn't pass the Pokemon test, I don't think. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:07, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Qalandar Shah

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

    BLP that fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That this was undetected for so long could be a sign that nobody is interested in reading the article. IQinn (talk) 02:24, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Elliot Resnik

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

    Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    References have been added in addition to credits and clients of this notable entertainment lawyer who individually has handled legal counsel for over 20 platinum records and 45 million units sold. He is currently at Shukat Arrow Hafer Weber & Herbsman, L.L.P., the largest music law firm in the country (who represent John Lennon's estate, and Bob Marley's estate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneycolizzi (talk • contribs) 09:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment VernoWhitney - No evidence of copyright violation listed in reference, as per guidelines. This appears to be a random deletion without written justification. Using referenced sources, information has been added to prove notability. Though there is a Music Law page, the wikipedia is sorely underpopulated with many of the biggest names in music law missing articles. Moneycolizzi (talk) 14 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 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) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    CS2D

    [edit]
    CS2D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep >>> A lot of people play CS2D. (being a free clone of CS 1.6)<<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.135.120 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 188.26.135.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    1. "Non-notable video game developed by non-notable company" is not a justification for non-notability as the premise is in itself the inherent resolution of the contention. Clarification of why video game is non-notable is requested.
    2. Non-notable company does not impact notability of the game.
    3. Proposal cites affiliation of the editor with the company as cause for non-notability as described in Wikipedia:SIGCOV

    "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

    However, the author of the game have listed the group/organization under the "Alternative Community" category via [10], implying that this group have absolutely no affiliation with the author nor the game. Hence the material published does not violate the sigcov guidelines. Phailed.Me (talk)— Phailed.Me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    1. I vote to keep. --- 78.29.146.0 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)— 78.29.146.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: Some of the claims in the nomination are irrelevant to this afd: "developed by non-notable company" - doesn't matter: wp:INHERIT says "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable", but even if it did Unreal is most definitely notable. Also, wp:COI is not a reason to delete. With that said, I think notability is not established in the article; please focus your arguments here in this debate on that question. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The idea that a lot of people play it is irrelevant. I could make a computer game right now (I'm studying to be a computer programmer, btw) and all my friends could come over and play it, but it wouldn't be notable if it didn't exist outside of my personal computer. Also, Phailed.Me, I think you're a little confused as to what significant coverage entails. Not having a conflict of interest (even though there is) doesn't equal significant coverage (and that's the first time I have ever seen that connection). Plus, the link you mentioned lists to the company's own website, which doesn't help your case (see WP:PRIMARY). And although it's true that a non-notable company does not equal non-notability of the game, I couldn't find reliable sources about the game on Google. (And message to the 78 IP: this isn't a vote.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 21:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Erpert, your sole warrant for the deletion proposal rests upon WP:COI, I contended that your justification for non-notability is not based on faulty evidence and provided a first hand source to the author of the game who explicitly categorizes the organization in question as an unaffiliated third party. Since the actual author of the game isn't the one who is making the edits, I don't see how his statement is irrelevant or harms the position contesting the deletion proposal. I agree that sigcov is not fully fulfilled, however if we strictly uphold the notability guidelines, then no articles will ever come to fruition. I advise giving it a bit more time. Phailed.Me (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC). — Phailed.Me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • If COI is all you think my nomination is based on, you clearly did not read it thoroughly. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it the non-notable game by non-notable company part? I refuted the non-notable company component and contended that asserting that something is non-notable via the premise that it's non-notable is a fallacious argument and asked you to expand upon that by actual warrants of why the game is non-notable. You then gave a subjective rationalization of why the game is non-notable by making an analogy of how newly developed softwares are not notable outside of the developer's own locality. That's quite alright. But seeing as the people making edits to this page are unaffiliated with the developer, I don't see how your analogy applies as the act in itself merits the game notability. Furthermore, there are no set threshold for notability nor a standard for credibility that degenerates into this abstract notion of notability that wikipedia is apparently found upon. If I can show you sources for the number of players and an estimation of total number of players in a ball park range nearing hundreds of thousands, will you still not refute that these evidence are faulty as 1.) they are either compiled by the developer himself or 2.) they are compiled by a third party that is sympathetic to the game and hence there can be no credibility in these research as they are very much open to the manipulation of the sympathetic party? If, say, an editor for the Cornell Daily Sun writes an article parodying the video game tomorrow, would that be considered credible or would the credibility suddenly diminish because the intent of the editor is known, even when the content of the article is unchanged? Furthermore, the wikipedia standards are themselves governed by a community sympathetic to, well, these standards. Hence by your line of rationalization and by the above meta-observation, wouldn't you conclude that the wikipedia standards themselves are non-notable as all sources citing the standards are either from the wikipedia foundation themselves or through sympathetic parties? Phailed.Me (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "asked you to expand upon that by actual warrants of why the game is non-notable." Phailed.Me, it is much easier to demonstrate notability than to demonstrate non-notability. Usually, when asserting non-notability, people just say "I can't find significant coverage in secondary sources." It is very easy to demonstrate notability when it exists, though - cite independent references that significantly cover the subject. Are there any? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG, plain and simple. Best of luck to the game, but it just doesn't have the coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It should stay! With more work we can edit so it respects those shitty policies! --- 85.240.22.20 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — 85.240.22.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • It's important to understand that this discussion is not really about the article as it stands right now. The "conflict of interest" stuff above is just a distraction; really what matters here is whether this game is notable. That's the only "shitty policy" we need to worry about here, and no amount of work on the article is going to change it. Really all you probably need to do is paste in a couple links to articles or something covering the game, see: wp:N. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin - Off-site canvassing here [11]. Fairly neutral in conversation on the site thus far, but accounts for Keeps not supplying rationale based in Wikipedia policies. --Teancum (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - trawled the interwebs, best coverage I could find was atomicgamer. Marasmusine (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can't find significant coverage. ThemFromSpace 13:23, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 05:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd

