Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 21

< 20 December	22 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. The page being nominated and the page currently at the title are not the same.

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deluca

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

Page recently created by User:Ddeluca14

Zarcadia (talk) 21:27, 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 speedy keep. GNews did reveal some additional sources when altering title used in search (non-admin closure) jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meetings, Bloody Meetings

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. GHits reveals mostly advertisements to training firm and parent company. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film is a notable classic. I seriously doubt that there is a business school graduate who has not seen this film, or a human resource manager who has not shown it to their staff. The film is stars the very funny John Cleese, and is written by Cleese and Antony Jay. The nominator first prodded, and then took this article to AfD, within minutes of it being created. It is a stub article, and it will grow into a much better article if given a bit of time. Coycan (talk) 23:45, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Football League

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

Non-notable semi-pro football team that fails WP:N. Previous AFD ended as "no consensus" ... references provided go to dead page so it is difficult to verify. Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep: With a few seconds of googling I was able to find ample press coverage. Try harder next time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after searching google news, there are quite a few articles in small-time local papers, but hardly enough to qualify for "significant coverage" outside the local area. For example, this article combines some awards for the league with the local kid's football league. Good for them, of course--but hardly the level of notablity required for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Truth be told, I can't find the part of the GNG or WP:RS debarring "local" sources from qualifying. Ravenswing 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem in using local sources to establish notability, as long as the source is reasonably solid (ie. not just a community newsletter). bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a team but a league, and one which appears to have received a high enough level of coverage to justify retention. As far as I'm aware the only notability guideline that specifically requires at least one non-local source is WP:ORG, which doesn't apply in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question how does WP:ORG not apply to this organization?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Harvey

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

Non-notable child actor, hasn't appeared in anything yet, her casting in EastEnders has only just been announced. Certainly not multiple significant roles. Fails WP:ENT. (Contested prod.) Anemone Projectors 22:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. Article incorrectly states that she is well known for the role, but she hasn't even started yet. Relationship to another actress it not notable.--Dmol (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ENT--5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being too soon... way too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There really isn't anything else to say. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another delete, doesn't pass WP:ENT. Notability is not inherited from connections to other notable people. Perhaps this individual will be notable in a few years; create an article then. bobrayner (talk) 14:02, 28 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. nothing precludes a neutral article Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Group

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

Might be a notable subject, but article is nothing but spam. Several attempts were made to trim it, but the same two editors (possibly same person) revert. Both editors working only on this and related articles, so conflict of interest suspected. Speedy was declined without reason given. Most of claims are uncited. Peacock terms used throughout. Dmol (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- the present version shows some references, but these are being removed by same editor.--Dmol (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage in secondary sources. Only reprints of PR handouts. And the editing pattern indicates someone from the PR department is trying to create a corporate profile here.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another article that fails for vagueness and promotional style, a privately-held conglomerate of independent companies with interests in travel technology, education, aviation and travel related services. References are to press releases announcing routine deals, and I find nothing better among the many hits for several different "Bird Groups". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and looks like spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major company in business since 1971. Improvements could be made to create an editorial writing style more conducive to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. --Warrior777 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)

Reply- I listed it because it is spam, not that it might not be notable. The "improvements" you suggest have been made several times, but are constantly reverted by one particular user who I have given a 3RR warning. Please see the history of the article and the wording of my original nomination.--Dmol (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received loads of coverage in independent reliable sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Books from major publishers say it is a "key distribution company" (John Wiley and Sons), "one of the largest groups in travel and IT arena" (Tata McGraw-Hill) and "a leading hospitality chain" (John Wiley and Sons). Blue-chip news sources have published articles about the company's restructuring (Livemint), aviation plans (Daily News & Analysis), hotel investments (The Financial Express) and much more. If there are problems with contributors making inappropriate edits then they can be fixed in the normal way by discussion and, if that doesn't work, blocking and/or (semi-)protection. Deletion is not a method of solving content disputes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything cited above is exactly the sort of routine stuff WP:CORP anticipates:

"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"...The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability...Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

Based on third-party sources, the broadest coverage this article could ever offer would read something like: "The B.G. has interests in X, Y, and Z, employing N people in M offices. It is an authorized agent for airlines A1, A2, ... An, and has been called "this" and "that" in one-sentence (or sentence-fragment) references in books on Indian economic expansion. In 2007 it announced plans to Do Something and Expand Somewhere. In 2008 Livemint reported that a 'Bird Group's' mining operations might close, although this doesn't appear to be the same B.G., being described by Livemint as 'the government-owned Bird Group of Companies, which consists of seven mining subsidiaries.' " However, if this is the same B.G., and the article survives deletion, then it should certainly mention that Bird Group was being "investigated for a theft over iron ore." EEng (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom..--...Captain......Tälk tö me 11:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we have taken note of the comments and have attempted to rectify the text to remove all kinds of promotional messages. we have also included a list of references which are not PR drafts but independent articles that have appeared in the media on Bird Group's ventures. please have a look once again and re-consider this page for un-deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkmishra264 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material you've added back is still just copy-paste from corporate websites and press releases. The news "stories" are also simply press releases with no analysis whatsoever, plus a two-question "interview." At least one cited source doesn't appear to contain the word "Bird." The material is being removed again. And who's this "we"? Please stop wasting our time. Let someone else write about your company. WP:COI EEng (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Is this the same Bird Group that was accused of theft of iron ore? [1] If so, the article should certainly contain details on that. Were any corporate officers fined or jailed? Any fines levied?[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't see a consensus here because the key issue - the avlidity of restaurant reviews is clearly a bit of a policy gap and, as the discussion shows, there is a need to reach a consensus on reviews as a RS. I suggst the participants open athreadt at RS and I will happily revoew the close based on the consensus of that discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patxi's Chicago Pizza

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion, it satisfies WP:N's significant coverage from reliable and independent sources with the 4 provided references (there are 6 total right now but two are from the official website of the subject). OlYeller^Talktome 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly not a great article, but clearly meets N. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Again while reviews establish verifiability, the do not confer notability. The sources provided show that the chain exists and are from reliable sources in some cases, they do not show how it is notable. Every restaurant gets reviewed at some point or another, that does not mean every restaurant is notable. Further, reader polls are the same, they're just a popularity contest. To truly establish notability for a restaurant, you would require an article about the establishment - something about what makes it unique or how it impacts its community. None of these sources do that. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RS. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's examine the valid references. #1, #2 and #3 are reviews, which are debarred from counting as reliable sources. #4 is a one-word reference in a sentence listing several other pizza places. Would the Keep proponents care to explain how these references meet the requirements? Ravenswing 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you care to explain where you get the idea from that reviews are "debarred from counting as reliable sources"? We accept reviews as reliable sources for articles about books, films, plays, music, visual arts etc., so why not for restaurants? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm torn. I can see how restaurants aren't inherently notable for having 2+ reliable sources do reviews but I don't think it's as black and white as the delete !voters are making it out to be. If restaurants aren't notable from reviews, how else would they be? For doing things in the community? Winning awards? I can't agree that a restaurant is only notable for doing something outside of what its main intention is (make money making food) and the 4th reference is citing an award that they won that TechCrunch believes to be notable (TechCrunch has an Alexa ranking of 234). Like I said, I'm still torn but in what I consider to be a very gray area, I'm siding as a keep unless someone convinces me otherwise. OlYeller^Talktome 22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: We don't accept reviews as satisfying the requirement that a subject be discussed in "significant detail." What we do accept reviews for is satisfying WP:V, that the subject exists at all. Ravenswing 14:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Who is We and can you please cite your claim? I haven't read anywhere that reviews aren't taken and you still haven't addressed my points ("If restaurants aren't notable from reviews, how else would they be? For doing things in the community? Winning awards?"). If We is Wikipedia and your claim is your opinion, I appreciate that you're entitled to your own opinion but I'd like to clarify that it's just that; your opinion and not a fact or even policy or guideline reached by concensus. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restaurant reviews are opinion pieces, not stories; they are not checked for factual accuracy as would normal articles would be. While they do establish verifiability, they do not establish notability because every restaurant is reviewed in a local news outlet at some time or another. For a restaurant to be notable, you would need to show what makes it notable - how it impacts the community it is in, if there is something that is historical about the business or some other fact beyond its menu - reviews do not do that. Reviews only show the place is there, what it serves and whether the reviewer liked it or not. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where is there any promotional material. I think that you have mistaken articles about companies for promotions. There's no weasel words, WP:OR, or unverified claims that I can see. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: two refs to the website of the chain itself; two refs to absolutely standard restaurant reviews; and one ref to a passing mention in a blog-like article. Together: nothing resembling significant coverage. --Lambiam 22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How else would you establish notability of a restaurant other than through restaurant reviews? We're not here to second-guess what sources think; we can merely accept the fact that independent sources felt the subject was worth discussing in some depth in the same way as they'd discuss any other notable peer. bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - by that reasoning all restaurants are notable because they were reviewed, as all restaurants are reviewed at one point or another. But not all restaurants are notable, we now this to be true, therefore reviews do not establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that all restaurants are reviewed? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - After working in the hospitality industry for nearly thirty years combined with the work I have done on WP in the subject of restaurants (See the Foodservice Task Force), I am familiar with the interaction of the press and restaurants. Whether it is in industry publications or local news outlets, each and every time a new restaurant opens there is an article about that restaurant. With unique restaurants, that is non-major chain such as McDonald's or Applebee's, there is almost always some sort of review of the establishment. Google any restaurant you know of with the "reviews" modifier and you will find a review. Some hits may be an actual article about the location, those article will establish notability. Can you prove that this doesn't happen? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't argue that a simple "Restaurant X exists, newspaper Y went there, and food B was Z" type reviews shouldn't be used to establish notability. The SFGate reference is most certainly this type of review. The MetroWise SF seems to be different as it makes reference to how it compares to other similar restaurants in SF and how it's "sure to be a hit." As all of the Mountain View references are similar to the one they wrote about Patxi's, I can't really say anything about what it implies. The TechCrunch reference is pointing to an award the subject won that we haven't discussed. After reading the competition results, I feel that, given my technical background, it's reliable and TechCrunch, a very large website, agrees. Other large websites agree as well and have provided links to the study/award but I didn't want to link up the article for what essentially amounts to one reference. I don't like to participate this much in an AfD but like I said, I'm torn. The award may not be enough by itself and what essentially amounts to one non-regular review isn't enough by itself which may be why the AfD seems to be so split. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - The award/study was done by Dr. David Ayman Shamma (hold a B.S./M.S. from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition at The University of West Florida and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Intelligent Information Laboratory at Northwestern University). He has published several studies and currently works for Yahoo! Research as a Research Scientist. He was also a visiting research scientist for the Center for Mars Exploration at NASA Ames Research Center. OlYeller^Talktome 19:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) As for whether or not all new restaurants are reviewed, I personally trust Jeremy's experience. I'm not sure that it doesn't make all non-Mcdonald's etc. type locations notable but I personally agree that just about new every non-McDonald's location gets a review of some sort. Whether or not that means that humans are just incredibly interested in new food as its a huge part of their life or if the new restaurant has actually done something to be notable should probably be decided on a per review basis. In short, not all reviews should be thrown out the window. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC

)

Comment - O.Y. is correct and has succinctly pointed out that not all reviews should be tossed out. Some reviews are important, there are cases where a major chef or company has opened a new concept location that failed miserably. Reviews commenting on this sort of thing are pertinent and establish notability; there are other situations that apply as well where a review would contribute to notability. The main argument I am making is that just because a restaurant has been reviewed does not automatically confer notability, even when the source is reliable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giglio material

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

This legal term is not notable. The article has previously been deleted via PROD. Coycan (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Giglio v. United States and expand. This is a essentially a stub of an article of a notable U.S Supreme Court case ([2]), which are almost inherently notable, with a non-optimal name. TJRC (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have decided to be WP:BOLD, and have rewritten the article from scratch and moved it to Giglio v. United States, as I suggested above. I humbly suggest that this be withdrawn by the nom or closed as a Speedy Keep. The redirect from Giglio material should be retained: that term is used, and I've provided a cite for that in my rewritten article. Someone searching for "Giglio material" should be directed to the new article. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- although this was indeed deleted as an expired PROD, it was restored by the Request for Undeletion process, not just by the editor recreating the deleted material. See WP:REFUND#Giglio Material. The restoring admin documented his basis for restoration as follows: "as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Moreover, my search of Lexis confirms that it is appears to be notable concept that could be expanded into a suitable article." TJRC (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on the case and keep the redirect. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on the case and the redirect, additional sourcing exists [3], etc.--j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The court case on its own might be fairly low on the notability scale but it's given a name to a more widely-used concept (cf Miranda, Gillick, &c) and there's plenty more sources out there. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 28 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. tedder (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gelyon

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

This drummer is not notable. Prod was declined because the article had previously been deleted via PROD. Coycan (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD blanked, retranscluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD listing was twice transcluded into the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 21 page, but the AfD listing itself was mistakenly deleted rather than deleting the second transclusion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The article does not seem to indicate why its subject is important or significant, but a regular deletion might be the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs Someone65 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Venice

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

An old local compilation album that has not gained notability or any notice as a historical item of interest. There is one minor source stating the album's existence at Spirit of Metal and a few track lists at blogs and retail sites. But that's all. Also note that a companion album is currently in the AfD process here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Marge~~ with Excel (band) per WP:NALBUMS. Article is a stub without likelihood of expansion. History shows very little editing done to article to make it anything more than a stub. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if such a merge would be a good idea (procedurally) because Excel is just one of several bands on this various-artists compilation. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My mistake. I simply didn't scroll down far enough to see the multiple bands. Since that is the case, my vote is now to delete. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - While merging a complete track listing into each band's page wouldn't be easy, mentioning this as an official studio album in each band's page will work. Also, this was not a local release. This was a nationwide release (I purchased my copy in Kansas City - very far from Venice). It was also ranked high in both Thrasher and Transworld magazines, which may be why the Venice rock scene garnered such a strong skateboarder following after the Dogtown skate influence was already dwindling. Of course, this all took place long before the Internet, so you won't turn up much in a Google search. -- kainaw ™ 19:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can find references to those two magazine reviews, that might help, but once again I don't think a merge to each band will work out procedurally. However, at each band's respective discography article (or section within the band article) their participation in this release could be mentioned as an item of historical interest. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Musa

