Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 6

< 5 July	7 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Auction

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

Non-notable band "best known for" playing at 2010 rock festival. A possible Speedy Candidate. ttonyb (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not speedy. They seem to have a strong fan base, but I couldn't find enough significant coverage for them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article establishes them as a local band with some upside, but they haven't made it yet. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were multiple articles of the sort that Whpq identified, it might be different. (I searched, but could only find directory-type listings in newspapers such as Dayton Daily News, The Columbus Dispatch, and even the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.) But in the absence of more substantial coverage, I am left saying delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous SPA 64.255.164.103.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. SnottyWong ^gossip 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hives. —fetch ·comms 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Like Sushi

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, Google shows nothing special. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to The Hives: No reliable sources found to indicate notability. --JD554 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to redirect, demo is likely associated with the band. --JD554 (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Hives, if verifiable, because the band is definitely notable and the existence of a demo is relevant to their early history. It can be mentioned at the band article even though the album article cannot stand on its own. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray's Hell Burger

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

Non-notable burger joint in Arlington, Virginia. Briefly gained attention in the press for one event, a brief stop by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev to have a burger before heading to Washington D.C. Otherwise, completely unimportant. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Claritas § 10:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, per nomination. The link to Ben's Chili Bowl is telling; that is a local restaurant that has genuine cultural or historical significance, enough to meet WP:CORP. This one... I looked, and found coverage of the President's visit, and a few mentions in local newspapers. I'd be open to being convinced otherwise, but what I found doesn't cut the mustard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Oodles of major media sources discuss this subject [2], [3] many of them prior to recent coverage related to El Presidente [4] as as well as substantial notation in books [5]. There are literally hundreds of articles. The restaurant is referred to as "famous" and as an "institution". It's notability will only grow in coming years as President Obama visited a second time during a well publicised meeting with Russia's president. The attempted deletion of this article by those who may be communists and/ or health food nuts is likely part of a larger conspiracy involving spies and other deceitful individuals seeking to promote ignorance of this subject among the proletariat. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above user created this article With respect, it is extremely offensive to accuse other editors of being "communists" or "health food nuts". I have never heard of this eatery before, and I would strongly reject both labels. If this restaurant is genuinely notable and locally important, then it should be expanded so that it doesn't simply cover Obama and Medvedev's visit last month, which all the news coverage seems to be about. Unless it's some kind of ironic in-joke, I'm not even going to both responding to your rubbish about "a larger conspiracy involving spies and other deceitful individuals seeking to promote ignorance of this subject among the proletariat". City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now or have you ever been a member of a communist party? Do you associate with known communists? Do you engage in health food nuttery? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic has received very significant coverage, much of which had nothing to do with the Obama/Medvedev meeting or even anything to do with Obama.[6][7] [8] Coverage even comes from The National (Abu Dhabi) [9]--Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous SPA 64.255.164.103.[10] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comrade Freakshownerd. Don't let the bourgeoisie get you down. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There were many edits on July 11 and 12, and yet, still no further info added that proves any notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the edits that added citations of significant coverage and showing its popularity?--Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a few more cites -- though relatively new, this has received a phenomenal amount of coverage for a DC restaurant. Mzoli's pales in comparison.I did not find this AfD though the Rescue tag -- but via perusing 7 day old AfDs--Milowent (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. It is a run-of-the-mill burger joint that has only gained a bit of press because the president went there a few times. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a straw man? WP:INHERITED has nothing to do with the "keep" arguments which are based on significant coverage that not only have nothing to do with Obama, but were published even before Obama was even nominated.[11][12][13]--Oakshade (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:INHERITED doesn't make much sense unless this burger joint was the child of notable burger joint parents. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it helps to actually read the page before spouting off. Inherited is not purely for familial relations. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And surely not for burger joints that are anything but "run of the mill". In the chicken and egg debate, Ray's was already famous (in record time) before Obama came, which is why Obama came, no doubt making it much more famous.--Milowent (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The place has received a great deal of coverage, and significnat coverage in addition to the Russian/U.S. presidential visit acknowledged in the nomination. Even if one disregards president-related coverage, it probably satisfies WP:GNG/WP:CORP with several reviews and other significant local coverage. Regardless, the president-related coverage alone would be sufficient. The presidential-related coverage pertains to two events, the already mentioned Russian president with Pres. Obama and--several months before that-- VP Biden with Pres. Obama that garnered at least U.S. national coverage, so WP:ONEEVENT (or an entity rather than person-focused variant/analog of it like WP:NOTNEWS) does not apply. Why the restaurant is receiving such coverage is irrelevant. At some point, a place regulary profiled and repeatedly in the news becomes notable. City of Destruction, I think Freakshownerd was trying to be funny in insinuating you are a communist, or worse, a health food nut. If not, shame on Freakshownerd. Novaseminary (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 J. Cole per author's own request. When more sources become available and/or the album is released, it would be better suited for an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cole World