    [edit]
    Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to be a notable court case, as establised by WP:N; I see no evidence that this case is the subject of indepth coverage by reliable sources. I am, of course, willing to be proven wrong here, but I can't find anything myself. Jayron32 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not really sure why, just because YOU see no evidence that the case is the subject of indepth coverage by reliable sources, that you need to put up one of these pages. There is the neutral citation: as a case in the High Court, it's notable alone. And, Jayron, you can't have looked very hard, I'm afraid! But it is a reasonably important precedent anyway. Hope that clears it up. Wikidea 10:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep article is notable but needs cross referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:12, 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) 00:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Wisne

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

    Per this article's previous AfD, should the COI user continue to add content, it should be deleted without prejudice. As they have now done so, let the deed be done. — Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Minimac,Paul McDonald, and Schmidt for at least fighting for me. I'm too exhausted to fight to keep a page that lasted over 18 months. I didn't like the page anyway as it sort of boxed me into a specific stereo type. Regardless of the articles on concussions or not I have been appraoched by two of the biggest movie casting directors in the world, Jane Jenkins and Roger Musseden. Call the info irrelevent I just want to clear the air and the slate and declare a new beginning. I think any person that has started and been a regular rotator for the University of Notre Dame is automatically notable. A specific reference declaring an abstenance from prejudice might just be a preliminary attempt to cover up the fact that's exactly what it is. I guess combining sports with entertainment into an encyclopedia page at this stage without my first movie yet may be too difficult Although I have performed in Sitcom, Improv, Stand Up,Sketch and Drama which have been credited onto the imdb. Major feature sources where used but oh well. I'll just be patient for a decent page. I've had to fight like hell to survive and now it feels like just the beginning again. Kudos and love to everyone- even the haters. This is all I'm going to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwisne (talk • contribs) 04:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    By the way, here are their edits.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete COI issue is a non-starter for me. I just don't see this person meeting the minimum requirements as laid out in the notability guidelines. A few newspaper articles about a concussion they suffered as a football player does NOT amount to "significant" coverage in my opinion. There needs to be a LOT more coverage for this one to rise above baseline WP:GNG standards. --Jayron32 06:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And if he starts disrupting this AfD, like he did the last ones, something should probably be done, like what was for the one before this one.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 06:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactly should we keep an article about a non-notable individual? You don't explain this in your rationale.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think he surpasses the high jump bar of notability. The standards are shaking, the bar is rattling, but he cleared it barely. I'm not emotionally attached though, so if the consensus calls for overturn that's okie-dokie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)
    Again, please explain your rationale; why do you think he passes GNG? I don't see any non trivial significant coverage.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh okay there's the references in the article, and combined with the other coverage found. HINT: click the "NEWS" link in the "find sources" section at the top of this very page and you will find articles covering the subject in the following sources: Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Indianapolis Star, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, New York Times, New York Daily News, USA Today, and others. Some contain passing mention of the subject, others are feature news articles about the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Results in a search engine doesn't qualify as sources; please list specific articles.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. Here's the results of the link you posted in the nomination:

    1. "No. 6 USC vs. No. 7 NOTRE DAME; Role Player; Pain was a big part of …" Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Nov 27, 2002
    2. "Freak injury could end Wisne's year" Chicago Sun-Times Nov 9, 2001
    3. "Irish set to start must-win stretch" Indianapolis Star Nov 3, 2001
    4. "Wisne tackles the lively arts ; An ex-Notre Dame nose guard swaps..." Chicago Tribune Dec 1, 2002
    5. "IRISH KNOW THEY CAN'T SPELL BCS WITHOUT BC" Detroit Free Press Nov 11, 2000
    6. "COLLEGE FOOTBALL; The Irish Take Advantage Of History and …" New York Times - Aug 29, 1999
    7. "IRISH FIGHT FOR RESPECT VS. HUSKERS" New York Daily News - Sep 8, 2000
    8. "Chicago Sun-Times: Tarnished ND program needs Gruden - " Chicago Sun-Times Dec 16, 2001