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

unsourced BLP Slayer (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "Noteworthy" calligraphy artist. Has the nominator made a search? The article was tagged for AFD 10 minutes after its creation with the following comment: “I created the article. Needs images and references. Will work on that tomorow”. Racconish^Tk 23:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Over twenty exhibitions spread over decades and throughout the world. Has references, but a few more would not hurt.--Dmol (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt on the existence of 3rd party reliable sources, such as this one which considers him a "master in calligraphy". He was part of the landmark exhibition "Africa remix". Racconish^Tk 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, since I nominated this for deletion in the first place. That said, it should be obvious what my vote is. My issue with this was (and is): what has the individual done specifically to be considered noteworthy? Being a "master in calligraphy" hardly makes one notable enough for inclusion here. The world is full of seasoned professionals, university professors, Phd's, M.D.'s and others in a variety of fields who are not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Racconish, have you followed the links that appear after a google search? Most of them aren't relevant or provide little of value (that isn't already included in this article). When one searches "BOOKS", as you did, they don't find books published by this individual. They find books that his works have been included in. This is one of those where you "have to want to believe". I think that's the case here, and so i'll bow out. Slayer (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not followed all the links on Musa. Just pointed some establishing notability. Not true all sources are already included. Not true either he published no books. Some listed here. Others here. These are artist books for children, produced in small quantities: not easy to make a complete bibliography. ~~In any case, with the nominator himself abstaining, this becomes a case of either SPEEDY KEEP or SNOW~~. Racconish^Tk 08:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Errr ... you consider two Keep proponents a snowball result? Ravenswing 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two strongs with an almost withdrawn proposition, yes. I don't think the number matters here. I think with a little bit more research and less haste, this whould never have come to AFD. Shouldn't I? Racconish^Tk 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are EXACTLY what matter with a SNOW result. Four Deletes in a row - by no means unknown at AfD would turn this into a consensus for deletion. Two Keeps isn't remotely close. When it's five or six, unopposed, then that's on the table. Ravenswing 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, comment corrected. Racconish^Tk 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We are talking here about an artist with many online references as well as printed references, who exhibited since decades in major museums and institutions such as the Venice Biennial, the Centre Pompidou (Paris) or the Museum of African Art (nyc) !!! This is what he has done and this is how the notability of contemporary artists is estimated. According to this criterion, his notability is very high. Boris aladar (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish^Tk 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very well documented biography, about a well educated and skilled artist, and I see no reason for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable artists who has had their work featured in many notable museums. They don't just let anyone drive on over and hang up what they want. The people who know how to judge art, have judged this work notable enough to be in their museums. Dream Focus 21:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously passes WP:GNG. Needs major cleanup though. Can you say WP:REFBOMB? SnottyWong ^converse 23:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this individual passes WP:GNG by a long way. Cleanup? Meh, it's better than the average new article imho. The refbomb is quite understandable if it's a response to questioned notability, and I don't think a long list of sources does the article any harm. bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 28 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.

Per discussion on my talk page [4] I have voided the AFD close and restored based on a closer examination of available sources. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to take this back to AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 7 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. The issue is notability and no sources have been provided to adduce significant coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see at all how this person is notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~"Distinguished",~~ "Famed" and "most noted". Shouldn't there be a reason given to open an AFD? Racconish^Tk 11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three inline citations for an interesting article about a bicycle craftsman, so it is notable enough for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish^Tk 17:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What has Ron Cooper done for the sport to be considered encyclopedic? Follow the references, and yes, you'll see the work of a skilled tradesman. Did he revolutionize the bicycle, or is otherwise notable for significant contributions to the industry? Doesn't appear that way. If so, and someone can prove it, i'll gladly change my vote.Slayer (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) --Disclaimer-- I created this AFD Slayer (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where in our notability guidelines does it say that anyone has to revolutionise anything, or even make a significant contribution to an industry? We routinely accept articles about entertainers, athletes and politicians who have done neither of those things. This is an encyclopedia, not the The Guinness Book of Records or The National Enquirer, so there is no requirement for article subjects to be exceptional or sensational. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Racconish. He has coverage which praises his skills. Dream Focus 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Racconish appears to be getting WP:Notability mixed up with WP:PEACOCK. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, some apologies, I realize my link for "distinguished" is broken and cannot trace it back. Second, I agree with Hrafn: the key point here is notability, i.e. coverage by 3rd party reliable sources. Yet, as suggested by User:Dream Focus, that reviews by independent 3rd party sources are often praises. In any case, the point I was trying to make was about such coverage by 3rd party sources. When the Boston Globe writes Ron Cooper is a "master builder" or when the Bike show on Resonance FM has a complete show on him, not to mention the various specialized sources cited in the article, I think we are talking 'notability', as you rightfully remind us we should.Racconish ^Tk 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: no, the point is significant "coverage by 3rd party reliable sources". A single sentence that says "distinguished", "master builder" (or "stupendous" for that matter) is still "trivial mention". Also, it is not clear from the cited blog entry that the "Bike show on Resonance FM has a complete show on him". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.At least we have cleared the misunderstanding on WP:PEACOCK. Concerning the Bike show, the link provides a transcript of the show which can also been downloaded. Is your point that the show was not dealing exclusively on Ron Cooper? You may be right, I did not listen to the 29:44 mn podcast. I hope we can agree the transcript is sufficient to establish 'significant' coverage. Moreover, I happily strike 'complete' out my previous comment. Concerning the Boston Globe, the article covers 4 custom bicycle builders. For (only) one of them, Peter Mooney, the journalist specifies he "had moved to England to learn frame-making from master builder Ron Cooper". This is 'significant' in the sense of 'meaningful'. Besides, once again, there are other sources cited.Racconish ^Tk 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) There is no link to a transcript that I can see, and the blog-post itself is only 115 words long. (ii) WP:Notability DOES NOT define "'significant' in the sense of 'meaningful'". Any old thing can be asserted as being "meaningful", if you're willing to stretch a point (and points are often stretched past breaking in AfDs). Kindly read WP:Notability's EXPLICIT definition of "significant". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a misunderstanding: I did not say the link provided a possibility to download a transcript, but a podcast. And I should have said to listen to a podcast. I did re-read the definition of notability, I do see your point, but I disagree: the article of the Boston Globe deals in a detailed way on custom bicycle making. Therefore, according to me, the fact Ron Cooper is named in this article as a "master" is significant in WP's sense of the term. And the Bike show calls him a "legend".Racconish ^Tk 19:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) You stated "the link provides a transcript of the show which can also been downloaded" how does that not mean "the link provided a possibility to download a transcript"? (ii) "the article of the Boston Globe deals in a detailed way on custom bicycle making" -- as this article is on Ron Cooper NOT custom bicycle making, this is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_E_N_T! (iii) "according to me, the fact Ron Cooper is named in this article as a "master" is significant in WP's sense of the term". This is complete RUBBISH! Using the word "master" DOES NOT mean that the BG article "address[es] the subject [of Ron Cooper] directly in detail" and DOES NOT mean that it is not a single sentence and thus "plainly" "trivial mention" (per the footnote to the significance definition).

Racconish: your claims are incoherent and have no basis in the relevant guidelines, kindly desist from inflicting them on me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above mentioned footnote gives an example of a one sentence mention of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton. The example is trivial as an "isolated information" (cf. WP:TRIV) not pertaining to the main subject. Such is not the case in the BG article: presenting Cooper as a "master" custom bicycle maker is clearly relevant to the main subject of the article, custom bicycle making. More precisely: the article is on 5 American "frame builders". One of them, Peter Mooney, writes the journalist, "had moved to England to learn frame-making from master builder Ron Cooper". The fact the article is centered on American bicycle makers doesn't take anything away from the statement on this British maker who taught the American one. Quite the opposite: it explains us where Peter Mooney acquired his expertise. In contrast, Richard Sachs is simply presented as having had "an apprenticeship in England" with an unnamed person. Clearly, he did not have a "master" as notable as Cooper. In any case, once again, this is not by far the only source on Cooper, not even cited at this point in the article (should it?). But I think it is quite useful as a reference at AFD, coming from a main strean reliable 3rd party source. Should this exchange continue, could it please be in a more civil tone?Racconish^Tk 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) You failed to address my point that the BG article fails to "address the subject [of Ron Cooper] directly in detail" -- and so, per WP:N is not "significant". (ii) Parsing in excessive detail whether the 'masters' of since-famous apprentices or not does not make that article any more 'direct' or 'detailed' about Cooper. (iii) Your attempt to distinguish the BG article from the Three Blind Mice example is weak at best. (iv) Weak arguments, elaborated upon, without any obvious improvement, argumentum ad nauseum, tends to annoy rather than convince -- and so leads the person being argued at to wish that the person arguing at them would cease the futility -- and will lead to them being increasingly blunt about this wish. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (ii) and (iii) contradict (i), but fine, let's avoid argumentum ad nauseam and please argumentum ad hominem too. There are also some possibly interesting non-free sources, such as the article in issue n°19 of Rouleur.Racconish ^Tk 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Neither (ii) nor (iii), individually or collectively, contradict (i). (b) I have not employed an argumentum ad hominem -- though I may have drawn a negative conclusion as to your abilities from the (low) quality of your arguments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Author appears to have little knowledge of influence on modern or classic frame building, there is little if any importance for jigless fame building, even modern altruistic projects (i.e. Africa Bike or Project Rawanda) use jigs, as without a jig there is little if any chance of creating a consistant product, even in a custom market. Brent/Breanna Ruegammer would be a more important example of a small scale (if now gone) builder who has actually influenced bicycle design.NMC180DAY (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution. Arguments such as 'What about article x' and more generally 'I don't like it' are generally considered unsufficient for deletion, in view of the nature of the Wikipedia project, as long as coverage by independent reliable sources can be established. Please share your knowledge of the subject to improve this article. Racconish^Tk 17:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if NMC180DAY is correct (and I don't have sufficient expertise to comment either way), then it would most certainly destract from Cooper's influence, and thus his notability, if his methodology has been deemed by the industry to be a 'blind alley'. It is thus a reasonable basis for a !vote, particularly in the absence of unambiguous evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is not original research, there should be 3rd party sources to criticize Cooper. As I have found only sources praising him, I would very much appreciate such critical sources. They could be used for an interesting - and naturally neutral - development of the article.Racconish ^Tk 18:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found the article interesting and informative. Needs some serious cleanup, but that's not an AfD issue. What is a bit worrying is that the issue appears (my reading comprehension seems limited these days) is that it is written about a person rather than the products. I say that's worrying because it seems in many cases the two are one and the same. The question, as I see it, is whether or not this would have appeared here if the article was titled "Ron Cooper Cycles". If that is sufficient to avoid BlP concerns, then it seems to me something vitally important about BlP is being missed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article doesn't need cleanup, it needs sources. Ok, well it needs cleanup too. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^chat 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essa Secondary School (Under Construction)

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

Unopened, unnamed school, I believe this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. WuhWuzDat 20:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've found one source, but it's a press release mentioning that a school will be built (found here). I'd say that Essa Secondary School could be redirected to Simcoe County District School Board, but the current title (with the "Under Construction") is an unlikely search term. I've half a mind to cite WP:HAMMER as well, though that's a bit of a stretch. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure TOOSOON is applied very often... there's already a page for the iPad 2 that has survived AfDs. If that survives, why not this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that within the last year or so we decided to keep a school that was set to open within a couple of months--I can't remember the name of that school right now, maybe someone else will. I don't know what will be the consensus view here, where there's a longer wait before it opens. But I would note that there has already been at least some coverage in third party reliable sources to verify the school's opening date and the hiring of its new principal,[5][6][7] and the school does have a listing[8] and a page[9] at the Simcoe County District School Board website. So I am not sure there is much point in deleting the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALand WP:NOTDIR. Secondary schools may enjoy immunity from CSD#A7 and thus de facto notability, but that does not give them licence to WP:IAR on the rest of the policies. There is no panic whatsoever for an article of this kind and for the permastub that it will be, it can be submitted when the school has been opened - and there is no guarantee that it will open on time. Education is notorious for having a plethora of online school directories. Wikipedia is not one of them. Kudpung (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When this school has been open for two years per my standards, then I will support the article's re-creation. See you in 2012 or 2013. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible recreate once the school actually exists. No assertion of notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Admrboltz (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would respectfully disagree with Bearian's standards; but nonetheless it looks like the school is not (yet) notable. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 28 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. Fails WP:CORP. Krakatoa Katie 06:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refinance.com

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

The article in question reads like sales copy, and the website it discusses fails to meet the notability guidelines. Mvandemar (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first it sounded encyclopedic, but the ext. links were to their own company, none of them to press coverage. Only one source. [citation needed]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; with some news coverage, an article might be warranted, but I'm not finding anything suitable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Article still needs work. Shouldn't exist in this state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs)

Space logistics

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

Second nomination. Previous AfD (almost two years old) result was keep, with one comment to "Keep ...and then do some work on it to improve the article to a reasonable standard". As one can see, there have been no improvements here. The topic may be worth an article, but a rewrite from here seems out of the question. The community would be better off with this as a red link than to try to make something out of what currently exists. — Timneu22 · talk 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think the topic is worth an article, why bring it to AfD? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I note the previous AfD was a unanimous keep and even the nominator here seems to believe the subject is notable. As one of those commenting said, ironically in reply to this AfD's nominator, AFD is supposed to decide on the topic of an article, not the article in its current state, with a reference to WP:DELETION, which states, "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." There is no doubt that this article needs a rewrite but that on its own is not sufficient justification to delete. If poor articles should be deleted, then we should delete every stub article. We don't delete them and we shouldn't delete this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been 20 months. No improvement, and nothing worth keeping. Delete it. If it needs to exist in the future, someone can start from scratch. — Timneu22 · talk 19:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Timneu22's trying to use AfD as cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination. Same nominator tries to delete it previously, everyone other editor says "keep" but them. Don't just keep nominating something until you get the results that you want. The subject is notable, and if you have a problem with the article then fix it yourself. Stop trying to delete things simply because you can't get others to do the work for you. Dream Focus 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad faith comment. I don't have any knowledge of this article, and I just noticed it on my watch list. Don't just keep nominating until you get the results you want. That's an awful accusatory comment considering I nominated this article once, 20 months ago. I do not appreciate it. The fact is that this article still has no reason to belong on Wikipedia. Only the title makes sense, the rest of it fails anything and everything related to standards and criteria. — Timneu22 · talk 22:27, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Humanities