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

Not yet notable, entire article relies on a single source and it's been that way since the page was created. Nearly in violation of WP:HAMMER if it was a policy. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect either. Str8cash (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yah dude nice to see you back in the AfDs lol. I created the article but im still going to say redirect. It can be restored when there is more coverage. Red Flag on the Right Side 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i know it's been a while lol. I love J. Cole his new freestyle on Tim Westwood was sick but the album doesn't even have a title. I think when there's more substance it should definitely be restored, but not when there isn't significant coverage on the lp. Str8cash (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actully the title is "Cole World" sourced reliablly. Red Flag on the Right Side 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i saw the more recent interview where he said the album isn't called "Cole World", i see it from him, i hear it from him, i'm gonna believe it if it's from him. Str8cash (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what time your interveiw took place cause I saw a recent interveiw where he said it was "Cole World". Red Flag on the Right Side 00:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to J. Cole. Sourcing is minimal, and there are contradictory claims about the title. As noted above, WP:HAMMER says it's too early for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stragglers (2004 film)

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

Contested PROD. This direct-to-DVD release appears to have no reviews by nationally-known critics (zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes), and its award appears to be from a minor and local horror film festival. Fails WP:NFILMS. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable film that fails PP:NFILM badly. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Jackalope

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

Contested PROD that fails both WP:N and WP:NFILMS. According to the official website, this film was screened at two minor film festivals (Rome, Georgia and Portland, Oregon), and appears to have never achieved commercial release, onscreen or otherwise. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. .. but surely there must be a better way of organising this - it's almost the sporting equivalent of listcruft Black Kite (t) (c) 23:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sailors at the Summer Olympics

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

I’m nominating the following article for deletion:

It appears an editor is attempting to create 26 alphabetical lists of every person who has ever participated in any sailing event in any Olympic Games. The majority of the athletes in these lists are not notable per WP:GNG, and there is no precedent for such a list on Wikipedia. The other Olympic athlete lists (many of which are featured lists) all differ with this list in that they are lists of Olympic medalists, not simply a list of every athlete who has ever competed (see List of Olympic medalists in table tennis, List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding, etc). In fact, there is already a quite complete List of Olympic medalists in sailing article, of which the nominated articles are clearly a content fork. SnottyWong ^yak 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreeing with nominator on this one that the medalists are notable while every single person that has every been an Olympic sailor is not. Due to the epic amount of redlinks, it really isn't helpful for navigation either. I'd say just stick to the medalists. Delete as a content fork. Tavix | Talk 00:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 00:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information should be sorted by Olympics and event, not by name. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, this discussion has taken place a couple of weeks ago and the outcome was KEEP. NED33 (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:ATHLETE NED33 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the previous AfD for these articles? I looked quite extensively before nominating these articles and didn't find one. These articles were only created a few weeks ago. Also, see my comments below regarding WP:ATHLETE. SnottyWong ^gossip 13:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the previous AfD which was only for the index article (at a different capitalization), not for all of the articles. So, this discussion has not yet taken place. SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly valid list, with clear inclusion criteria, that aids naviagation to the user per WP:CLN. The nominator is wrong is stating "The majority of the athletes in these lists are not notable". See WP:ATHLETE. Anyone who has competed at the Olympics is notable. Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely false. People who have competed at the Olympics are not automatically notable. Here is a quote from the top of WP:ATHLETE which precedes the guidelines you are referring to: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (My emphasis.) In order to be notable, an athlete must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I just googled the first 3 redlinks in the "A" article, and the only sources I found were from lists of Olympic participation. Not significant coverage. These sources only prove existence, not notability. I presume that I would find the same thing for most of the other redlinks, because these are all people who competed in the olympics about 100 years ago and lost.