    Your demands are starting to be disruptive. You posted the link when you nominated the article, you shouldn't need me to click on it and show you the results.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised you have 22k edits and you still don't know that the link is part of a template used with the twinkle script, which I clearly used to nominate this article(note the TW at the first edit for this page). As to the sources, I'll get to that in a moment.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear; I wanted links to the sources, not a general list. That aside, just glancing over the titles of the sources, I see what appears to only be 3 articles, while the rest appear to be passing mentions(again, just from looking at the titles, since you didn't make finding them easier).
    As to being disruptive, I'm being nothing of the kind. I nominated this article for deletion, and it's outcome is built upon the weight of the arguments. I like the article is never a reason to keep it, so if you think the article is to be kept, I'm going to ask why, and I'm going to need evidence. As you have 22k edits, you should know this, and stop assuming such bad faith of others.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know that the link is part of the template you posted. Hence, my comment "You posted the link when you nominated the article." Everything else is rapidly degrading to WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one refusing to discuss their argument, and claiming disruption of others when they push for it. As to the sources, which I said I would review(as apparently you haven't):
    1. Actually about him.
    2. Actually about him.
    3. Not about him.
    4. Actually about him.
    5. Not about him, again, a passing mention.
    6. Again, not about him. Passing mention, and other players are mentioned just the same.
    7. Yet again, not about him. Passing mention.
    8. Passing mention, article is on a coach's resignation and Andy is mentioned; the article is not about him.
    So, we have three 'articles' on him. It isn't disruption to ask you back up your own argument; to ask that you actually put thought and research into it.. as you clearly have not here. All you did is copy-paste the first eight articles you saw, not even bothering to check their content.
    Three sources, especially when one of one to two of those sources are of the 'human interest' style that might be written about any non-notable person, is not by any means the 'significant' non-trivial mentions required to meet WP:GNG.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing how you continue to argue with me and then yet at the same time prove my point for me. As I said above, "Some contain passing mention of the subject, others are feature news articles about the subject" -- let's go with your numbers (because I am tired of arguing). Three articles in major publications primarily about the subject and four as a passing mention. Looks notable to me--barely, but notable. You may believe that is not enough, so be it--we can actually differ in our positions. But there is no reason that I should re-print at AFD any outside article content that can be referenced by a link already on the page. I imagine now you will continue to argue the subject with whomever may come along--I, for one am tired of it and will remove this discussion from my watchlist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were more civil it wouldn't have come to this; instead you insisted on assuming what I would do, call me lazy and disruptive; I never asked you to reprint the article content(putting words in my mouth), I asked you to link to the specific articles. You've been nothing but uncivil with me. You would do well to read WP:CIVIL, and learn to treat other editors with equal respect instead of assuming bad faith of them. I suggest you check yourself. I would assume someone with 22k edits would know this. I guess I was wrong.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the sources provided above, I had read them, and have also done a google and google news search. None of the provided sources, and nothing I found, for my needs, passed the minimum standards to support an article. It should be noted that WP:GNG merely notes that the presence of these sources presumes but does not guarantee the existance of notability. The sources provided do not amount to either enough nor the type of coverage I expect from notable subjects. --Jayron32 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - There's nothing here of value, and I don't care much about the COI angle either. A college football player gets a concussion and can't go on to the NFL, that's a dime-a-dozen story. Reliable source coverage is clearly rebutted by WP:BLP1E guidelines, WP:ATHLETE is a fail since he didn't go pro and isn't notable enough for intercollegiate play, and as for the WP:ACTOR, he is listed as "Bar Patron (uncredited)". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Kudos to User:Daedalus969 for keeping his eye on this article since the "keep" of June 2009.[12] Shame on User:Andrewwisne for coming back after his 18 months of NOT touching the artcle to edit it again as if he WP:OWNed it.[13] I note, as was noted by others at the 2nd AFD, that the subject does seem to meet WP:GNG through coverage in news articles[14] and books.[15] We have ways to deal with disruptive COI other than deleting a kept article. As the author was repeatedly warned, and did not seem to learn from his experiences 18 months ago, how about a temp block to prevent further disruption? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 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) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Little Thatch, Suffolk

    [edit]
    Little Thatch, Suffolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not a notable building - fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:53, 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 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this isn't even the only Grade II listed place in Suffolk called Little Thatch [16] [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk • contribs)
    • Delete According to English Heritage there are close on 450,000 GradeII listed buildings in the UK. To look at adding 450,000 extra three to four lined articles on Wikipedia for these buildings is a bit extravagant. Although EH considers they are deemed worthy of preservation there is no chance of the owner getting any financial help or a grant to pay for any work being done and it is up to owners to pay for it, as per any private house in the UK. That tends to indicate a sufficient lack of notability! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is all to do with whether there is sufficient published material documenting the subject at hand to support a real standalone non-advertisement non-directory-listing enyclopaedia article. It is nothing at all to do with who owns, likes, lives in, or pays for the upkeep of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The owner of a grade II listed property can apply to have the property removed from the listing, altered or demolished. Add to that any building over 30 years of age can be added to register as a grade II listed building[18] neither of these make Grade II a significant indicator of notability as to be considered the minimum requirement. In this case the sole source for the building is the listing, yes that enough to base a mention in the article on Round Maple as its a point of interest but WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage in multiple reliable source independent of the subject. This building lacks both the "multiple" and "significant" components there is no reason for a separate article to cover what can be easily and effectively covered in the hamlet's article. Gnangarra 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral comment Topics about houses/buildings like this are known to pop up on en.WP now and then, in hopes of upping property resale values in a given area[citation needed]Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Either the topic will be taken as notable, or not. It doesn't much matter why such articles are created and the GF of the editor isn't a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt, I just wanted to see examples of the things you said "are known to pop up". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That could take time I don't have. Whatever reason was behind the article's creation, it shouldn't sway the outcome of this AfD at all, which is why I marked the comment as neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course. If you do chance upon these examples, please would you let me know? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see them flitter by now and then. Yes, I'll try to let you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is there significant secondary coverage of this building? No. Being listed is an indication that it may be notable, but we have to consider the coverage. For example Broomhill Pool, Ipswich is clearly notable. And yes, the number of listed buildings is important in considering how relevant listed building status is to notability. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that there is going to be significant coverage of 418,000 grade II listed buildings. It is more reasonable to think that there might be coverage of the 18,000 grade II* listed buildings, and grade I buildings I don't think anyone would argue aren't automatically notable.