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

There is a complete lack of third-party coverage here. Possible advertisement for David J. Bodenhamer's paper, which is the only "source". — Timneu22 · talk 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original resource, neologism not in circulation, personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be delicately balanced at the intersection of non-notable, neologism, original research, and wordsalad. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrew Dunckelman

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant claim to notability beyond a few local events. Extremely promotional in tone, and reads like a thinly-veiled resume. Links mostly discuss minor events, and do not establish "significant coverage". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is well sourced, with inline citations. The references are newspapers (Reliable sources) and have multiple articles specifically about him (not just in passing). He has received at least 3 rewards (all sourced). He meets every requirement of WP:Notability. I am confused why this was even proposed. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The things they're talking about are of minimal importance. He was a Junior member at some party for a college, he heads a club at a college, he got some award from a toy company, got some award when he was a young teen, and another one 6 years later. The awards themselves aren't particularly notable, even put together. Therefore, I'm not seeing how they make the subject notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review WP:Notability. Significant coverage - Check. Multiple articles written specifically about him. Reliable - Check. Multiple sources from newspapers. Sources - Check. Sources are secondary. Independent of the subject - Check. Subject has no connection to newspapers. Presumed - This is where we differ. Now, let's check Wikipedia:Notability (people). "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". Based on my understanding of policy, this article should stay. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Agree with the Blade's recent comment. It seems obvious to me that by someone adding this to Category:Louisiana Republicans, that this entire article is an attempt at promotion for some possible future political engagement. The sources aren't all valid (Facebook, duplicates) and I think what sets this article over the top is the awards given aren't notable. My niece is 8 and has won 20-30 awards for various things, including lots of dance competitions but also some small "community" efforts similar to this topic. This does not make her notable, and frankly William Andrew Dunckelman's awards don't make him notable. They are all local. I mean, the article says he "paraded down the field of Tiger Stadium during halftime." So? This article is a stretch, plain and simple, in many directions. — Timneu22 · talk 17:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says:
  1. Born in Louisiana. Has a dad and family, goes to church. So what.
  2. Valedictorian at high school, studying political science in college. So what.
  3. One paragraph that says he's done some things and won some small awards. Ok
  4. Received another award. So what.
  5. Junior member of a college homecoming court. Was on the field. So what!
- So there's the article in summary. Nothing worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:Notability does it require coverage to be important? No where. It requires coverage to establish notability, and this individual has it. Each of your statements I agree with - but the fact that newspapers are covering him in detail over multiple events is what makes him notabile. That is my understanding of policy. What you are stating is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that common sense would dictate that; otherwise we'd have articles on every single street in the US. Morehouse Road gets mentioned almost every day in several papers where I live; you'll note that it's a redlink, because despite the coverage it gets (being one of the few main roads in the town it's in), it's totally insignificant. My name is in several papers in and around where I live, I help run my college's history club, and I've received national recognition (I'm an Eagle Scout, and that gets distributed in a couple of national publications); I'm not at all notable. Same concept applies here; newspapers will cover ordinary things because they have to fill their pages, not necessarily because the events are significant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL does not mention people - at all. This would be comparing apples to oranges. My understanding of policy is stated above. Where exactly am I misinterpretting policy? Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:MILL doesn't explicitly say people, it's certainly implied. My take on WP:GNG was that the conditions you described above presume notability, but don't necessarily make it so (I wouldn't necessarily call your view a misinterpretation, just a difference of opinion); this article is a good example of why I think that's the case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my nieces has a bunch of awards and has been in multiple newspapers for them. The awards themselves are not significant. Are you saying I should start a page for her? — Timneu22 · talk 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage them. Dream Focus would fight to the bitter end to ensure that your niece has her own Wikipedia article. SnottyWong ^chat 15:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has won notable awards. The awards are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles Prudential Spirit of Community Award, then they count towards the person's notability. Dream Focus 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a People Magazine article that mentioned him. He has been covered on CNN as well. That's notable coverage. Dream Focus 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one award, which is the only one with any coverage here on Wikipedia. If that's it, I'd argue that it's BLP1E. The rest of these awards are totally non-notable; running a college club and being Junior member at a typical college party don't mean anything, nor does winning some award from Build-a-Bear workshop. And being covered once by CNN or People doesn't mean much; we certainly don't write about everyone who gets caught on CNN cameras trying to evade police or everyone who donates some money to some star's charity, nor should we write about someone who has a one-off, insignificant appearance like the ones on CNN or in People, like this person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. Not notable by any reasonable interpretation of the notability guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE says "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." How is he not notable if major news sources are talking about him and interviewing him? Dream Focus 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because presumed ≠ inherent. If a person is presumed to be notable, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person actually is; it just means that there's a higher chance. This article is a great example of why the word "presumed" instead of "inherent" is used. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete - This person has clearly not done anything notable per WP:N. If the argument is that his community service award is notable (with which I don't agree), then that still falls under WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 15:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing is substantially tangential, local, tabloid, primary, affiliated-party and/or unreliable (particularly PR Newswire) coverage, and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nor does topic appear to meet WP:BIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent - wannabe politicians are not granted web space here (Harry Wilson (businessman) is a rare example otherwise). When he gets elected to the Parish government or state office, then we'll talk. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur vs. Arsenal 2009-10 Premier League

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

Non-notable football game, usually regular games get either merged or deleted unless a special event happened, which doesn't seem to be the case here Delete Secret ^account 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another Premier League game..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Chris and nom, its just another eddition of the North London derby. Nothing special in this one... Eddie6705 (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing special happened in this game, so no need for an article. Giant Snowman 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a routine league match. Nothing to see here people. Bettia (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a regular premier league match. Nowhere near notable enough to merit a standalone article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is just a regular English League game, there is nothing special about it. --Carioca (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A routine league game in English football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadaka apron

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

Recreation, almost verbatim, of an article deleted by PROD on 13 June 2010 as "Non-notable concept, dictionary definition only, unreferenced for over 3 years" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. History merge the current one with the one before the PROD. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a dictionary definition. --DAJF (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Sources were added now satisfies WP:N, good save. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Schnabel

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

Claim to fame is he has a famous dad and dates a model. Other than those two links, he does not have an ounce of notability warranting his own encyclopedia article. Does not pass WP:N. --Endlessdan (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED [dad] and WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS [date]); no assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. Someone delete and snow close this! ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did nobody think of looking to see if he may actually be notable? Evening Standard, Vanity Fair, New York Times, The Independent, New York Sun, New York Observer, New York Observer.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see how these links prove he is notable. All these links prove that he either was in fact the son of a famous artist or that he is in the art industry. None of these facts are being disputed. I looked over WP:ARTIST and he does not meet one of the several criterias to meet notability.--Endlessdan (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an artist and there is no claim that he is, so looking at WP:ARTIST isn't likely to help. Try WP:GNG.--Michig (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this goes back to the links provided. It's either pertaining to his famous father or the fact that he is involved in the art world. There are thousands of people in his profession - what makes him more notable than the others (other than his inherited fame)? --Endlessdan (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has been written about because of his work in the art industry. Did you read WP:GNG? Those articles are about him. It's not surprising that they mention who his father is, but there's no reason to assume that all those people have only written about him because of who his father is.--Michig (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I concur. Wikipedia can definitely be more resourceful about the art world: Why should only rich socialites have access to such information?--Aichikawa (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep per Michig. But article needs amending to include at least some of the sources and his role as "art market prodigy". Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TR-3A Black Manta

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

Fictional or speculative unsourced material does not belong on Wikipedia John (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 9 sources without inline citations. This really should be cleaned up, but I don't have access to the source material to know where to place what citation. None of this is reason for deletion, but rather cleanup through editing. The appropriate tag is in place. I am failing to see how the nominators rational for deletion is valid. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wide coverage in various UFO and conspiracy sites. I write for the wiki to avoid these sorts of sites going uncommented. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the UFO sites talk about the "TR-3B Astra", which is some kind of antigravity spaceship, not this spyplane. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a page that is under the umbrella of the black project working group at milhist, and as such its checked once every three months or so to ensure that the article remains up to date and free of fringe theories. I checked it myself about a month ago and found nothing to be wanting in the article, otherwise I would have nominated it for deletion myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Since last check it appears that more info of the FRINGE nature got added. After a careful review of the material I've pulled two paragraphs cited to the website out of the article on WP:RS grounds, and it will remain out pending additional input as to whether the source is in fact good enough to be readded to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, the article is sourced; the referencing is unclear due to a lack of citations, but that's no reason to delete it, just as it wouldn't be a reason for deleting articles on the Loch Ness Monster or Ogopogo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several good sources in the article. Clearly notable, as references are from widely read publications over many years. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I trust Tom to verify the sources, because I cannot check any of them. However, if he says that they are good and that the article is free of nonsense, then I am willing to put faith in him. The article does need a bit of work on the citations and some of the speculative language could be trimmed up a bit, but AfD is not for cleanup. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Bahamut captures my thoughts well - Tom's word carries some weight 'round here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:CORP. Krakatoa Katie 06:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refinance.com

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

The article in question reads like sales copy, and the website it discusses fails to meet the notability guidelines. Mvandemar (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first it sounded encyclopedic, but the ext. links were to their own company, none of them to press coverage. Only one source. [citation needed]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; with some news coverage, an article might be warranted, but I'm not finding anything suitable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Room In Hell

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

Completely unreferenced article on a future game. Most sources I did find were either first-person, or were forums, blogs, or wikis. Also created by an editor with clear COI. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced Crystalballing for a mod not a stand alone game.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, i give all permission for this page, all the team does, we are a non profit mod and all our content is our own.

It also would appear to be promotional in nature as its created by oone of the developers of the mod using a SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, not notable. The article's "References" section (totally empty) says it all. Also appears to me to be COI by an SPA. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just added the references.

NO, they fail wp:rs and in a big way. Also they do not establish notability, only that its being worked on. Also see WP:CRYSTAL ther is no evidacne when (or even if) this will ever be relasesed, and many such porjects fall by the way side. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i changed it to To be decided, anything else you would like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you changed what "to be decided"? I would like to see third party RS establishing notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed release date to TBD and i dont mean to sound rude or disrespective, i have no idea what your on about, should i just remove my staff's names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBD does not tell us anything otehr then nothing is verifiable (when is it going to be realesed, will it in fact be relaesed) also none of the infomratio on this page is supported by reliable third party sources. In addition you need to establish notability (see wp:notability. Any unsourced information can be removed, how much would be left if all unsourced comment was removed?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur totally with Slatersteven. The current "references" are in no way from established reliable sources (the project's web site and a wiki entry). If this beta game mod appears in authoritative third party sources (newspapers, magazines, reputable third party web sites) then you'd have a case. Mind you, if this DOES become a best selling, notable game in the future, it might warrant inclusion. In such a future case, one would still need third party, reliable sources to bolster notability. It is definitely NOT notable now. Keep working on it, develop it, sell it, become rich, and then wait for someone else (due to potential conflict of interest) to write up an encyclopedia article on the game. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? read the free mod part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing i have lef tto show you is this from moddb...

http://www.moddb.com/mods/no-more-room-in-hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete game mods (and patches, etc.) are virtually never notable, and this is no exception. Also appears to be a COI/SPAM case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, if i knew it was so hard to understand any of you i wouldent of bothered, its not worth the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMRIHGothic (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try to be clearer. In order to have a page on a subject the subject has to meet certain notability criteria (see wp:notability, the blue words are a link click on them and they take to the appropriate wikipedia policy page). Any information contained within a wikepedia article must be sourced (please see wp:rs. Self published sources are very rarely allowed as sources (thought they would be for some of the information on this article (see wp:sps) but could not be used to establish notability). As such the sources you have provided (by the way Wiki’s are never RS any under circumstances as far as I am aware) fall into the SPS category and thus cannot be used. Also wikipedia vary rarely (if ever) allows pages on subjects that do not yet exist (Please see wp:crystal, in your case in the sense that it has not yet been released. If you can find sources that meet wp:rs then the votes here could well change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7; tagged as such. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonder Stone Movie

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this one is a bit too soon. Is is getting some coverage, [10] but not enough yet to be considered for an exemption to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Health Capital

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very notable, as it has been referenced by the following seven reliable and independent sources: http://nreionline.com/finance/news/grubb_ellis_healthcare_reit_0921/ http://greisguide.com/dev/?p=1346 http://www.hcapconference.com/who_attends_pef.php http://www.nic.org/research/lender/LenderDetailsView.aspx?id=201 http://www.hoovers.com/company/Creative_Health_Capital/xkkfrjxyk-1.html http://www.manta.com/c/mtmpc9j/creative-health-capital http://evanston.patch.com/listings/creative-health-capital

80.187.211.117 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Soory but I don't think these cut the mustard. All they establish is that they exsist not that they are notable.Nor do these sources 'referance' this company, they refer to them. That is a different thing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know in my case there was a Kitty Genovese effect for speedying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Minor trade publication and market research publications do not establish notability. Article is advertising in tone, with unreferenced claims to market leadership. No indication of technical, cultural, or historical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to edit the article so that it is not advertising in tone, and yet also establish that the company is notable. It is very difficult to do one without encroaching on the other. NawlinWiki, Slatersteven, Ihcoyc, could you please help me as I am a new Wikipedia user. I have also found and added the following sources to aid in notability:

"PR Newswire"
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-cape-girardeau-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-101072254.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-joplin-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-102385009.html

"redOrbit"
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1944638/grubb__ellis_healthcare_reit_ii_acquires_athens_longterm_acute/index.html

"Healthcare Finance News"
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/press-release/grubb-ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-athens-long-term-acute-care-hospital-georgia

"Akama"
http://www.akama.com/company/Creative_Health_Capital_LLC_a36211915867.html

I appreciate all your help. A comparable company is Juniper Advisory. Although Juniper is 5 years younger than CHC, the two provide similar services and have about the same public awareness. While Juniper focuses on non-profit healthcare organizations, CHC focuses on for-profit healthcare organizations. Neither are as famous as The Blackstone Group or Goldman Sachs, but both maintain a strong reputation within healthcare finance. 80.187.212.57 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one of your new sources is just a listing, and as such does n ot establish notability. The others (which all seem to be the saem press realease) just says the companmy has done something. It does not establish that what its done is notabale (and is onlt a pasing referance, indicating its just provided a service, not that that service was notable and nothing else).Slatersteven (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments, Slatersteven, NawlinWiki and Ihcoyc. I have just updated the article so that it hopefully now addresses all the issues you have raised. Here it is with my comments in ">>"

Creative Health Capital, LLC, is a U.S.-based healthcare-focused merchant banking firm. Its opportunity fund arm provides direct equity and mezzanine/subordinated debt capital. Its investment banking arm provides mergers and acquisitions advisory services and senior debt, mezzanine/subordinated debt, bridge capital, equity and sale/leaseback capital-raising services. Creative Health Capital works exclusively with healthcare providers in the long term acute care, skilled nursing, ambulatory surgery center, dialysis center, specialty hospital (including cancer/oncology research and treatment hospitals and orthopedic/joint replacement hospitals), assisted living, independent living, CCRC, memory care and home health subsectors^[1].