All of the notable Olympic sailors are already covered in List of Olympic medalists in sailing article. How do you respond to the notion that this article is a content fork? How do you respond to the notion that there are no other lists on WP whose inclusion criteria include every Olympic athlete who ever competed in a particular sport? SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATHLETE - "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". Having no other like-for-like articles at the present time is a redundant and short-sighted arguement. WP is a work in progress. Lugnuts (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception (an athlete about whom nothing is known except that he placed rather dismally in just one event in one of the earliest Games), Olympians are considered equally notable as professional sportspeople; you'd have no better chance at getting an Olympian deleted at AFD than you would a nineteenth-century professional base ball player. You shouldn't expect to find too much online about nineteenth-century sailors; after all, the Internet wasn't around then, so sources on them should be in print rather than online. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think that in a list of every person who has participated in an Olympic sailing event in the last 100+ years, there isn't going to be a huge pile of people who are totally unknown except that they placed rather dismally in one event of the Olympics? Those are the only people that we'd be losing if we deleted these articles. The rest of the notable people are already covered (multiple times) in the myriad other Olympic articles and sailing articles.

And Lugnuts, you can quote the same passage from WP:ATHLETE as many times as you like, but being an Olympic athlete is not a 100% guarantee of notability. It says so right on the same page you're quoting from. If you're so convinced of the implicit notability, then why don't you find some sources which establish the notability (per WP:GNG) for the first 3 redlinks on the A article? SnottyWong ^communicate 22:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE - "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Those red links will be blue by the end of the day. I await your ill-informed deletion nominations. Lugnuts (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first two redlinks un-redlinked. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots of precedents for lists of this kind. For other Olympic sports such as swimming, you not only have the lists but also articles for each competitor too. The information at list level is certainly notable as the Olympics are well-reported. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find any of these other lists you describe which set a precedent. Can you provide a link to a list whose inclusion criteria specifically includes every Olympic competitor in a particular event? I see List of swimmers which has nothing to do with the Olympics (and presumably doesn't include every Olympic swimmer in history), and I see List of Olympic medalists in swimming (men) and List of Olympic medalists in swimming (women), which only includes medalists, but I don't see List of swimmers at the Summer Olympics or List of swimmers at the Olympics or List of Olympic swimmers. Please enlighten us with concrete examples of the "lots of precedents" you describe. SnottyWong ^comment 19:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Swimmers at the 2008 Summer Olympics which lists numerous articles like Todd Cooper who came 22nd in his event. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing lists with categories. Sailors at the 2008 Summer Olympics and many other categories like that also already exist. The question at hand is if we also want a set of list articles in addition to those categories, which nobody disputes are useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CLS which explains that lists and categories are both useful, and complement each other, rather than being rivals. The point here that we have numerous articles, let alone lists and categories, each about individual Olympic athletes who are there by virtue of qualifying, not because they were medal-winning. There is therefore abundant precedent for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:CLS perfectly well; in fact, I linked to it in my first comment to this discussion. The point here is that Snottywong asked you to provide a "link to a list" and you replied with a link to a category, so clearly you are misunderstood about something. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly argue that articles on individual athletes set a precedent for the creation of a list of every Olympic athlete? That logic is absolutely baffling to me. That's equivalent to suggesting that since we have an article on Ann A. Bernatitus, we should be able to have a list article which includes every nurse that has ever existed. I'm not convinced that you understand the definition of the word "precedent". Here's the first one I found: an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time. So, assuming that is a correct definition, then we'd need to see an example of a similar occurrence in order to see a precedent. By "similar occurrence", it is meant that we'd need to see another list whose inclusion criteria includes every Olympic athlete who has ever competed in a particular event. I hope I've spelled that out clearly enough this time. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be List of nurses, to which I have added Ann A. Bernatitus. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but notice that the list of nurses is not an indiscriminate list of every nurse that has ever existed. It is a list of prominent, notable nurses. Also notice the absence of redlinks. Olympic athletes are not automatically notable, despite what many people think. WP:ATHLETE clearly states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So, the list under discussion is an indiscriminate list of both notable and non-notable athletes. Many of these redlinks will never go away, because many of these athletes are not notable. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is your Q.E.D. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have Category:Olympic sailors by year and Category:Olympic sailors by country, and notwithstanding the pros and cons of lists versus categories per WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, I think it is a bad precedent to create lists like these. There are a couple of hundred thousand past Olympic competitors, so these lists would be incredibly unwieldy if completed for all sports. Every Olympic competitor is already listed elsewhere, such as individual event results (e.g. Sailing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Finn class etc.) and on per-country articles (e.g. Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Sailing) so I'm not sure we need a third way of listing these people. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these lists seem to be helpful in a way that other lists aren't. They have clear inclusion criteria, and those being listed are notable, so there's no problem with the idea itself. While categories are helpful, they don't provide as much information as these pages do — one can find for which country a sailor competed, and one can find which year in which a sailor competed, but one can't find country and gender and year all put together anywhere else. Moreover, these are apparently intended to be strictly alphabetical lists of those who competed, without bothering to note results; the per-country and per-event articles give more details, but only at the expense of splitting up the names. I don't see how lists like these, even if they're completed and extended to all Olympic Games, will be unwieldy. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is to keep them, there really ought to be a discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics about the format and style conventions for these pages. They violate the MOS in several ways as now written. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, as I already explained a couple of weeks ago when this discussion came to a close (keep) was that this list is in build-up as spin-off of the upgrade of the article series sailing at the Summer Olympics. At this moment I'm finishing 1960. During the upgrade I'm checking all the names as well for multiple enties (same sailor under different names or countries, Multiple olympics, correct names and so on. As soon as I have finish the upgrade this list will be complete and we can discuss the layout of it. Meanwhile I suggest to leave it like this. Furthermore I took the basic layout of baseball players and added a flag for the country and the Olympic year to it. So my advise is to wait till the list is complete and then lets discuss the best possible and useful layout. Finally I like to add a personal note: to participate in Olympic sailing ask a great effort of each of the competitors. Most of their actions, and not only the winning, made a difference in the sailing world in their time and their country. For more than a century sailing is on the Olympic program and sailing at the Olympics is the highest level of competition in open boats you can find in the world! Each of those sailors is notable. The fact that they were there proves it. Regards NED33 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the previous AfD was for the index article only, not the entire collection of articles. That was not the same discussion as this one. Secondly, this discussion is not primarily about the formatting of the articles. The articles were not nominated for deletion because they are incorrectly formatted. They were nominated because they are not useful articles, and they do not contain any useful information that doesn't already appear somewhere else in Wikipedia. Most if not all of these people already appear in Category:Olympic sailors by year, Category:Olympic sailors by country, Sailing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Finn class (and all of the other classes), Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Sailing (and all the other combinations of countries and years), and finally we have List of Olympic medalists in sailing. There is just no need for yet another layer of articles on top of the pile that already exists. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we appreciate the amount of work you've put into this thus far, but my opinion is that these articles are unnecessarily redundant. I would suggest holding off on putting any more work into these articles until this discussion is complete, if only to save you from wasting any more of your time if they end up being deleted. SnottyWong ^squeal 22:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern about my time, but making this list is an aid for me to get the sailing at the ... article series right. Putting the list on wiki gives the reader an extra handle to find the information, in my humble opinion this extra handles are one of the major advantages of an electronic encyclopedia. Furthermore the "lists" Category:Olympic sailors by year, Category:Olympic sailors by country, Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics#Sailing are far from compleet or correct. Not even all medalist are listed here. Moreover these list are easely completed as soon as this list is ready. Also my remark above was not only on layout but also on notability. RegardsNED33 (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Snottywong has missed the point completly - these articles aid navigation and highlight the missing articles (redlinks encourage creation). You can't have redlinks in categories. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are seriously underestimating the amount of coverage of Olympic sailing that is already on Wikipedia. As an example, see Sailing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Qualification, which has plenty of redlinks for athletes, as do the individual country articles like Great_Britain_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics#Sailing. Presumably, the majority of the redlinks in the list under discussion already appear in at least one other Olympic sailing article. It is completely unnecessary to create yet another monstrous list on top of the wealth of coverage that already exists between all of the "Sailing at the xxxx Olympics" articles, the "[Country] at the xxxx Olympics#Sailing" articles, the "List of Olympic medalists in sailing" articles, all of the different categories, etc. etc. etc. There are already hundreds of articles that cover olympic sailing, cross-referenced by year and country and medalists, etc. Do we really need 27 more? And do we really want to set this precedent for the rest of the olympic events? It seems that the author's main reasoning for this list is that the "Sailing at the xxxx Olympics" articles have not all been created/finished yet. Why don't we finish the rest of the olympic sailing articles first, and then decide if this is really necessary. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially my position. I am unconvinced that we need a third method of listing Olympic competitors. Many of the keep comments here claim that these lists are useful navigation aids, so I would ask "how?" Once these lists are so big that they must be split into alphabetical sections, they lose almost all of the supposed navigational benefit. How is it useful to group together a list of names whose shared attribute is the first letter of their last name? If you want to find all the Olympic sailors for a certain country, you could browse all the "Nation at the year Olympics" articles (which we already have), or you could browse lists like these, but in both cases, you have to look at multiple pages. Therefore, no benefit. If you want to find all the Olympic sailors for a given Games, you could browse all the "Sailing at the year Olympics" articles (and per-event subpages), or you could browse through all 26 letters. Again, no benefit to these additional lists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits the listing of non-notable people. See, as a parallel case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches. Claritas § 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same argument coming, and I just want to preemptively head it off before it even starts: every olympic athlete is not automatically notable. They're not. You can quote WP:ATHLETE all day long, but when you do, be sure to include this passage from WP:ATHLETE in your quote: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." SnottyWong ^chatter 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a red herring in this discussion, in my opinion. Even if individual Olympic sailors are not notable, a list of them would be. Not every item on a list has to be blue linked. I believe this discussion should be focused on the purported usefulness of these lists, not on the notability of their members. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." is not a passage of WP:ATHLETE. It is stated in the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Then they start describing how to interpreted this in several categories like Atheletes. There is stated clearly and without limitations:2.People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships..
On the navigation. Suppose you hav a name of an possible Olympic sailor: Jorge Emilio Brauer, you do not know if he really participated, you do not know in what boat he competed nor do you know in what year. Than this list kan be a entry point to find him and the situation how he competed. Countries will not alway help since these are not complete and several sailors have competed for different countries. If you start investigate something ant you know all the parameters and answers it is easy to find. But in most cases you need all the aids you can get.
Again guys, for me this list is an aid to get the articles about sailing at the .... summer olympics right. In my opinion this discussion should be done at the and of that process and not now. Deleting is always easy and at this moment no blood is comming out of this list.
In any case I do not waste time on this discussion no more.NED33 (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:ATHLETE is a subsection of WP:Notability (people). Therefore, the quoted statement above applies (and specifically refers to) the subsections below it. Secondly, if you know the name of the olympic sailor, and his name appears in one of the other hundreds of olympic sailing articles, then you can just search his name and the appropriate "Argentina in the xxxx Olympics#Sailing" or "Sailing at the xxxx Olympics" article will show up. These articles do not make navigation any easier. SnottyWong ^express 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR per Claritas. Can be easily handled by the category system which would restrict membership to notables. The topic of the list, and much of its content, fails the WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Verbal chat 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they're ALL notable. Categories can't handle redlinks and should work hand-in-hand with lists, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not all notable and not every category needs a list. This is an example of that. Verbal chat 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There already are plenty of lists of olympic sailors to go along with the categories. SnottyWong ^babble 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfull idea, Snotty! Just search 100 incompleat category lists and articles in stead of one.:-)NED33 (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm saying keep primarily BECAUSE the list is not up to date. It says it's "up to date until 1952", in other words, it lists those who competed 50 or more years ago. It will be almost impossible to substantiate individual notability for athletes from that period, but in fact they all did sail for their countries and almost certainly received newspaper coverage at the time, so I think notability can be assumed. This list could prove to be the only online resource where these older names are readily available. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a delete rationale to me, per notability. What policy are you basing the keep on? Verbal chat 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's clear you (MelanieN) didn't read the arguments above, as it's been shown multiple times that there are hundreds of olympic sailing articles already in existence, and these names appear in their respective country/year/medalist article. SnottyWong ^spout 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty, please try not to earn your nickname. Just because I disagree with the previous arguments, doesn't mean I didn't read them. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a few of Snotty's hundreds of lists that contain the information: Germany at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... empty, Lebanon at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... empty, United States at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... empty, Japan at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... empty, France at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... empty, Soviet Union at the 1960 Summer Olympics ... only medalists.NED33 (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix those articles instead of creating a whole new mess that will also need to be fixed. If all of those articles you mentioned were complete and not empty, the lists under discussion here would become even more redundant and useless. I think your time and energy would be much better spent completing the incomplete olympics articles (or even just the incomplete olympic sailing articles) rather than creating more incomplete ones. SnottyWong ^comment 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. We have consensus at WP:WikiProject Olympics from the beginning (several years ago) to have complete "Nation at the year Olympics" articles, with lists of all competitors and results. But this is still work-in-progress, with about 3500 of those type of articles to complete. We also have consensus for per-event articles, which is another 15,000 or so. Let's get that work finished before starting something else, especially something with content overlap! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about: let's get that work finished, and THEN talk about deleting this list which already exists (so don't argue "you should spend your time working on the other project instead of this one"; that's a false choice, because the work of creating this one has already been done). It really makes no sense to say, we should delete this list now because somebody, someday, might put these same names into another format. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like my way better, especially since it coincides with the consensus and plan formulated by WikiProject Olympics, as mentioned above by Andrwsc. The fact that someone worked hard on the list isn't a rationale to keep it. How is it logical to decide, in the face of nearly 20,000 incomplete olympic articles, that it is better to add another 27 redundant articles to the list of the incomplete ones, and in the process set the precedent for the creation of a couple thousand more redundant, incomplete ones (since if this list is kept, what's stopping anyone from creating List of curlers at the Winter Olympics and List of 100m hurdlers at the Summer Olympics and List of pole vaulters at the Summer Olympics and List of Nordic Combined athletes at the Winter Olympics, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), rather than work on finishing the incomplete ones which, incidentally, would contain all of the names in this list. I am truly baffled by that logic. SnottyWong ^confess 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: the work of creating this one has already been done is not true. These lists are only through 1952, and only for sailing. There are a couple of hundred thousand Olympic competitors not listed in this form. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like my way better, especially since it coincides with the consensus and plan formulated by WikiProject Olympics Care to link to this consensus (if it exists at all)? And how do you get to the total of "nearly 20,000 incomplete olympic articles"? Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just going off of Andrwsc's comments above (the comment that starts with "Bingo") for both of those pieces of information, as he is a member of the wikiproject, whereas I am not. I cannot link to the consensus nor can I prove there are 20,000 incomplete articles, but I have no reason to not trust Andrwsc's information. Do you? SnottyWong ^converse 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to Snotty: RE: "How is it logical to decide, in the face of nearly 20,000 incomplete olympic articles, that it is better to add another 27 redundant articles to the list of the incomplete ones..." We are not deciding whether to ADD another batch of articles; we are deciding whether to KEEP a batch of articles that already exist. And they are not redundant, not now. Finish all those other articles you keep talking about, and THEN claim this list is redundant. It certainly isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to Andrwsc: RE: "These lists are only through 1952, and only for sailing." Half a list is better than none. Would you change your argument to "keep" if this list was complete? If not, your comment is irrelevant. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An incomplete list of a deterministic complete set of members is most certainly not better than nothing; it is misleading at best. And the list is redundant as it now stands because the sailing events through 1952 are some of the pages that aren't just stubs (e.g. Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics - Finn, thanks to NED33!!). And no, I would not change my argument if all ~200,000 Olympic competitors were listed this way. I don't think there is value in a third method of navigating these names, especially if the common attribute of the names on each individual page is the first letter of their last names. The existing methods of navigation (by event and by nation) are more helpful, and that's what we should continue to work on first. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list clearly defined and consists entirely of notable people. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list rolls, without any work, out of my spreadsheets that I have to build anyway for checking purposes for Sailing at the year Summer Olympics, weater or not you want to keep it. That sheet, it now up to date till 1964, can, when reached 2008, be uses to create the additions to the lists like Country at the year Summer Olympics or Olympic Sailors from Country just by sorting it a little different and using some of the other available fields. So again do not worry about my time spent on the list.NED33 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Claritas and Snotty, many, if not most, of the listed athletes are not notable. Per WP:NOTDIR, this type of list is not WP material. Novaseminary (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominated. My76 Strat 01:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Lists of people that are all notable, with a clear inclusion criteria, are both useful and supported by policy. Courcelles (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people aren't all notable. Verbal chat 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, as per the policy. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy which states that "Any athlete that has competed in the Olympic Games is 100% guaranteed to be notable, no matter what." Many are likely to be notable, but not necessarily all of them. SnottyWong ^confess 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR and I don't see encyclopaedic value; it is not possible to create an entry regarding the actual topic of e.g. letter 'a', and I doubt it is possible to create one for the entire thing; unless there is published data specific to 'all Summer Olympic sailors' (rather than specific ones / specific years) as it would constitute original research - lists are not exempt from basic requirements. If this were accepted, then I can think of over 9000 other 'lists'. If it is just a list of names, then surely that is what categories are for? Chzz ► 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Espinosa