      I would also urge people to consider the potential detrimental affect of having articles on peoples private property. Whilst there is information freely available about these properties, it is not on an open platform where anyone could vandalise it. When someone does a database dump of all 418,000 properties are those advising keep going to volunteer to watchlist them all? Quantpole (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It appears impossible to expand this article as the building receives no coverage other than the Grade II listing. It it not sufficiently notable to require a separate article.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a reliable source, which is enough to write a well-written stub. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source is simply a reiteration of the English Heritage listing. For purposes of notability it does not count as a separate source to the listing. So the question is "Does being Grade II listed by English Heritage make a place notable, even if there are no other sources". Some people further up think it does. Others, including myself, think not. Quantpole (talk) 17:00, 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 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Dalgliesh

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

    Unsourced BLP with no significant discussion in independent reliable sources. -- Irn (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This autobiography is so overt that it is written in the first person - "I did this and I did that." No reliable sources independent of the subject except mention of a top 100 game list, which is not enough to establish notability, especially since it links to another Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleteno reliable sources. Appears to be one trying to publish ones ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:14, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Woods (meteorologist)

    [edit]
    Mike Woods (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    nothing points to why he is a notable weatherman Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:58, 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 delete. Courcelles 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Charmaine (musician)

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

    Non notable singer. Both albums (up for PROD) did not chart. No singles in the main chart, only 1 went to number 28 on the Christian radio charts. No other evidence of fame. Speedy declined on basis of the number 28 charting, but I'm not convince that makes singer notable. No substantial references, no independent reviews. Dmol (talk) 05:44, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rotorbolt

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

    Removed a copyvio from this, but there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this fictional character. Macr86 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 03:44, 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 SPEEDY DELETED by User:Jimfbleak. JIP | Talk 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Top 5 atp player this year

    [edit]
    Top 5 atp player this year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Entire article is the Author's opinion. No sources. Since the topic is based on opinion, it is almost impossible to wikify. ~ Matthew Say hi! How I've helped 04:54, 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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mariko Do

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

    Unsourced BLP, no secondary sources found using either the romanized name of the japanese one. Other language bios did not provide any secondary sources either. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete no sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 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) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reuel Marc Gerecht

    [edit]
    Reuel Marc Gerecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    pundit, but no assertion of how or why he's notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish Youth Association of Norway

    [edit]
    Turkish Youth Association of Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:ORG. gets 5 gnews hits in Norwegian. although a Norwegian version of this article doesn't even exist. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 29 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) 01:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources in the article, which include an 18-page peer-reviewed academic paper that, according to its abstract, "pays particular attention to the Turkish Youth Association, which has become politically relevant in Norwegian society", are enough to demonstrate notability. The Google News search results are the icing on the cake. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per Phil Bridger reliable source attesting to notability. __meco (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Whether mentions are in languages other than English is irrelevant; all that matters in determining notability is whether they are reliable and substantial. Whether there is an article in another Wikipedia is also irrelevant since Wikipedia itself is not to be used in determining notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Peshkar Productions

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

    No evidence that this entity meets notability requirements. No references are provided to support notability. Ghits don't reveal any significant coverage. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:13, 29 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) 00:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:34, 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) 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Becker–Sampras rivalry

    [edit]
    Becker–Sampras rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one result in Google books about this rivalry. Google news shows hundreds of articles about games involving these two [19]. Are there any articles talking about a rivalry, real or made for publicity sake? Did the two give interviews trash talking each other or anything? Dream Focus 21:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you couldn't find any, then I'm sure they don't exist. SnottyWong confer 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it just means that 15,900 Google news archive results is a lot to look through. [20] I notice a lot of these articles in Category:Tennis_rivalries are up for deletion right now. Dream Focus 12:52, 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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hingis – S. Williams rivalry

    [edit]
    Hingis – S. Williams rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:30, 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) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maiden Media Group

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

    PR/marketing company that does not meet the notability standards of WP:CORP. Biggest claim to fame is "top ten finalist for the Young Entrepreneurs of the Delaware Valley Award". Sources cited are blogs, trivial, or PR releases. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD needs more discussion before consensus can be reached. I was referring to the source being non-trivial, not the coverage; also coverage from WWPinfo is distinctly non-trivial. This company is professionally registered as a private marketing firm and has had coverage from notable non-trivial sources and local sources. All information on the wikipage can be independently verified by third party sources. I removed advert vandals, self-promotions, and the companies has a significant number of notable clients. Significant coverage is arguable, however, according to WP:FAILN if a page’s notability is questionable and has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article, avoids self-promotion, and only includes information that can be independently verified than deletion should not be the primary option and should default to merge or NC. I recommend a keep or merge with possible marketing companies. However since no such merge exist yet I believe the article’s AfD should be kept until such redirects are possible.Valoem talk 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. 16:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    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) 01:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:29, 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. Will restore on request. Courcelles 00:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Guillermo Rivera-Aranguiz

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

    fails WP:Notability for tennis players as he has never competed in a main draw match at ATP World Tour level or Davis Cup Mayumashu (talk) 18:48, 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) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:28, 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.