>>This is purely factual, describing what CHC is, what it provides and who it works with, with an external source from the National Investment Center, a trusted source and the biggest heathcare provider non-profit that was founded in 1991. Also, as it is purely factual, it is not blatant advertising.

At the trough of the Great Recession in 2010, Creative Health Capital was one of the few investment banking firms to have successfully completed financings for its clients, including capital-raising transactions in Cape Girardeau, Missouri^[2], Joplin, Missouri^[3] and Athens, Georgia^[4].

>>This is purely factual and aids in notability. In 2003-2007, investment banking deals were being done left and right, while in 2008-2010, not only were investment banking deals not getting done, but bankers were being laid off and firms were going bankrupt (Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns). To have gotten a deal done in 2010--and not just one, but three--is a quite a big deal. Also, as it is purely factual, it is not blatant advertising.

The principals at Creative Health Capital are widely sought after for their healthcare finance expertise and ideas, and have spoken on the panels of numerous conferences^[5] ^[6].

>>This is purely factual and also aids in notability. It is very difficult to be asked to speak at both the HCap and McGuireWoods LLP conferences. Only industry experts with the highest of reputations are invited. Also, as it is purely factual, it is not blatant advertising.

Founded in 2001, Creative Health Capital celebrates its 10th anniversary in the first quarter of 2011. Its headquarters is based in Evanston, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, with a satellite office in Charlotte, North Carolina.

>>Purely factual. Also, as it is purely factual, it is not blatant advertising.

References

"National Real Estate Investor"
http://nreionline.com/finance/news/grubb_ellis_healthcare_reit_0921/

"PR Newswire"
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-cape-girardeau-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-101072254.html

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-joplin-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-102385009.html

"redOrbit"
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1944638/grubb__ellis_healthcare_reit_ii_acquires_athens_longterm_acute/index.html

"Healthcare Finance News"
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/press-release/grubb-ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-athens-long-term-acute-care-hospital-georgia

"Akama"
http://www.akama.com/company/Creative_Health_Capital_LLC_a36211915867.html

"National Investment Center"
http://www.nic.org/research/lender/LenderDetailsView.aspx?id=201

"GreisGuide to LTACHs"
http://greisguide.com/dev/?p=1346

"HCap"
http://www.hcapconference.com/who_attends_pef.php

"Hoovers"
http://www.hoovers.com/company/Creative_Health_Capital/xkkfrjxyk-1.html

"Manta"
http://www.manta.com/c/mtmpc9j/creative-health-capital

"Patch"
http://evanston.patch.com/listings/creative-health-capital

External Links

>>Anyway, I appreciate all your support and comments. Hopefully this latest updated version will help get this article over the hump! Thanks again, everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.124.12 (talk • contribs) — 75.95.124.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is clear you're just a sockpuppet of Nic lender trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest while continuing your advertising campaign.

"Creative Health Capital is a U.S.-based healthcare-focused merchant banking firm" isn't advertising. The laundry list after it is advertising services available, instead of just presenting the general nature of the company (which the first sentence does). Facts and advertising are not mutually exclusive.

"At the trough of the Great Recession in 2010..." - You have no idea what we consider notable. Notability means that articles in general newspapers and magazines have written about the company, or books have been written about the company. Press releases do not count because that's just the company talking about itself, more advertising. This paragraph is just there to make the company look good, it is advertising.

"The principals at Creative Health Capital..." - Again, more advertising, there to make the company look good. "Facts" and advertising are not mutually exclusive.

"Founded in 2001..." - Who cares what they're celebrating? The location of it's headquarters is indeed not advertising, but two slices of non-advertising does at the beginning and the end does change the fact that the article is an advertising sandwich.

As for the sources:

The first one has a conflict of interest and does not establish notability (it's just a directory).
The second, third, and fourth are just press releases, advertising by proxy.
Fifth source 404's on my computer, but both it and the sixth just establishes that they've spoken at conferences. That does not establish notability. Here are the notability guidelines for corporations. Try actually reading them instead of wasting everyone's time, especially your's.
The Evanston Patch, Manta, Hoovers, and Akama sites are just directories, we don't care if it's listed in a directory, we're not a directory. Don't bring up that mess again, it's just showing that you're not paying attention and are trying to philabuster your article onto the site.
The National Real Estate Investor and RedOrbit articles is not about the company, just mentions it in passing in yet another press release. They didn't care enough to properly bother writing about the company, so why should we? The NREI site makes it look like a legitimate article, but RedOrbit makes it clear that it's just a press release.

Here are the guidelines on determining notability of corporations, and identifying reliable sources. Read them, don't waste any more of your time or our's. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Press releases do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot establish any notability. Press releases do not establish notability. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listings do not establish notability; they just establish that somebody else wrote a list once. We wouldn't argue that everybody in the phonebook is notable. If there were independent sources that actually discussed the subject in depth, then I'd happily switch to "keep". bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The press releases were initiated by another company, not Creative Health Capital, and therefore would not be classified as Creative Health Capital's own advertising. Again, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juniper_Advisory as a precedent. If Juniper Advisory can have a Wikipedia article, so should Creative Health Capital. 75.95.124.12 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant, that article found actual articles from magazines, not press releases, to establish notability. The sources that weren't from Creative Health Capital aren't about Creative Health Capital, the corporation is just mentioned in passing. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability I can find. Only mentions are in press releases or other self published sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:11, 29 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 United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2010. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Burks

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

I do not think there is enough here for notability -- defeated candidate who did not even win the primary. He does seem to technically meet the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted this debate, and will tag the article and enter it into the log. This isn't a co-nom, and I am Neutral on the merits, but use this timestamp as a start point for the 7 days. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidacne of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2010. He got about 6% in the primary election. There's some media coverage, but only ancillary coverage in relation to the election, so WP:BLP1E applies. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per LtNOWIS. As a candidate who wasn't even selected by their own party, I don't really think there's enough to justify a standalone article. I doubt they were notable as a mayor; I can't find any substantial source on that. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 28 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 User:Tnxman307. Zetawoof (ζ) 15:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Year Quarterly Data

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

This appears to be sourced to one SPS. it reads like someones opinion and not an encylopedic entry (and may be very OR indead). It may violate copyrihgt (as it reads like a direct quote. And may be pormotional (the saem author has used the saem sources to create or edit very similar article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two sentences, very little context. Almost certainly a copyvio, given the author's history. Zetawoof (ζ) 15:50, 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 deleted already. User edits being mass deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 15:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supervisory Planning and Control

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

This is not an encyclopedic article. It appears to be copied from a textbook but not finding the search results to classify as G12. This is also written as a how-to article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable copyright violation. Feezo (Talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, also only one sources. This may be nonnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to run business

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Feezo (Talk) 14:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this appears to be just someones very poor esay on how to run a buisiness.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but for an article like this, you should use speedy A10, duplicate. I have tagged this article as a duplicate of entrepreneur. — Timneu22 · talk 15:33, 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 keep. Non-admin closure. Nominator has withdrawn. See my statement at the bottom of discussion. —Half Price 21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Street (Children in Need)

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

Not a program in its own right, just a 15 minute sketch on an annual charity fund-raising program. Not likely to be made into a stand-alone program. —Half Price 14:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With children in need with links from the two soaps pages.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable cross-over episode. I have more sources that I didn't get around to incorporating yet. Anemone Projectors 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: AnemoneProjectors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Half Price 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's quite notable actually, for what it was. Sources are available, from what I can see they're beng added now. A quick search determines it's notability in any case.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment: We need to look at WP:Notability (events) here really. The event was not of any lasting historical significance nor has it had a particular impact. It did not receive sustained coverage either. —Half Price 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that it was brought up a month later by one of the cast members? Anemone Projectors 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact details of that example but it doesn't sound very impressive quite frankly. —Half Price 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Half Price, I'd suggest we do not have to look to the guidelines for notibility of recent events, which you cited. This is an article on fiction, so as with every work of fiction it isn't going to have the same "lasting historical significance" as the war in Iraq or a new bill being passed through parliment... For what the article is about, I'd say it holds it own now.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but I was suggesting we look at it from that angle because I believe it fails in terms of fictional works as well, and actually has a better chance of passing the events guidelines because of its crossover nature. As I have shown though, it doesn't anyway. —Half Price 21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies the general notability guideline requirement of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. We can certainly debate the quality of the sources: of the eleven present, a couple are tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mirror), but there are also middle-market newspapers (Daily Mail, Evening Herald) and a couple of the biggest entertainment websites in the UK (AOL Television, Digital Spy). Attempting to apply the events guideline is not ideal, as I think many television episodes would fall down on "sustained coverage" while remaining within acceptable bounds of the GNG. Unless an episode is particularly ground-breaking in some respect, or attracts later commentary through a DVD release or award nomination, the majority of coverage will naturally occur during the immediate period around its broadcast. Frickative 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't a television episode, it was a one-off sketch that was on another TV program. —Half Price 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's your opinion. "Episode", "episode", "episode". Anemone Projectors 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirriam-Webster say an episode is "one of a series of loosely connected stories or scenes" or "the part of a serial presented at one performance". Wiktionary defines it as "An installment of a drama told in parts, as in a TV series". The Free Dictionary, Princeton University's WordNet and Encarta are all in agreement too. It's not just my opinion, it's fact. —Half Price 23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it still satisfies GNG and Frickative's argument is still valid. Anemone Projectors 23:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe my main point about the GNG stands, I can't accept that the article should be deleted as a sketch under a sub-guideline, when the sources themselves do not treat it as such, but as an "episode" or "mini-episode". Frickative 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than satisfies general notability guidelines. Additionally, it also has room to grow, to focus on i. writing, ii. production details, iii. reviews (particularly those which probe the mini-episode's humour in more detail), iii. cast reactions, iv. Children in Need-related figures. The Reception section needs a lot of expansion, partially to justify the article's existence, but partially because analysis of the episode's in-jokes etc. should amount to the main fibre of its notability.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdraws: I don't agree at all that this article should be on Wikipedia, but I see that after explaining my argument fully I am not getting anywhere. The result of this discussion is not in any doubt so I won't delay it and make someone else close the debate. —Half Price 21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per below, and G7 per the author. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemic (Novel)

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

The novel has not been published yet, and as far as we know may not be. So there is an element of crystalballing here. There is also a strong hint that this has been created by a SPA and is promotional. Also there is no evidacen of notability. Slatersteven (talk)

Delete. Searching Amazon.com and WorldCat, there is no evidence that this book exists. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that his ealier screenplay (upon which this magnum opus is supposidly based) does not appear to have ever been made. So no reason to assume the book will ever be published.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's some pretty strong evidence that User:TeensOfTheDownfall is William Kennedy -- TotD is a band which William Kennedy plays for. This, the overly detailed plot summary, and the lack of any publisher make this all look more like an unpublished fanfic than a novel. Zetawoof (ζ) 15:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are incorrect - simply in the fact that fanfictions are based on another piece of already existing work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.102.172 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now agreed that this should be deleted [[11]] with the undertsanding (I do not thiink there is an issue here) that he is permited to keep the page in user p-sace untill publication when he will re-submit it.Slatersteven (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Smiths. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hibbert

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

WP:BLP1E. Was a briefly a member of The Smiths, but otherwise not notable. Also WP:BLPNAME concerns. Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor, but The Smiths are so big that even a brief association warrants coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I say no, you say yes, but you will change your mind." xxx --Shirt58 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second that (so Keep), he was part of the initial line-up and even a footnote in the story of The Smiths warrants mention. Curt Woyte (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do want to keep every little bit of Smithography, but I would argue this article does not meet WP:GNG, or in the alternative, does not meet WP:William, It Was Really Nothing--Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, one thing that hasnt been mentioned is that on the first demo, He played the bass, the basslines were then used subsequently on the album, so it should be argued that he co-wrote at least 2 of the songs. Their first gig, 4 songs were played, it's not known if the other 2 songs basslines remained the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.232.29 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did he write the bass lines or just use them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Smiths. Plausible search term but seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be to delete everything and redirect to The Smiths (a redirect which would then tell readers nothing about Dale Hibbert), or else to merge and redirect, bloating an already sizable article with content on bandmembers of arguable notability? Neither of these sound like an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, a redirect is preferable to a merge, because the history of the redirected article (including the text of prior versions) survives, out of which some can be merged later-- much in the same way that material deleted from an article continues to be accessible through its history. From the point of view of an admin, deletes are easy; redirects are easy; keeps require slightly more work; merges are a pain in the ass, which is why that's a very infrequent outcome on AfD. Generally, when people advocate redirect, they don't mean a complete obliteration of the history. If all that would be left would be a search term, that's already accomplished by typing "dale hibbert" into the search engine. Mandsford 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This a minor very brief member of the Smiths, but the Smiths are one of the most notable english bands of all time. This is content where wikipedia blows every other reference encyclopedia out of the water.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Smiths. Someone is not notable by association. The fact he was both minot and brief does not make him a notabvle member of the band, he is only a foot note in thier history.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability slightly comparable to Pete Best. However, article could be bolstered by other cites. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One rather big differance. Mr Hibvert appears to have only played in their debute gig, Mr Best was with the bettles for two years. We also have only one source lisintg Mr Hibbert, thus it does not appear that he has achived any notability, on the other hand Mr Bests association with the Bettles has been very widely reported.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that comparison to Best was a pretty lame Homer Simpsony Doh! stretch. Doing research on him, it is difficult to come up with much. However, I did find (and included in the article) a little more exposition on the guy in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music (2006, 4th ed., page 570 in the article "Smiths":

"By the summer of 1982, the duo decided to form a group and recorded demos with drummer Simon Wolstencroft and recording engineer Dale Hibbert." . . . "By the end of 1982, the band had appointed a permanent bass player."

Changed to Delete the article and Redirect to Smiths after extensive searching (BGMI, Lexis-Nexis Academic, Google Books). I'm leaning more towards your point of view, that this is the ONLY thing Hibbert is notable for. Almost a footnote of a footnote. I'm going to go to the Smiths article where Hibbert is mentioned and use the above cite in that article (verifiable info where appropriate). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Smiths. This can be merged without significantly impacting on the band article, and this detail on their early history belongs in that article.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band, no independent notability (anyone can merge what they feel is appropriate). there is no need to delete this article to create a redirect and since there is sourced content that can be merged a deletion should not happen. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbolt (Beast Wars)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Horrible non-free violation as well. Macr86 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable fictional character whose sources are easily found. In fact I see several third party sources on this page already! Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh.....Keep There are multiple third-party sources present, so your claim about "only being sourced to primary sources and thus failing the GNG" is wrong. And, yes, there are several character lists that this could be merged to: List of Maximals and List of Beast Wars characters. ----Divebomb is not British 10:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Divebomb is apparently a sockpuppet of Editor XXV and is now blocked. NotARealWord (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if anyone cares enough. No real encyclopedic content. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I point you to WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. ----Divebomb is not British 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem:

...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged
— Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

. NotARealWord (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that doesn't make the reasoning for deletion any more valid. J Milburn made an invalid arguement as to why something should be deleted. Divebomb merely pointed it out to him in an unrecommended manner. They are not the same thing.Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What gave you the idea that I'm using that to support deletion? I haven't !voted to delete yet. Just pointing out something important when using sections of the "arguments to avoid" page. NotARealWord (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - History? Can I get a short list of Transformers you voted "KEEP" on? However, prove me wrong if you want. I'd be happy to see you improve an article and vote keep on it. Mathewignash (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I vote keep on anything that doesn't deserve it? (Not talking about this article) Plus, if you're gonna mention people's history, there's the ridiculous things you gave a "keep" !vote for. Like this one for example. NotARealWord (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go into history I would note that J Milburn has a history of problems trying to delete perfectly good pages such as this one 76.19.251.152 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly good? See that comment by sgeureka below. NotARealWord (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he didn't also delete pages that need to be deleted as well. Good catch on that Divebomb by the way. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that article my reasoning was that it was a stub under development. What's wrong with that argument?Mathewignash (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "that article" you mean Primon, there was basically nothing to develop. The character is a really vague concept and isn't likely to even become notable within the next several years. NotARealWord (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nobody has brought up any reasons to delete this page (albeit invalid ones). As Mathewignash said above, there's already third party sources in this. This casts serious doubt on the claim that it is non-notable.--Piast93 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a relevant article. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as per WP:NOTABLE. Many links are broken; others are to fans' personal websites, sites and books on the cartoon, rather than the character (and which aren't third-party sources anyway), etc. One source is seriously just a picture of the back of a toy package. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [12][13][14] Articles like thes are neither reliable or independent. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not EVERY external link has to be a third party source and you know it. Why are you pointing out the non-third party sources and IGNORING the ones that are? Mathewignash (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources (Seibertron.com, unicron.us, Angelfire) aren't really reliable. Merge/Redirect seems a good option. NotARealWord (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Mostly plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and release information on the toys. No separate non-stub article possible with the following currently present sources, therefore merge per WP:AVOIDSPLIT: Dead, Fansite, Picture gallery, Doesn't mention "Silverbolt", Picture gallery, Dead, Amazon-like fanboy reviews, Non-independant, okay, Fansite, a Print source for the voice actor's name, an in-universe Print source, a print source for the toy. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address one of your issues, the link to the page on Jetstorm that doesn't mention "Silverbolt", if you read the article, you will note that for a time Silverbolt went by the name Jetstorm. So this is an article talking about him. Mathewignash (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, a lot of them don't seem to pass the reliability criteria. NotARealWord (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to establish a consensus if both sides enumerates the sources and summaried why they considered them to be reliable/unreliable for the purpose of establishing notability. Right now the delete side say they don'r cut the mustard and the keep side say they do. We actually need to understand why to work out the consensus here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOn notable in the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silverbolt - Sources provided are primary to Hasbro or are fansites. Reliable sources is the name of the game, and they just aren't here. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You want to merge this.....to a redirect? Do the research before you !vote, please. --The Needle (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Silverbolt refers to the Aerialbot leader, an entirely different character unrelated to this one. NotARealWord (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps he means the deleted page for Silverbolt, which was also lacking enough notability. Maybe we should author a single page for both Silverbolts, with all the citations on both, and see if THAT has enough notabiliity! Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. NotARealWord (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being heroic Transformers named Silverbolt who are the team flyers in their series, and being silver, and being made on Earth in the second season of their series... wait a minute... which is which again? Mathewignash (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, G1 Silverbolt was afraid of heights, he led a team of sentient jets, was a combiner, and had no love interest. Neither were actually the "team flyers" in their series, when BW silverbolt debuted other Maximals could already fly, and G1 Silverbolt was part of a team of flyers. Neither of them were built on earth. NotARealWord (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbolt was built on Earth in the Marvel Comics. Mathewignash (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one silverbolt, not both. Still, it is no more appropriate to cover the Fuzor and the aerialbot in the same article than it is to cover Megatron (Beast Era) with the original Megatron. Indeed, the Megatrons have more in common than the two Silverbolts honestly. NotARealWord (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Definitely do not merge to Aerialbots (which Silverbolt redirects to). The Fuzor in Beast Wars has nothing whatsoever in common with the Aerialbots. JIP | Talk 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added a citation from Lee's Action Figure and Toy Review magazine where they reviewed the figure for Silverbolt. Mathewignash (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more against merging with the Aerialbot leader. Won't really complain so much if it was closed as keep. NotARealWord (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is if this one ends up being as KEEP, then he's the only Transformers character named Silverbolt who would have a page on Wikipedia, so he should probably be moved to Silverbolt (Transformers). Then once he's there I would probably add a mention of the Generation 1 character, or at least a link to the Aerialbots article. Mathewignash (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (e.g. to List of Beast Wars characters). WP:INUNIVERSE treatment, sparsely sourced, and then only apparently to fan publications -- thus WP:FANCRUFT. No indication of any wider notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The books cited are NOT fan publications, they are legitmate books available on amazon.com and at your local library system. Mathewignash (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are publications aimed at a fan audience. And "available on amazon.com and at your local library system" does not necessarily mean a scholarly or reliable source. I would suggest that The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition is neither. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Unofficial_Guide_to_Transformers_1980s_Through_1990s_Revised_.26_Expanded_2nd_Edition you would be wrong. It's a reliable source. Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single comment is not a WP:CONSENSUS, and the "lead writer" of the "Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club newsletter" is not an independent source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness then he wrote that book 6 years BEFORE he was hired by Fun Publications. You have to judge a source by when it was written, and it was written by someone who didn't work for Fun Publications. Mathewignash (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added another book source today. Mathewignash (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Get this Transformers fancruft off of Wikipedia already. It's not notable, fails WP:GNG. Either delete it or transwiki it to the Transformers wiki. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That website you pointed to is inactive. The community that uilt it up until 5000+ articles left wikia and put up a new site on a different server. Plus, it's article format would mean that it should not accept Wikipedia's articles. The new site also won't accept Wikipedia articles. NotARealWord (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They already have an article there. http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Silverbolt_(BW) And its still active. 7,452 pages on their wiki. Thousands of people a month still visit this article [15] on Wikipedia though, and no telling how many have seen it total over the years. But Wikipedia has unfortunately changed. The evil snotty elitist deletionists have won. Why just nominate all remaining Transformer articles at once, and kill them off like that, instead of wasting time picking them off one at a time or in small groups? Dream Focus 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an opinion on this article, feel free to voice it. Mathewignash (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, if you actually check, transformers.wikia.com is not growin fast enouh compared to all the new Transformers material coming out. Compare to the much more complete tfwiki.net. More than 11,000 articles and an active editorship that usually know what they're doing. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being unaware of the most active and up to date compendium on knowledge of the Transformers. Transwiki it wherever you want, I don't care. It just doesn't belong here. Trust me, I know. After all, I'm just one of the many unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists trying to destroy yet another decent legitimate article. SnottyWong ^talk 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't think there is any place to transwiki this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its not encylopedic! I believe we should erase every single article that wouldn't impress all the snotty elistists. I want Wikipedia to be taken seriously by the snobs, instead of just being loved and used by millions of common folk. I ask myself, is this something the Harvard graduates working at a major big city newspaper would like? What about other members of high society? Its not in style unless the fashion magazines tell us it is, and you can't be seen wearing something that simply isn't something they personally consider tasteful at the moment. We should never try to think for ourselves, and form our own opinions, just do whatever the popular kids might want us to do. Mozart fanatic 77 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Comment by sockpuppet of banned user struck out - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by Mathewignash. Nice long interesting article, it now has 14 references! FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and every single one either primary, a toy review or a fansite. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a toy review as a source for an article about a toy line fictional character? Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... because it's an article about a fictional character, not a toy. You need sources about the fictional character, and at the moment there isn't a single decent one. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. Let tfwiki have this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- all the sources are useless. They are either broken links, fansites, toy catalogues or puffery put out by the producers of Transformers. The fact that someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to find evidence of notability, unfortunately, demonstrates the exact reverse if this is the best they've been able to find. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 29 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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primrose Everdeen

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

Not notable. She's not even a main character in the series, even though frequently mentioned. The first source does not even mention her, just the general plot line. The second one mentions her as "Katniss's sister" in a list of minor characters who are expanded in Mockingjay. She should be limited to an entry in the List of characters. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy per nom. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy#Primrose Everdeen --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of characters, I would be very suprised if sources made any note of her, she is very minor in the plot, Sadads (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, barely even gets mentioned in the cited sources. No sign of any in-depth discussion that would establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 16:07, 28 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy D'Vette

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

Very weak claims to notability in this vanity page. The only significant contributor to the article is User:Billydvette, which suggests COI issues alongside failing to meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. I can find no reliable sources that suggest this subject is notable. Thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. There's a couple of interviews in unreliable sources: [16], [17]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1's of 2010

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mediabase Pop 100 Airplay Number 1's of 2010

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

Many things wrong here. This is a list of number ones for an lesser-known airplay chart for North America. The most notable and wideley-regarded "official" charts for the US and Canada come from Billboard magazine, not this (if I'm not mistaken, there have been Mediabase lists such as this deleted in the past). As it stands there are currently a large number of Billboard related lists, so I don't know why this one would also be needed (note also that the use of "Pop 100" is a Billboard-copyrighted term and shouldn't be used here). The article itself also has major problem with formatting: from the title of the article to the complate lack of sources (the Mediabase website needs a login, so not sure how that would even be done), the "unofficial" number ones (whatever that means), to the unneeded glut of titles shown at the bottom as "top 20 hits", the unexplained "spins" and "AI" columns and the bad capitalization in the headers. The table code is also extremely clunky and most of it could be removed. I question the worth of this list; even the Mediabase Wikipedia article has no sources whatsoever. I'm recommending deletion, if not a complete re-do of the article (if consensus is to keep it). eo (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails wp:n grossly. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, what's more, I recommend averting your eyes as you aim the revolver and pull the trigger to put this article out of ~~its~~our misery. Nobody should have to look at this thing, even when putting it down. Almost nothing about this page is right. It has notes but no refs. The note links are formatted as teeny numbers in overwide columns. The notes themselves are opaque. The Spins and AI columns are unexplained. The notability of Mediabase is not asserted, but then neither are its existence or area of activity. There is no need for the page, even if it were fully reffed and properly formatted. And what the heck is that unreferenced "Other Top 20 Hits of 2010" section that takes up the bottom half of the page? Put this page down now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AI and Spins columns shouldn't have to be explained. They are explained is one hundred percent full detail on the Mediabase page which is linked to on the article in question. It's really difficult to reference any of the data because Mediabase.net only allows members to view data, and it is extremely difficult and expensive to get an account. If the table looks bad, then fix it and stop complaining about it. I just felt like it was needed because it's an excellent view on the pop culture world of 2010 in the United States. Frankly, I don't see why we shouldn't keep it. It's a very interesting article. If I can find good references, I will add them in, but as stated before it's hard to do that. I do have access to the website, so I know all of this is absolutely correct. Tcatron565 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant listing. If this information is verifiable, it's best placed as an EL on the Mediabase article or a one-sentence mention on some other article which lists hits. If it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia at all. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010s in fashion