    NOTE: This previously deleted page has been recreated. Mayumashu (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2011 (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 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlos Castelo

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

    Unsourced BLP. I searched quite a bit on him because he sounds like he would have sources, but after translating ten or so possible ones I came up empty. Portuguese version of articles offers no help either. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:26, 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 Nom withdrawn. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fintan Connolly

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

    Unsourced BLP. The only sources out there for him are IMDb, showing a couple directing credits, and a couple news sources name-dropping him when discussing the film; nothing that would establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:15, 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 delete. Courcelles 01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NCW High School Basketball Showcase

    [edit]
    NCW High School Basketball Showcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    High school basketball tournament of unclear notability. (Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenatchee-Eastmont Basketball Rivalry.) ... discospinster talk 04:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Flying House

    [edit]
    The Flying House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Obscure anime tv series. Article is currently sourced solely to IMDB and is mainly a plot summary/cast list (WP:IINFO). Google News & Google Books appear to turn up no coverage on this "The Flying House". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep 50 episodes x 30 Mins = 25 hours. Aired on a notable network TV Tokyo for nearly a year, totalizing 25 hours of program and produced by a notable studio Tatsunoko Production. It's only fault is to be a Japanese show. My keep is on the basis of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media X WP:BIAS. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network in the US for several years as well along with Superbook. —Farix (t | c) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither network would count as "broadcast nationally by a major network", even if WP:OUTCOMES didn't warn: "Avoid using this informational page as the sole argument in an AfD discussion." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • CBN actually would since it was on cable systems throughout the United States. It was eventually rebranded as the Family Channel, with the CBN name reserved for Pat Roberson's program, The 700 Club, before being acquired by ABC to become ABC Family. The series has also appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, another nationwide Christian cable network.[25] —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would seem unlikely that a cable channel would count as "a major network". Cable channel states: "Another common label is cable network, though this is something of a misnomer. While usually national in scope, cable channels are not television networks in the defined sense". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So in other words, what you are saying is that if its not broadcast on ABC, CBS, or NBC, then it doesn't fall under WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. I think that line of reasoning shows a lot of bias as Trinity Broadcasting Network is one of the largest Christian networks in the US and available on most cable systems. Just because it is on cable or satalite doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as "a major network". —Farix (t | c) 16:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Or BBC or ITV in the UK, ABC or SBS in Australia, etc, etc. Religious broadcasting is generally niche broadcasting -- particularly as it tends to be heavily sectarian (and neither CBN or TBN are exceptions to that). "Just because it is on cable or satalite doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as 'a major network'." Actually, it means that it doesn't formally qualify as a "network" at all -- that was Cable channel's point. It is simply an optional channel piggy-backing on some cable or satellite operator's network. There are hundreds of such channels -- they are neither "networks" nor "major". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "it doesn't formally qualify as a "network" at all." You know, that shows a lot of bias on you part. Any cable channel that is distributed nationwide through cable television or satellite is generally considered a "network". And WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media doesn't make a distintion between cable networks and over-the-air networks. So don't confuse the medium (over-the-air vs cable) with whether the series was broadcast nationwide. As for whether CBN or TBN are "major" since they are/have been distributed on most cable system, that would definitely be considered major. If they weren't major network, then they wouldn't have been carried by most cable systems. Christian programing may be a niche, but it is a huge niche comparable to sports, music, or news programming. —Farix (t | c) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No -- that is the "bias" of the definition of the word "network" in a telecommunications context -- it implies infrastructure, not merely piggy-backing on somebody else's. As I said before, there are probably hundreds of of such cable channels carried on the cable networks. Such channels are typically by-subscription and so typically do not reach nearly as many households as free-to-air networks, therefore their programming generally does not get the same exposure, and thus notability. If you WP:WIKILAWYER enough you can probably 'prove' that anything calling itself a network is "a major network" -- but that will not mean that its programming has the same penetration (and thus notability) as ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, ITV, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Network has a very broad definition. I find it funny that you cite WP:WIKILAWYER at me when it is YOU are the one trying to narrow it down based on technicalities. "Such channels are typically by-subscription and so typically do not reach nearly as many households as free-to-air networks, therefore their programming generally does not get the same exposure" Ok, we can both agree that the intent of WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media is exposure and not the technicalities of what a network is or is not. But your assertion that cable networks don't have the same "exposure" is ridiculous on its face. Most homes receive their television through cable or satellite. In fact, cable networks have been drawing larger audiences than ABC, NBC, and CBS, which you hold up as "major". TBN is also free to cable and satellite subscribers and doesn't require any additional fees. But even for premium channels, like HBO and Showtime, I would still HBO and Showtime as fulfilling the "major network" description because they are widely distributed. Again, the delivery method is not the issue here, but the exposure to a national audience. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hrafn Permit to laugh. TV Tokyo just happen to be the very one who broadcast/broadcasted among others Naruto ref 1, Bleach ref 2, Gin Tama ref 3, Fairy Tail ref 4, Letter Bee ref 5, Hamtaro ref 6, Inazuma Eleven ref 7, Sgt. Frog ref 8, Bakugan Battle Brawlers ref 8, Soul Eater ref 9, Yugioh 5d ref 10 and Pokémon ref 11. Calling it a non important network in dismissive way is acting either by ignorance or outright trolling. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to the list: Eyeshield 21 ref 12, Golgo 13 ref 13, Skip Beat ref 14, Shugo Chara! ref 15, D.Gray-man ref 16, Reborn! ref 17, Gurren Lagann ref 18. I don't think a small network can get that strong licenses. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • KrebMarkt: permit me to point out that you appear to be laughing at a phantom. I never said that TV Tokyo wasn't "major". I would however point out that it does not (at least according to its article) "broadcast nationally". I would further LAUGH at a bunch of editors "using [WP:OUTCOMES] as the sole argument in an AfD discussion" in direct contravention of that page's advice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • KrebMarkt: you can laugh inanely all you want. (i) WP:OUTCOME states "broadcast nationally" not 'broadcast to XX million', and 42 million is only one third of the national population of Japan. (ii) You continue to make WP:OUTCOME "the sole argument in an AfD discussion" in direct contravention of that page's advice. You would do far better to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP is not a TV directory. Unless there are secondary sources which discuss a program in depth there is really nothing for an article to say. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Superbook The back and forth on this revolves around sources and although I know it is a notable series for the CBN network's children's schedule (and TBN to this day), the sources are few, which is always a major frustration for children's television involving Christian themes, where we can easily find many, many sources for even the worst animation flops of the 80's like Filmation's Ghostbusters, but sources for TBN and CBN shows are usually limited to primary sources saying it merely exists (as here with only 450 G-hits) because the fanbase usually hasn't either followed to the Internet age or they exist in small social circles; I've had to defend many an article involving Christian animated series while we can go on and on about one-season and little-watched reality shows like Oxygen's Breaking Up with Shannen Doherty. However the Superbook article is sourced quite well, so merging those details of The Flying House into that of Superbook would make for a good even compromise, and would not be of any harm to that article at all. But if good sources can be found, I do recommend a keep since it aired on a cable network with national reach. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would point out that Superbook is likewise lacking in third-party/WP:SECONDARY sourcing. It is sourced primarily to CBN and (the not particularly reliable-looking) CEGAnMo.com. And it only has 6 citations for a 24k article. So no, it is not "sourced quite well", but is merely sourced slightly better than this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, my argument is that the form of programming is a niche form that needs to have a different standard of notability than mainstream series. I have to argue that for what it is, the article is sourced as much as it can be without going into 'this is my remember when this show was on blog' territory. You can certainly not judge this on the same level as mainstream series such as Transformers and the Power Rangers franchise; it has to be judged on the level with series that are little viewed by mainstream audience, but maintain a strong following among their smaller yet still as loyal niche. Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (i) Your argument is a special pleading (a logical fallacy). The world is full of "niche form[s]" needing a "different" (but always lower) "standard of notability". (ii) The fact that affilaited sources are the best sources you can come up with (and remember just about every niche topic will have affiliated sources) means that it fails WP:GNG. Superbook also mostly fails WP:V (as the majority of it is unsourced) & WP:IINFO (being mostly plot summaries, cast lists, episode listings, etc). (iii) You have not proposed a "different standard of notability" that would appear to either (a) be objectively assessable or (b) provides any substantive restriction (i.e. is a meaningful standard). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am beginning to think you want this article deleted not for notability concerns, but because of the content of the program itself. I made a reasonable argument that it is a piece of media with a naturally lower viewership because of the program's content and to merge it into a related article, but you don't want that. The truth is, CBN/Family Channel was a top ten cable network in the 1980's with universal availability in almost every cable home in the United States. It also was created originally for airing on a national network in Japan. There is no way around it; it has established itself as notable in the way it has, and thus I change my argument fully to Keep as my attempt to appease your concerns by asking for a merge of content has completely been discounted, not to mention it has five established articles on international Wikipedia sites, including the Japanese version. Nate • (chatter) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article seems to be in a nice structure, has links & references, & the plot doesn't seem too overly detailed considering it's a 52 episode series. — ク Eloc 貢 06:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it was broadcast on a major national network (TV Tokyo) and due to coverage in a major Japanese magazine (Animage, April 1982, p.64 features a review of the series). It is likely covered in other magazines from that time period, too (I haven't gotten around to indexing all of them yet). Merging it into the Superbook article would not be effective as it's a completely separate series. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Must you harass everyone who disagrees with you? And did you even bother to read my comments? Exactly where do I use WP:OUTCOMES as an argument, let alone as a "sole argument"? (you did notice that I included a specific reference to a specific page in a specific magazine which reviews this series, right? Animage meets WP:RS in spades.) And since when is TV Tokyo not a major national network in Japan? Have you ever lived in Japan? Do you know anything about Japan at all? TV Tokyo is as much a national network in Japan as ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox are national networks in the United States. It's the largest network in Japan outside of NHK. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I suggested the merge was an attempt to have a compromise with Hrafn, but obviously he'd rather not have that. Your reasons are spot on for sure that yes, it aired on a national Japanese network and that should be considered as the yardstick for notability, but it seems like he wants to push that under the rug. Nate • (chatter) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first clue that he's not willing to be swayed is his calling the series "obscure". That couldn't be more of a misnomer in this case. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:51, 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 01:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wenatchee-Eastmont Basketball Rivalry