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was under speedy delete as "it contains numerous Crystal ball, original research issues and is too soon to merit an article"; but (unlike at the previous AfD) the 2010's have started and there is time for this article to be tidied? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are already in the 2010s, so the article is not about a future event. I do think, however, that the article needs a complete rewrite. Once that's done, then it should be placed under protection so that only experienced editors may edit it. Otherwise, it'll keep looking like a sloppy grocery list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless multiple sources can be found which back up the assertions in the article. Even if trends in fashion seem to be clear, it's not our place to WP:SYNTHesize a summary of them like this. Zetawoof (ζ) 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless the article references the term from the media and reliable sourcing (which could exist, in its present form doesn't)(its seems completely unref'd), im not seeing that info present has any indication of enduring notability and merely is a combination of original research, synthesisis (major issues here) and some crystal balling (not too much since were in 2010/11). Article could (probably) be tidied as above but will someone do this? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom states "...the 2010's have started and there is time for this article to be tidied?" Per BEFORE#10 - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is for article rescue though. If no one will tidy an article to inclusion standards (by tidying adding refs), the article fails notablility as it is only comprised of original research and synthesis without referencing, as well as a speedy deltion in 2010, and a previous AFD deletion where the new article fails to address the concerns of the previous discussion (and related deletions); then yes a discussion is warrented in this case at AFD. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding refs" is a dangerously flawed concept. If a statement -- especially an inherently opinion-based one, like a summary of fashion trends -- didn't originate in a source, searching for a source after the fact and attaching it to previously written text is risky. In this case, it's likely to amount to picking and choosing sources to support the statements the article already makes. Zetawoof (ζ) 08:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agreed. But in a case where the article is predominately original research and synthesis that information should be removed. Whatever can be formulated in such a way that can be referenced showing notability of the topic should stay. If the entire article is OR and nothing can be contributed to show notability, then that is what were left with: deletion. Ive said above my deletion input is weak, but there is nothing dangerous with referencing an article and trying to write it in such a way.Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the purpose of AfD is judging whether an article is fixable, but Lugnuts is right to say that AfD isn't for making other editors fix it.
I don't think we can write anything factual about 2010s in fashion, because it would all be speculative: an article about what the reliable sources think the 2010s will bring. That doesn't strike me as a very good idea for an article at all.
But deletion is avoidable in this case (and so, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, should be avoided). The answer is to rename to 2010 in fashion (which is presently a redirect to this article). Anyone who says they can't find reliable sources for that has no business trying to write a collaborative encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any reference for 2010 in fashion can be used for the 2010s. Breaking up the decade into individual fashion years seems a little too fine-grained — do we create a separate article for 2011? How many years is enough to comment on the decade? Feezo (Talk) 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is too soon to speak of fashion of 2010-2019. It isn't even 2011 yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelyn1998 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be 2011 in 9 days time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Articles like this one should be made in retrospect. It is just too soon to have an article that scopes a whole decade that isn't even half way over yet. We do not know what the fashion trends will be like in 2013, let alone nine years from now in 2019. (Tigerghost (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: When a new president or Prime Minister assumes office, we don't wait for the end of his/her term to have an article on the person. Why should fashion be any different? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article on the history and acts of a president or Prime Minister is much less subjective than an article on fashion trends. It may be instructive to note that 1990s in fashion and 2000s in fashion are short and underreferenced as well. Zetawoof (ζ) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article's lack of references and length are not determining factors for deletion. This article needs to be re-written in an encyclopedic style and then placed under protection so that it doesn't resemble a child's jottings in a notebook.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless you're one of those people who thinks it'll be the 2000s until 2099. NewWaveKid (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's just WP:OR/WP:SYN (It was a very long list of OR/SYN, and would presumably return to that state in future). Even if it were ever comprehensively referenced, how would a hypothetical editor cope with value judgements when (for instance) one source says crocs are cool and another says they're uncool? Do we have reliable sources which say one colour is really more popular than another, or do we have to accept the word of one out of a thousand writers who are at the very bottom of the journalistic ecosystem? I doubt there are any doctoral fashion researchers publishing peer-reviewed papers which say "The colors pink, teal, purple, yellow and lime green are popular". It's just a randomly-chosen value judgment, and you'd find different value judgements with a few seconds googling. This fatally undermines verifiability. bobrayner (talk) 17:40, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter DiLemma

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

I cannot find any reliable sources indicating that WP:MUSIC or the general notability guideline are met. Thanks. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to notability seems to consist of i) playing in similar styles to notable musicians; and ii) a notable band using his cellar for rehearsals once. Doesn't even come close. (Oh, and it's dificult to search google because hits are being buried by "Peter's dilemma", but I'm not expecting surprises.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:44, 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. Courcelles 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Cervero

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played at a higher level than the Segunda Division B. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles for similar reasons. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, non-notable due to failure of both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None appear to satisfy any of our notability guidelines as they have not played in a fully-pro league or been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 22:49, 27 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 George Harrison#Knife attack. BLP1E quite clearly, even the keep side acknowledges this Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Abram

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

Contested PROD. I have serious doubts about this person's notability - it seems he is only 'notable' for one event, his attempted murder of a celebrity, which doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore I suggest that this article is deleted, with any relevant infornation merged into the George Harrison article. Giant Snowman 12:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree; this person is notable. I respect the opinion of the editor above, but allow me to address the two points they made: 1) It is true this person is notable for only one event. Any assassin would be notable for only one event. I believe that covers this point. 2) I am surprised to read the editor state this one event "doesn't seem to have received any substantial coverage by any stretch of the imagination." This statement is inaccurate, as practically all important news organizations worldwide covered the event when it happened. (I remember reading through several of them at the time I enhanced this article a few years ago. Perhaps we should add more of those sources to the article in that case, as I assume many are still readily available. This article absolutely could be better sourced.) A few sentences from this article are already in the George Harrison article, I added them myself at the time; this article expands on the details which are not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, I am sorry to see an editor wishing to tear down rather than build up this piece of Wikipedia. There are other articles that are better candidates for deletion. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of Wikipedia guidelines on notability, then you will be aware that being notable for one event alone (as you have admitted) isn't enough. And the person didn't receive coverage - the event in question did. I have no intention of "tear[ing] down" Wikipedia - the strength of the project lies in the fact that anything of note is allowed an article, and anything not of note isn't. I believe that the content about Michael Abram on the George Harrison article can be exapanded upon; but it does not need a seperate article. Giant Snowman 19:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect – Beyond his date and place of birth (and a glib, unsourced nickname), the article is simply about the attack on George Harrison (and in fairly excessive detail I might add). The only salient (albeit unsourced) info regarding Abram is about his history of mental illness and his mother's comments, which could simply be moved to the Harrison article. There is nothing else of merit here that isn't already covered by the Harrison article and the namespace should simply be redirected to George Harrison#Knife attack. DKqwerty (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this article on The Beatles/Popular Pages. Over one hundred views a day; not bad. The article's detail is useful. The unsourced reference should be fixed. Nothing further can be added to the George Harrison article on this topic, trust me, consensus was reached. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's detail is only about the stabbing; there's almost no actual details about the supposed subject, Abram himself. How many people view something is immaterial to its appropriateness. Notwithstanding that most people only view it because there's a link to it in the Harrison article; there's no indication of how long they stay, especially once they see that it's nothing more than a recounting of the stabbing. The only three non-project pages that link to the article (besides Harrison's) are Rainhill, Scott Clinic, and Abram (name)—all of which link to the article solely within the context of the stabbing. And if being tangentially relevant to a celebrity is all it takes to get an article, then why doesn't Gilbert Lederman or Ariel Lederman have an article on similar grounds? Keep in mind, this is supposed to be a biographical article, not an account of one evening in the man's life and minor details of the subsequent fallout. If there's nothing more substantial regarding his life outside the context of the stabbing and he remains low-profile, then there's no reason to keep it per WP:BLP1E. DKqwerty (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully acknowledge that all points raised were addressed very well. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Harrison. Most of the details that matter are already there, and the option is open to merge in any other details should that be considered appropriate. Unlike the John Lennon murder, which has attracted endless attention in the last thirty years, the entry in the Geroge Harrison article seem to cover all there is to say about the stabbing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more discussion on merging details of this article into the Knife Attack section of the George Harrison article. Check the archives of the talk page of that article back when I got concensus to add that new section to the article. A discussion almost as long as the GH article itself took place to craft individual words of the sentences of the Knife Attack section into the state it is now. If we delete the Michael Abram article, we delete every word of it from Wikipedia entirely. —Prhartcom (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that consensus can't change? As for telling us what we can and cannot discuss, I must strongly oppose - this is the perfect forum for discussing every possible option about an article, and if the community decides to merge, then we shall merge. Giant Snowman 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that make any difference? From what I saw on the talk page, you got consensus to add a new section into the George Harrison article. You did not ask for or get consensus to start a new article on the subject. There are various good reasons to split off a topic on a Wikipedia page into a new page in its own right, but avoiding the comments of other Wikipedia editors isn't one of them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, I do not mean to ignite a fire here. I realize you will delete the article now; you have convinced me, as I acknowledged to DKqwerty above. Moving on, I am suggesting you do not consider going to the George Harrison article and adding details deleted from the deleted article into the George Harrison article. The GH article has all the relevant detail on the knife attack it needs. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed convinced that the article should be deleted, perhaps you should also amend your "keep" vote above so as not to confuse people about your position, as well as to more easily tally the opinions. DKqwerty (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. WereWolf (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Notable event' does not make 'notable person'. Giant Snowman 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to George Harrison#Knife attack, per WP:BLP1E. That article contains all the information on the attack that is needed; there's no need for a separate article on the perpetrator, who isn't notable aside from this attack. (WP:PERP notes that perpetrators of attacks on very famous people may be notable solely for that reason, but that doesn't mean they automatically become so.) Robofish (talk) 02:26, 29 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 Dani Harmer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Harmer discography

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

A singer who has only released one single to date does not require a discography article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. At the moment, Dani Harmer discography is simply a duplication of info already in Dani Harmer. With greatest respect to Ms Harmer, while there are good reasons for keeping skeleton articles for events that will in all likelihood happen in the future - like 2012 Summer Olympics - this is not one of those. Restart without prejudice when Ms Harmer has more than one single and/or more than one album.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD G3. Nakon 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syndiochromatic dysphlaecia

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

Looks like a hoax to me. Could be a misspelling, but it seems improbable. Feezo (Talk) 09:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. No GHits at all outside the article. Morevover, the term "dysphlaecia" is simply not a possibly extant word in Modern Latin morphology.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Probably related to Misthenpholic Couertolysis. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. A number of hoax articles about fake medical conditions have been started by a number of different SPAs; I suspect sockpuppetry as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puckslapper11. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:16, 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. Courcelles 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gepi mars

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

I can find absolutely no proof of this project. A Google search for "gepi mars" only results in false positives, and Googling for the supposed full name of the project results in two hits: the article and a mirror. Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 10:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this as a hoax because it was unlikely beyond reasonable credibility and was sourced from a Science Fiction book. I nearly deleted it per {{db-hoax}} and suggest that the first uninvolved admin looking at this might want to put it out of its misery. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please do not WP:DRIVEBY Stanisław Lem--Shirt58 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any source that mentions this anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - the two "sources" are Lem's book of science fiction stories and Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman, a book of reminiscences. Surely you're joking, user Deebatamama! --JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please read WP:NOTADVOCATE. Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible - Poland would not ever afford such a space program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.120.33 (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parameshwari

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

To be honest, I am not entirely sure what to make of this article. The subject (as far as I can divine) is a particular understanding (or perhaps incarnation?) of a Hindu mother goddess (similar to Parvati, perhaps). I've been unable to find any online sources with which to re-write this article or even make sense of it. If someone else is able to, it may be possible to see a Heymann improvement, but in the absence such efforts, we are left with an unreferenced, completely non-neutral (almost in-universe) article that cannot stay in the mainspace. -- Lear's Fool 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article seems to be lifted from [18]. Feezo (Talk) 10:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is of Lalita Tripurasundari. The article covers the content of Parashakti. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.130.21 (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, in-universe. bobrayner (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks and pakistan politicians

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

This just reproduces parts of the cables relevant to Pakistan. I think a rough consensus has emerged that they should not be used in such a way at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents and therefore this should be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We had a similar article titled "Indian Wikileaks" which did the same thing for India and it's pertaining leaks. That article was CSD'd, and I see no reason why this should not either - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 10:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno under which criteria I should do so, non seems applicable. Yoenit (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that other article went under WP:A10 - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noteworthy, significant, and widely covered in many WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is entirely reliant on primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should delete this since it's just copy and pasted source material. But before it goes it'd be worthwhile to see if the information contained in these sources can be mentioned on the articles covering the politicians in question, a lot of it seems pertinent. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copy-paste. If necessary, add any relevant information into articles about persons mentioned in this article. Beagel (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonrise Kingdom

AfDs for this article:

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

Filming has not begun and per WP:NFF an article shouldn't be made about a film until filming occurs. —Mike Allen 07:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Mike Allen 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware of the previous AFD less than a month ago. I would like to propose this be Speedy Deleted per CSD G4. —Mike Allen 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea whether this version is the same or different from the one deleted three weeks ago... and hopefuly an admin will compare the two to see if the new article is the same in content or only in name and whether or not a G4 would apply... but in any case, it is still WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure an admin would check before deleting this article by that criteria. However with that said, they may not even see this request until next week. :P —Mike Allen 00:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was TOOSOON three weeks ago and it is TOOSOON now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason why WP:NFF should be set aside in this case. bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 28 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears filmography