    [edit]
    Wenatchee-Eastmont Basketball Rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Big Apple Hoop-la (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I'm not sure whether high school sports rivalries are notable, and I'm sure a proposed deletion would be contested, so I'm bringing it here for wider discussion. Also adding Big Apple Hoop-la as the "main event" for this particular rivalry. ... discospinster talk 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. High school sports rivalries are not inherently notable; they need to have independent reliable sources to establish their notability. Furthermore, this rivalry has only been played three times, and it looks like Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about either of the high schools involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per User:Metropolitan90. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment High school rivalries are not notable. The usual outcome is that high schools are usually considered notable enough for their own stand alone articles. If someone wanted to create an article about Wenatchee High or about Eastmont High (with mention of more than just the basketball teams) then they could mention the annual meeting there. As an article all its own, no (same with the NCW basketball tournment above, looks like the same thing being referred to three times in three separate articles). I suspect that the author is new to Wikipedia, and not aware of usual outcomes on high school topics. This one would be a "delete all three", but I'd like for the author get a few days to be aware of alternatives rather than this being a snow delete. Mandsford 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can see no reason that this particular rivalry would be notable under WP:GNG or any other measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 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 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nedzmin Kozlo

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

    Unreferenced BLP, could find no secondary sources on him. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:07, 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 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Konrad Paszkiewicz

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

    Fails WP:PROF. Prod declined by article creator. RayTalk 03:38, 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 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aleksandar Kaluđerović

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

    I came here on the random unsourced BLP link, but I'm just not finding any sources. I suspect this guy hasn't gained the notability required for Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:33, 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. LFaraone 02:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Valeri Minkenen

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

    Contested PROD. Concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Veikkausliiga, which is listed as non-fully pro at WP:FPL and does not change the fact that he still fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as a non-notable footballer. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Google News, from the articles I put through a translator, only seems to give him trivial mentions, so fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The fact that several Veikkausliiga clubs have a few youngsters on part-time contracts on their books, certainly does not make the whole league semi-professional. Due to Wikipedia’s anglocentric nature, no one appears to be in any way bothered by the fact English League 1 and League 2 also allow clubs to have semi-pros on their teams or that the link that is currently used to justify the inclusion of League 2 in the list of fully-professional leagues, actually states that the league had at least one part timer in 2008. How many are there in 2010? Zero, five? Anybody knows? How many part timers can the league have in order to be still considered fully-professional, is it just one or seven or 21? Who sets this limit? Sure, from purely formal perspective, operating as a professional club and having a few part time players registered for the club does not make you a semi-professional, or does it? I believe it shouldn’t, but then, as there is no exact criteria, how are we supposed to know for sure? WP:ATHLETE is not a good guideline, fact, not only it is unfair and unbalanced towards different players and does not take players' personal achievements into consideration, but, as I have shown above, it is also unclear and confusing. If half of the energy you’ve put into deleting content from Wikipedia was put into coming up with a decent and fair policy, I bet we wouldn’t have had this problem now. Although I doubt this is even a problem for most of you. I mean, why would someone even care about some Finnish, Lithuanian or god knows what other weird leagues? Right Sputnik? BanRay 16:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Minkenen is a professional footballer and plays in professional team. And also both his previous clubs (FC Haka and AC Oulu) are professionals. I don't really understand these your deletion approaches with Finnish players at all. Minkenen has also played on Finland youth national level (U17, U18, U19, U20, U21). Todorov-FIN (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this changes the fact that he still fails WP:GNG, which is prerequisite to WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Under which criteria? You failed to address any of the issues I raised above. BanRay 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not addressed the points you raised because they are moot in this instance. I'll quote WP:NSPORT: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This article clearly does not. As for under what criteria he fails WP:GNG. 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. Besides inclusion in various databases and passing mentions in match reports, both which are generally regarded as trivial with regards to notability, I am yet to find any sources that might indicate he is notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Whether it's good or bad, nearly all athletes meet the general notability guideline, simply because there are so many websites that devote individual pages to each individual athlete on a team. Not every person or event who meets WP:GNG is notable enough for a stand-alone article, and where WP:ATHLETE draws the line is by either requiring that a player represents his or her nation in major competition, or plays "in a fully-professional league". Were it otherwise, we'd have a friggin' article for every NCAA player in the entire U.S., and every person who ever played soccer football in the world. It appears that his current league Meistriliiga is not fully professional; assuming that Veikkausliiga is fully professional (it's the Finnish premier league, and pays an average salary of 20,000 Euros, according to its article), then playing for AC Oulu and FC Haka qualifies him under WP:ATHLETE. If someone can demonstrate that the Veikkausliiga is not fully professional, then I'd say delete. Mandsford 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "The Board" in Hollywood FL

    [edit]
    "The Board" in Hollywood FL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I suspect this article is a hoax. Somewhat strange and vague description is "verified" by equally vague off-line sources. PinkBull 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'Keep' Appears its entry is related to a group which is of interest to a local area. Will have encyclopedic value with an interest in Anthropolgy. Although, more verifiable sources would be welcome I acknowledge this difficulty when discussing local societal groups/ organizations where there may not be many sources. Indeed this difficulty is acknowledged in the article where the author states this. Certainly, its enclopedic value is of interest and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.119 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 166.137.11.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep I just learned about this group at school and happened to find this while searching on Wikipedia. Was hoping for more information. I actually have stuff i can add from what i know. Will add later. Why is it up fro deletion? i live in Hollywood. There is so much irrelevance on Wikipedia at least this is relevant to my school work at the mo. So I vote keep! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny20101 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — Johnny20101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Keep Interesting. Certainly of value and should be kept. As mentioned more sources would be good but im sure members will add more in the near future with regular updates.--Meritstarzzz (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interesting and valuable? WP:NPROF also comes to mind. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would advise the "keep" supporters that if they can provide sources to establish the validity of this article, they should do so. Right now it seems this discussion is split between "keep" supporters who believe this group is of encyclopedic value, and "delete" supporters who don't even believe this group exists at all. Obviously, if the "keep" supporters could provide sources to prove the group existed, that would give them a significant advantage in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "The exact date of The Board founding is uncertain. No known reference to the founding date is found in any primary or secondary source material." "The group is well known[citation needed] for its difficult application process, with most applications to join being unsuccessful. The application process and activity is shrouded with secrecy with members remaining loyal and committed to the groups ethos." Oh dear. Here we go again. Why do so many junk article writers say things like this? At least two refs are given, but (of course) are hard copy and obscure so we can't see them. 'Marcus Pokus' - well well. I used to know his first cousin Hocus. Not a common surname. Seems to be equivalent to 'attempt' or 'experiment' in English. I would second Metropolitan90's advice about a bit mire proof of existence - proof that we poor outsiders who are merely committed to Wikipedia's ethos can see for ourselves. As to school work, "I just learned about this group at school" - they must teach some interesting things in American schools even if the authorities never realise about all the vampires. Would you tell your classmates that they need to pull more weight than "Interesting. Certainly of value and should be kept" without giving evidence to support. And to those making this 'attempt' or 'experiment', I give this 5/10. There's been much worse, and much better. Peridon (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice alot of nonsense written on these kind of threads about#sources# and #validity#I think that at times people do not really understand what the terms mean or how they apply in certain situations. From what I read this article is about a social group based in a local community. Therefore, its not surprising that written #sources# will be limited. I agreed to Keep this article based on these facts. Not all social groups and situations are sourced in this context. To me the article was a broad summary of some group, it had no other benefit then to inform the reader of its existence within that community. Therefore, informing and widening knowledge - the reason and very essence of sites such as Wikipedia. I therefore, stand by my comment above to Keep. If the author is around it would be nice to hear their views. Im almost at the end of my Masters in Sociology and was wanting further info on this group, after hearing about at school. Thanks. . --Johnny20101 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please Note Metropolitan90 has replaced my post above after it was deleted by User:Johnny20101. Do not delete or alter other peoples posts. This is vandalism and can lead to being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would be nice to have an accessible proof of the existence of this group. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also, please do not tell us how Wikipedia runs - we already know. "Not all social groups and situations are sourced in this context.". True. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. There are many things not in Wikipedia. Some of those not here should be. Many shouldn't. Our encyclopaedia, our rules (translation: our ball and our field, our rules...). Peridon (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found a paper copy of the 1962 edition of Social Thought From Lore To Science in my local university library and in the page range named in the cite I've not found any mention of this group. Also as a general thought, I would imagine that a group with an application failure rate of 99% would attract some local comment in its own community. I find it strange therefore that there are no mentions in local press let alone academic journals. Despite my best efforts and trying to assume good faith I can't help wondering if this article and hence this discussion is part of a sociological experiment. NtheP (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found an electronic version of the 1991 paper Time, interaction, and performance: A theory of groups cited in the article. (I've put a copy here) It does not mention this group at all. Dr pda (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with two of the references now appearing to be dubious, I am very sceptical about the remainder and the whole validity of this article. NtheP (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 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 merge to Huang Xianfan. Courcelles 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huang group

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

    There is no reliable sources that support the group's existence on search on the entire edu.cn domain (search 黄现璠+"黄派") for Google, Bing and Baidu. Besides, there is no Google Book or scholar results for the academic group. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagui School and the discussion about the deletion of the subject on the Chinese wikipedia [26].

    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) 01:18, 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. MelanieN's point is very well taken. Courcelles 01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tennessee Williams/ New Orleans Literary Festival

    [edit]
    Tennessee Williams/ New Orleans Literary Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Just an advertisement —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 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) 01:18, 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. Will restore on request. Courcelles 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sound Event Map

    [edit]
    Sound Event Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No reliable sources could be found on this invention. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:23, 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 01:13, 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 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deon Hampton

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

    Mostly uncited, article has existed in a poor condition for two years. Looks like a reporter, local with little independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 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 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    could you explain which notability criterion is being met? LibStar (talk) 13:31, 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. Will restore on request. Courcelles 00:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Circle Confusion

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

    Their only claims to notability are being on a compilation and opening for Pixies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 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 01:09, 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.

    Unfortunately, the reviewer that suggested deletion did not read the article thoroughly. The band Circle Confusion also had regular performances throughout Southeastern Michigan, toured the eastern part of the US, had a record released in the US and Europe, and scored a top 10 hit in parts of Europe as well. This is a request for restoring the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdanoffb (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 January 2011 (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. Will restore on request. Courcelles 00:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rip Gerber

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

    Notability concerns. Quite a bit of primary material out there from the author, a few news mentions of his original hiring at Intellisync, but I don't see significant coverage from RS. j⚛e deckertalk 03:57, 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 01:05, 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 redirect to Alexisonfire. Courcelles 01:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brown Heart Skull Sampler

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

    Sampler CD that does not meet WP:NMUSIC Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:59, 29 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) 01:01, 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 01:02, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmela Contarino

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

    Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that is looking quite a bit better. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 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, Courcelles 00:58, 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 delete. Whoever wants this in their userspace, all you have to do is ask. Courcelles 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Revolver (T-Pain album)

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Revolver (T-Pain album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Album fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL contains not even a loose release date and no tracklist STATic message me! 00:33, 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 00:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Loftus

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

    No evidence of notability. EchetusXe 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more references added. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:31, 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 Speedy close for placement to WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sofia Wilén

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

    Speedy deletion of the redirect rejected twice by admins. Deletions of a redirect of this person without the acute accent and another woman involved in this case have already been accepted and carried through. Philip Cross (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This nomination has a few problems. Firstly, no AFD tag was added to the page in question. Secondly, it's not an article, it's a redirect so we should be at WP:RFD as I noted in my edit summary when declining the speedy nom the first time, which by the way was rejected because the stated reason was "non-notability" [30] which is explicitly not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. If there were other reasons for the nomination you should have said so at that the time, I'm not a mind reader. Anyway, this should be closed and moved to RFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:09, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_13&oldid=1142642295"