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

Well, I created the article over a year ago when I first joined Wikipedia, and based it on Madonna filmography. Looking at it now, it looks completely unnecessary, since Spears has only starred in one motion picture and made several guest appearances and cameos in other films and television shows. And especially if you compare it to FAs such as Clint Eastwood filmography. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could be merged with the main article. Novice7 | Talk 06:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if it's deleted, it couldn't. Uncle G (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean it that way. The article looks short now, and the television appearances may have links, but needs sources. I say this from what I now. And, now the article's contents can go into the main article. Novice7 | Talk 16:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a fairly decent article, and better than some existing filmographies. Xwomanizerx - don't sell yourself short! There's a reason there are so few FA filmographies - because it's bloody hard work to get them to that standard. Before I clicked the article, I was expecting a stub-ish sized article, with a crappy table listing films and roles. This is so much more. Plenty of intro, sources and room for future expansion. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. This article is perhaps too in depth, and some of its content (the movie appearances) should be added into the main article, but I see no reason why regular editing can't fix the issues with the filmography in its current form. I've been bold and removed the "Commercials" and "Music from motion pictures and TV" sections, which I feel are too much, but the remainder seems like a perfectly reasonable content fork to me. -- Lear's Fool 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 09:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 09:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm actually not sure what I think. Lugnut's comments make a lot of sense, so I'm still not sure.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the amount of sources that is available for Godney, this can easily be developed to as far as being a FL. I personally searched and saw quite a lot of info, espeially on the Mickey Mouse thing. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering she only had about one main film role and only one main television role. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lugnuts makes a good case for me. I particularly like that future expansion may not result in a lengthy filmography, but I'm betting on the Britster making some more appearances and a few more movie roles or two over time (yes, crystal ball, I know, I know). And, like Lugnut, I actually found more there than I thought I would. I am NOT a fan of BS in any way, shape, or form. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is extremely notable. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 17:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot more than I expected, especially the details of the commercials and which songs were included. Cactusjump (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reaction – more here than I expected. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Britney Spears videography – I know I opposed this before, but after I saw Beyoncé Knowles videography I think the same thing could be done with this article and her videography. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abundant RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 27 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 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Indian Food in New Zealand

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

Article is about Indian cuisine in general, and we already have an article for that. Does not talk specifically about South Indian cuisine (and we also already have an article for that), or Indian cuisine in New Zealand. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... I would say give this a little time to go somewhere, at the moment it's simply a copypaste of Indian cuisine with nothing added except an image of dubious copyright status (I removed some clear copyvio text, which didn't mention New Zealand either). If there's no improvement this can be speedy deleted (A10). Hairhorn (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article is filched without attribution and falsely labelled as the creator's own work. The text is filched from, as noted, our Indian cuisine article and not labelled anywhere as someone else's work; and the image (that I've tagged at Commons) is lifted from one of several places around the WWW and re-branded as the creator's own work. There's no actual original content here at all. Uncle G (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that some of the creator's other uploads at commons turn out to include advertisements with a telephone number on them, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that patching together some scraps of prose pinched from various places, an image nicked from somewhere else, and an advertisement with one's business telephone number on it, all under a title that describes the product sold by the business, wasn't really an attempt to write an encyclopaedia article. I'll get another administrator to double-check me here. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is about South Indian food, but not about such food in New Zealand.-gadfium 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the editor's intention was to promote his business, and there's nothing encyclopaedic about the article. Schwede 66 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know if South Indian Food in New Zeland is a viable topic or not. However, the current article and its associated problems is not the proper start of such an article. Since the content isn't really focused about South Indian cuisine as it is in New Zealand, there is nothing worth saving for anybody who wishes to start an article on this topic. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A10. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom...--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlinear quality of life index

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

Judging by the text of the article, and its history, it is clear that the entire article is original research. This is not a case where the article can be modified, or the original research removed, because the entire idea of the page is original research. Originalbigj (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to question that conclusion, based upon the citation of the paper by A. Zinovyev and Alexander N. Gorban in the references section of the article. But, as you point out, this article was created and edited by Zinovyev (talk · contribs) and Agor153 (talk · contribs) three days after that paper was first submitted (and revised the same day that version 2 of the paper was submitted). And whilst it may be supplemental to the International Journal of Neural Systems article, there's nothing so far indicating that it's been published in any journal itself, and subjected to the same scrutiny and peer review. From a quick search there's nothing indicating that this concept, in an (unreviewed) paper from August of this year, has been acknowledged by anyone else. And the other sources cited here don't document it at all, and aren't even cited in the article as doing so. Uncle G (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I kindly ask not to delete the article? The main content (presented in Fig.) with the technology of analysis is published in a Reliable source: A.N. Gorban, A. Zinovyev, Principal manifolds and graphs in practice: from molecular biology to dynamical systems, International Journal of Neural Systems 20 (3) (2010), 219-232. arXiv:1001.1122 [cs.NE]. The table (supplementary material) is published in arXiv. Therefore, it is not correct that "the entire article is original research". The International Journal of Neural Systems has impact factor 2.98. The main idea of analysis was published there, hence, it is completely wrong that "the entire idea of the page is original research". The table of countries was not published in the journal but is published in arXiv as supplementary material. So, the main idea is published in a good level journal (Reliable source) and supplementary material (tables) is published in arXiv. In addition, I can mention the MIT Technology Review publication that is definitely not a self-publication but, at the same time, not a completely academic source. In addition, I would like to attract your attention to the recommendation of the Wikipedia rules: "the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability" (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). The authors of the journal papers and the arXiv e-print are: Dr. Gorban, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Leicester, UK, and Dr. Zinovyev, Leader of Computational Systems Biology of Cancer team, Institut Curie, Paris. They are authors of many academic papers and books.--Agor153 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is based entirely upon very recent work by Gorban and Zinovyev. Looking at Scopus, Gorban is a notable specialist in statistical analysis of this sort who has worked on applications to various problems in the physical and biological sciences, but this is his first paper on a social sciences application. Zinovyev is a moderately notable specialist in biological information science, but this too is his first paper in the social sciences. For all I know their essay in this field may prove to be seminal , but both the published paper & the arXiv supplement are too new to have been cited. The Wikipedia article presents their theory as if it were widely accepted, but the subject is not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. It's not technically OR, but there is inadequate support for it at this point. We do not publish articles on individual papers or theories by noted scientists, except for those papers and theories that are notable as shown by third party references. This simply does not meet the basic notability guideline, or any reasonable extension of it. (I hope they will not misunderstand, but an article at this point would seem to be promotion of their theory, & we do not do that.) What would however be appropriate is an article on each of them, which might mention the paper as their newest work, but it would be disproportionate weight to do more than mention it even there, for it is not at present what their reputations are based on. I would strongly advise them not to write those articles themselves. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear DGG, you argumentation is clear: you do not like to see this article published in Wikipedia now because the theory is new. Nevertheless, it remains unlclear which Wikipedia rule is violated by the article. Could I ask you to explain this issue?Agor153 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are quite right, my argument is exactly that since it is a new idea, and other people have not yet recognized it as notable , then it does not belong here. Wikipedia is for things that are already recognized as notable. The policy which is violated is the core policy statement WP:FIVE, " Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia ...and not... an advertising platform." You are trying to promote your new theory. I am not competent to judge it, but I can certainly judge the fact that nobody else has thought it important enough to discuss in a reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, this is definitely not the "first paper on a social sciences application". The first was, at least, 15 years ago: A.N. Gorban, C. Waxman, Neural Networks for Political Forecast. Proceedings of the 1995 World Congress On Neural Networks, Vol. 1, 1995. (Zinovyev also has published works on social sciences applications.)Agor153 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're quibbling--neither of you have ever published on this particular application. It's a new application for the analytical method. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dear Uncle G (I prefere to use one name for you instead of your several labels). Fine, you wrote that A. Gorban has published his first paper on a social sciences application in 2010. It is wrong and now you state that this is "a new application for the analytical method". So, notable and qualified persons use the notable analytic method for analysis of notable data, the concept is published in a notable journal, and the datatable is published in arXiv. The article in Wikipedia about thi concept is written in encyclopedic style without any advertisment (please correct if you find any violation of the encyclopedic style). You think that the concept is too new. I think that no rules of Wikipedia are violated.--Agor153 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)PS. You state that I am A. Gorban. Could you please respect my intention to be Agor153 without any physical identity. I did not publish my name and think that this type of communication will be more polite.[reply]

Do not delete This work has received considerable attention in the recent international press, including the MIT Tech Review here and the Guardian newspaper here. There is no compelling reason to delete it, and significant reason to keep it. Moreover, previous work in a field, or the absence thereof, is not reason in itself to question the veracity of that work. Much important progress is made by newcomers to a field from other fields, who are not biased by the existing field's norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delph2 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Guardian article is not about the topic of this article. It has quotes from the author of the paper that the article is based on, who is also the creator of the article, but the quotes aren't about the topic of the article. The MIT Tech Review link is actually to their blog, which is not the same as the Tech Review proper. Anyway, there's a policy against self-citing WP:SELFCITING.Originalbigj (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Originalbigj, Could you please be more precise in citation of rules: "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person". The article cites the reliable publication and is written "in the third person", hence, it does not violate this rule.--Agor153 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is all a bit disingenuous. The paper that purportedly supports this subject was not published in the International Journal of Neural Systems. Show us your peer reviewed publication of this subject, not of some other subject. Show us where the world outside of you reviewed, checked, and acknowledged this concept. A web-log publicity blurb announcing a non-reviewed paper is not a review, especially when that publicity blurb is accompanied by a note from the author partway down saying, to people questioning this novel and not acknowledged concept, "see our explanation that we wrote firsthand on Wikipedia". It's even noted further on below the publicity blurb that the paper isn't peer reviewed, and that the authors were changing data as they went along. I notice that that happened here, too. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It is an encyclopaedia, for concepts that have already been through the proper review, publication, and acknowledgement processes. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dear Uncle G, could you please read Sec. 3.1. "Happiness (quality of life) is non-linear" in the paper A.N. Gorban, A. Zinovyev, Principal manifolds and graphs in practice: from molecular biology to dynamical systems, International Journal of Neural Systems 20 (3) (2010), 219-232. This is exactly the essence of the concept with detailed description of technology and discussion of results. The data table was not published there, indeed, but the concept is clearly and unambigously presented. The datatable may be different (in arXiv e-prints two datables are analyzed and this is not "the change of data" but just the demonstration of the concept on publically available data), but the concept remains the same. You can try another set of data, and the result will be the "nonlinear quality of life index" as well. So, I could return you the qualificaton of "a bit disingenuous" argumentation. Could I ask you to keep a bit more academic style of our discussion please. BTW, the MIT Physics arXiv Blog "produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas." It is not a "web-log publicity blurb" (you have repeated this "a bit disingenuous" qualification twice, why?). It has an author/editor team you can contact [email protected]. Of course, it is not an academic publication, but it is not a self-made advertising (and not advertising at al).--Agor153 (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I call it disingenuous because it is disingenuous. The thing says that it is a web log itself. All of this sputtering that this isn't a "Hey, go look at this!" publicity posting on a web log is disingenuous, because that's exactly what it is. You claimed it to be a source. It's a publicity blurb on a web log, accompanied by the authors of the unreviewed paper being publicized pointing to this very Wikipedia article as their primary publication. Uncle G (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Dear Uncle G , I did not cite the blog in the article as "a source" (nobody did). The article cited the paper in the notable journal where the concept was published. I can just repeat: Could you please read Sec. 3.1. "Happiness (quality of life) is non-linear" in the paper A.N. Gorban, A. Zinovyev, Principal manifolds and graphs in practice: from molecular biology to dynamical systems, International Journal of Neural Systems 20 (3) (2010), 219-232. This is exactly the essence of the concept with detailed description of technology and discussion of results. With best regards, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!--Agor153 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)PS. In our long stair of discussion we went too far from the Delph2 message. [reply]

Keep by arguments Agor153. --Vizu (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may the be the awesomesest thing yet. But until it is noted by other academics, then a Wikipedia article is not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. As well as the self-citing problem, and Whpq's argument, I think there's another problem: There's an infinite range of choices of indicators and weightings, but this NQI only picks one set of indicators & weightings. There may be reasons for doing so, but it's arbitrary, and the article necessarily omits many other combinations that could be seen as valid. Insofaras wikipedia cites scientific research papers, it's interested in outside-world generalisations that can be made beyond the work done by the researchers. We'd love to have a paragraph about carcinogens in mammals; we'd have no interest in a thousand words about how some biologists chose a bunch of rats, put them in a lab in Cambridge, exposed them to chemical X but not chemical Y, chose some indicators to measure, picked one method of statistical analysis over another, and drew a graph. What new insights does the cited paper give about the outside world, other than the trivial point that some indicators are correlated, and that it's possible to put a bunch of different numbers into R or matlab or what-have-you? If science is about falsifiability, is anything meaningfully falsifiable here? bobrayner (talk) 17:07, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Mulqueen

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

Classic BLP1E case. This model is really only known for having played a part in a YouTube video of a song that made #2 in the Irish charts. It's simply not enough for general notability. Alison ^❤ 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 03:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 03:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further musical and model information for consideration. I'm not sure how to show this. I hope this link comparing my edit to the previous edit is sufficient: edit differences —Anon. 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.32.57 (talk • contribs) 16:30, December 21, 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Quite obviously as Alison has stated a person notable, and only just barely, for one event. Sswonk (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Additional refs/etc provided by Anon address VER issues, but BLP1E issue not addressed. (Doesn't meet notability guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:SIGCOV.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the subject gets additional work that inches her closer to notability, this one might get revisited - but I see no evidence of that at the moment. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is a small country with a population of approx 4 million. While the song, Horse Outside, may have only reached number 2 in the Irish Charts, the YouTube video was no. 1 in Ireland, having achieved almost 4 million views (within 2 1/2 weeks). This has made Madeline a very notable person in Ireland; with Facebook Groups springing up with 15,000+ Facebook Fans ( http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Madeline-Mulqueen-Rubberbandits/126487250748771?v=wall&filter=1 / http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Bridesmaid-in-the-Rubberbandits-Horse-Outside-video/137385329648129?ref=ts ) This number of Facebook Fans puts her on par with many "notable" irish celebrities. For example, Bob Geldof has 6000 fans. See: http://ie.yoursocialmonitor.com/social-media-monitor-facebook-pages-fanpages/category.php?ids=90 Moreover, her name has only become publically known over the last 10 days. The sudden surge of interest in her helps illustrate how much interest there is in her within Ireland. This is ratified by statements made in various national publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.203.25 (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the links. I for one understand why in this point of history people might equate Facebook fandom with fame. However, what we are discussing here is an encyclopedia entry, not a popularity contest. So, there are different criteria which are applied here. Also, because this project broadly allows anonymous editing, "anyone can edit", due to vandalism and childishness there are legal problems that arise especially regarding biographies of living persons. The administrator who nominated the article for deletion has a strong background defending the project against these biographical legal issues. The Facebook page you link above ([19]) was peppered with one-line "fan" comments like "your a daycent bure", "shed well get it .....", "Ill ride ya like a horse" and others less savory. My educated guess is the links to that page spread viral because of that type of quick teenage prurience and not necessarily because Madeline Mulqueen is a person who deserves an encyclopedia entry. There is no harm in taking a cautious approach to adding articles about persons who are suddenly popular, in fact it increases the prestige of the project to strictly limit such articles until they pass several tests. I don't really like sending you off to read some of Wikipedia's official thoughts about this, but in this area there is pretty strong support for a strict policy. See Alison's initial link, WP:BLP1E, which is the most obvious reason for deletion: MM is still only known for being a dancing bridesmaid in a single music video. Then take a look at WP:RECENT which talks about the transient nature of news versus the more enduring goals of an encyclopedia, and also WP:NOTFACEBOOK which as the abbreviated link suggests explains the difference between Wikipedia and blogs. I would stress that no one who has commented here expresses the thought the article should be deleted because Madeline Mulqueen is not currently a known entity. That is beside the point which is that she is only known for the Horse Outside event, and only recently, which fails as a qualification for an article. She would need a more significant career in modeling or acting than just what has happened this December. I hope that what I wrote here helps clarify why news and blog traffic do not equal encyclopedic notability. Sswonk (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She is not notable in her own right other than appearing in a nationally popular video. ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 25 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 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hubbard (musician)

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for this article to be deleted and I have no idea why it keeps getting tagged as such. The only places where Hubbard is mentioned in wikipedia are on one of Willie Nelsons albums and the 7 Walkers page. There is plenty of unique information in Hubbard's article relating to other musicians/bands he has recorded with as well as a little bit of his musical background. All of this information is supported by two sources.Sk8punk3d288 (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the lack of information in Wikipedia is not a criteria for inclusion. All articles on Wikipedia must be meet specific criteria for inclusion. In this case the criteria is defined in WP:BIO and/or [WP:MUSIC]]. The criteria needs to be demonstrated using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:MUSICBIO expands on this somewhat for musicians and bands, but the basic concept is the same. It doesn't matter how worthwhile the subject is, or how little coverage he or she currently has on Wikipedia, the musician must meet the criteria for notability. The article as originally written did not have any references that established that Matt Hubbard meets these criteria. However, I have added some references that show that Hubbard does indeed meet the notability criteria. — Mudwater^(Talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments and material added by Mudwater (talk · contribs), nice job. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 27 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. Without prejudice toward future recreation iff the issues identified here are corrected (possibly including changing the article title). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian hip hop

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

Apart from all the original research there seems to be little left of this article. meco (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nominator that "Norwegian hip hop", after the chaff is winnowed from the article, it may appear to be a non sequitur; but, in 2010, Hip hop is global. Article should be improved, not deleted. I see "about 146,000 results" for a Google search for "Norwegian hip hop". Amidst that number, there will be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So please cite three to prove your case. You haven't even bothered to exclude mirrors of this very article and other Wikipedia pages from your search (which the hyperlink at the top of this discussion does). The page count is entirely meaningless, by the way, and tells us nothing at all. Wikipedia:Search engine test and several related pages explain this. You say that these sources exist. Please cite some of them that your searches turn up. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Billboard (December 11, 1999) has a good few hundred words about the subject in the article "Tommy Tee Showcases Norway's Allstars" on pages 47 and 50, and the academic journal Kirke og Kultur 105 (3), 195–207 has a 13-page paper by one C. P. Opsahl (which I have not read) entitled "Blant mikrofonriddere og platerittere. Selvpresentasjon i Norsk hip hop" [Among microphone knights and record riders. Self-presentation in Norwegian hip-hop]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most hits for "Norwegian hip hop" is for a trivial coupling of the terms. As it happens it's Norwegian, and it's hip hop. If this article shall stay, it needs to demonstrate that this is its own subject; that "Norwegian hip hop" is a style and concept in itself, different from most/all other styles of hip hop. Geschichte (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. We could simply rename it to Hip hop in Norway (we have the same problem with Norwegian rock). __meco (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an article at this point in time. Geschichte (talk) 15:59, 25 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 Boxford, Suffolk. Courcelles 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calais Street

(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) 10:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hamlet within the parish of Boxford (Northeast 1982, pp. 94) harv error: no target: CITEREFNortheast1982 (help). Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Northeast, Peter (1982). Boxford churchwardens' accounts, 1530-1561. Suffolk Records Society publications. Vol. 23. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 9780851151601.
Merge to Boxford, with restoration allowable if it can be adequately expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Boxford, Suffolk Admrboltz (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Uribe

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

Not a notable person, as far as I can tell. From Google News, only this: [20]. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to see here folks. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 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. Courcelles 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabar (Taliban leader)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The common name make searching harder (e.g. a police chief in the same region with the same name), but as far as I can tell, he is mentioned once at his "appointment" (not an officially recognised function), and cited once for one line a few months later. This is not sufficient information to consider the subject notable and to base an article on. Fram (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request -- I request a relisting, rather than closure, as the sheer volume of recent {{xfd}} has left me without enough time to respond to this one. Geo Swan (talk) 12:24, 20 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 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Haq (Taliban leader, 2008)

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

Fails WP:BIO. This article has been tagged for notability for a year now. The very common name makes searching for the subject difficult, but it appears that no sources are available about him apart from the one given, and that one is a very short mention. Fails WP:BLP as well. Fram (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article doesn't seem to demonstrate notability beyond a single event. Additionally, the subject does not seem to be covered significantly in reliable sources, thus I believe it fails to meet the requirements in the WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz (Taliban leader)

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

Fails WP:BIO. While his brother is notable, he is a secondary figure, who has received very little attention. No Google books hits, only one Google News Archive hit about him, very similar to the one listed in the article[21]. A WP:BLP1E, a person noted once when arrested together with a more important person, but who failed to get significant attention before or since. Fram (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, subject fails WP:BIO per nom.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO as per nom.
A request -- I request a relisting, rather than closure, as the sheer volume of recent {{xfd}} has left me without enough time to respond to this one. Geo Swan (talk) 13:19, 20 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 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commuting vehicle

AfDs for this article:

Badly written and poorly referenced article written around an ill-defined category not recognised within the industry. List of vehicles (which I deleted but am happy to see reinstated if it shows how worthless the article is) were all prototypes, or out of production. Biker Biker (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pisarski 2006, pp. 155 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPisarski2006 (help) tells us that there are such things as single-occupant vehicles and privately owned vehicles/privately operated vehicles. It mentions nothing such as this. Searching, I can find no sources that define any such category as this. (Be aware that there's a vehicle manufacturer that has used this as a brand name. That doesn't define a category. There was a bunch of brand names listed in the last AFD discussion, too. They aren't actual names for a category.) Reading the sources cited in the article, I see exactly one that even mentions this category. The others are talking about vehicle occupancy and high-occupancy vehicles. The one cited source that talks about this class refers the reader, at the bottom of the page, to Wikipedia for the definition of the concept, and is clearly circular. This is simply not a concept that exists outwith Wikipedia. It's saddening to see that the actual concepts that do exist, and that the sources document, are, as can be seen here, still redlinked after all of this time. You'd think that we'd have an expansion of POV, wouldn't you? Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pisarski, Alan E. (2006). Commuting in America. National Cooperative Highway Research Program reports. Vol. 550. Transportation Research Board. ISBN 9780309098533.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with microcar which seems to be much the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like advocacy / OR. It seems that the article was written by the same person who wrote the website. Which, in turn, refers readers back to the wikipedia article. Hooray for circular references! If you stripped out that, there's nothing substantial left about PCVs - not even a definition. bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to microcar (or delete as second option). The term does seem to exist, though it's fairly rare (three google news hits, one in Italian), but there's nothing in the article worth merging. Chick Bowen 03:06, 29 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 Generation Z. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generation 9/11

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

An orphan article since February 2009. Contains very limited content, virtually no sources and fails to assert notability. The subject itself could also very well be covered/merged with Generation Z. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Generation Z. Has no references and has been largely untouched for a couple of years. But, the term "Generation 9/11" does result in over 3 million hits on Google, so it probably has sufficient notability. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 09:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is a pitful, unreferenced stub, but hundreds of "Generation+9%2F11"&btnG=Search+Books Google book hits and a cursory review of the top ones suggests notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Generation Z, which is more a common term used for the subject. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LeShaun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable songstress whose only claim to fame appears to be having sung on a couple of LL Cool J's song. Aside from the article being in terrible shape, it mentions songs being released by her, but I sure can't find any evidence of any. (How the first AfD resulted in "keep" is beyond me.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you read what happened in the first AfD, it appears that this artist's notability is supported by various sources. The article is currently messed up due to vandalism and amateurish edits, and a decent version of the article might be available back in its history somewhere. An AfD (especially this second one) is not necessarily the proper forum for fixing an article that has been vandalized or damaged. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but I looked for sources myself and couldn't find any. The one link that was brought up in the previous AfD doesn't even mention her. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Erpert, particularly regarding the difficulty of reliable sourcing. It really doesn't help that the article is written in a bizarre advertisement/fan style, with verbiage like "way ahead of her time", "kept it lite", and so on. Hasn't been improved since the last AFD (in fact it's gotten worse), so it's unlikely another year is going to help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete the "sources" cited in the last AFD fail WP:N in not providing any significant coverage other than a vague implication that a rapper by that name exists. If a year since the last Afd and 4 years since the creation is not sufficient for the supporters of the article to provide valid sourcing, even though there is no deadline, how long are we supposed to wait with an unsourced WP:BLP??? Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have y'all noticed that the last name of the person this article is about in the lede was changed by a 2-edit IP during the progress of this AfD? There are a handful of references in the magazine Vibe [22], and one in a book about Def Jam [23], relating to the previous name, that are pretty easily discoverable by Google Books. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - My not finding any sources may have been affected by that edit, but that in no way impacts the fact that the article has been unsourced for 4 years and the fact that no one else discovered or was able to detect that vandalism gives me even less hope that this BLP should remain. Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool, just figured it was worth having all the info on the table. Thanks for the reply. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim relevant to WP:NMUSIC, no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Vibe article cited above mentions a "LeShaun Toreau Williams" -- not Le'Shaun Thompson. The Def Jam citation also appears to be about LeShaun Williams. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article used Williams, not Thompson, as the last name of this article subject until two days ago, the article used Williams as the last name when this AfD was started. It was changed by an SPA IP, who, last I checked, had made two edits ever. So you're going to discount sources talking about Williams based on an unsourced two-edit IP's name change? I think that's a mistake. ~~I'm agnostic about whether this person is notable,~~ but lets at least agree on what's being discussed. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ("agnostic" Struck through as I've now expressed an opinion on notability below.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time of the AfD, she was both LeShaun Williams and LeShaun Ward. Nobody seems to have sufficient certainty as to her surname to revert LeShaun Thompson (born Selena Thompsom), to date. Given this level of uncertainty about a detail as basic as her surname, I don't see how we're in a position to write an article. Do we even no for sure that we're all talking about the same LeShaun? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. I had assumed that "LeShaun Thompson" was vandalism. But your point is on target in any case, I'd missed the "Ward" in the history. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not an unreasonable assumption. But I can't be sure (and suspect that you can't either). If we don't have sufficient WP:Verifiability to tell the difference between fact and vandalism on the basics with any certainty, then an article really isn't a good idea. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite enough sourcing (despite my corrections above related to Williams sourcing), plus some concerns that some accusations in at least one of the sources will turn into BLP violation fodder. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:12, 23 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 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OCA International

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

Website is down, fleet link does not list any aircraft, and I cannot find any references on the internet that this airline exists or existed. Whether it does or it doesn't, surely the company fails notability per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 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 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here. An alleged fleet size of one? No news hits, nothing useful on google. Simply nothing here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Stadium and Event Center

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

The subject is a proposed project currently with minimum information available, lacking notability and numerous sources. Suggesting deletion and/or merger since the same information can and already is covered at History of the National Football League in Los Angeles#Downtown Los Angeles ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reference of sources to support article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article sites its sources. There is no reason for deletion.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There obviously needs to be more sources and should probably be reworked, but this article should definitely stay. --Andyhi18 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly merge. There are ample sources available about the proposals for the downtown stadium, including extensive coverage of the three recently-announced finalists for the stadium design, e.g. [24][25][26] However, since all of this still speculative, query if it would make a better presentation of the material to merge this together with Los Angeles Stadium (which discusses Edward P. Roski's rival plan for Industry, California)? If not, renaming should be considered for disambiguation purposes—maybe Los Angeles Stadium (downtown) and Los Angeles Stadium (City of Industry).--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to both websites, the Industry project is titled "Los Angeles Stadium" while the downtown project is titled "Los Angeles Events Center" which means that this article is inaccurately named. Now, my argument is that the same basic information over this subject (the Events Center) is already covered with very identical text on History of the National Football League in Los Angeles#Downtown Los Angeles which begs the question... Is this article warranted? The article also needs additional reliable sources if the argument is made that there is in fact sufficient information on the subject to warrant an article. As I noted above, I basically Support merger. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently a current hot topic in the news and there is no shortage of sources. No objection to possible future deletion if the project stalls and goes nowhere after, say. a year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if more info cannot be found or added soon, I support a merger with History of the National Football League in Los Angeles. The page on Roski's proposal in Industry (Los Angeles Stadium), I believe has enough information to be separate from the History of the NFL in LA article. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is an ongoing process, negotiations are underway and indeed is a "hot topic" in L.A. Added more info today. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:00, 27 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.

[1] ttp://www.nic.org/research/lender/LenderDetailsView.aspx?id=201

[2] ttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-cape-girardeau-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-101072254.html

[3] ttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grubb--ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-joplin-long-term-acute-care-hospital-in-missouri-102385009.html

[4] ttp://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/press-release/grubb-ellis-healthcare-reit-ii-acquires-athens-long-term-acute-care-hospital-georgia

[5] ttp://www.hcapconference.com/who_attends_pef.php

[6] ttp://greisguide.com/dev/?p=1346

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]