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

I can find sources for a musician and a winemaker, but not this subject. No evidence that subject satisfies WP:ATHLETE –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Cannot find any sources about this racer. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I searched for "Álvaro Espinosa" "Hyundai Coupe" on Google and only one very small article: http://www.rfeda.es/noticias/noticia.asp?id=2123 (which only says he was the race winner at a Hyundai Coupe Cup track or something). Everything else that comes up for that search seems like bulk directory entries. --Closeapple (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Moreno

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

I can't find any sources for this subject, other than wiki, or others of the same name. There are assertions of notability but no citations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nothing in google books either. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Archambault

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

Non-notable semi-pro ice hockey player. While he did play enough games to pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY/PPF, there is hardly any information on him, so he fails WP:GNG as well as being an unreferenced BLP. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a semi-pro player as he played in the 2nd highest league in his era which was fully professional. Sources are likely to exist for him, being a pre-internet era player it means looking through news paper archives. WP:ATHLETE exists specifically to protect these sorts of players that will require more than just a google search to find information. -DJSasso (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ATH presumes a player who's played pro has the coverage to meet WP:RS and WP:V. Sometimes that is not reality. News archives reveal a lot of trivial coverage, but nothing in depth. Nothing to indicate that we can write anything beyond what his hockeydb.com bio says: "He played for team x, y and z". Reso lute 04:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:ATHLETE, a player who plays so much as one game in the current thirty-team NHL qualifies for an article on that basis alone. Archambault played 211 games in the second highest quality league back when the NHL had six teams. He not only played in a "fully professional" league, as WP:ATHLETE requires, he explicitly fulfills the criteria of WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE, which holds that someone who "[p]layed at least 100 games in a fully professional minor league such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league" merits an article. There is nothing "semi" about Archambeault's professionalism. Ravenswing 07:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Ravenswing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DJSasso and Ravenswing. Patken4 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that is what per se notability means. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Woolwich railway station. —fetch ·comms 01:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Docks Heritage Railway

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

This proposal has existed for many years without development. It's plans have been jeopardised due to Crossrail. It was also mentioned in a magazine that the project was cancelled. There does not seem to be much coverage on this. Simply south (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be deleted [[Steamybrian2 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)]][reply]
- Why? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect -- there is some coverage of the project at North Woolwich railway station, so the remaining details should be merged there and this title left as a redirect (which will also serve to preserve the article history). -- EdJogg (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EdJogg. ----DanTD (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EdJogg. Biscuittin (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EdJogg. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Spicer

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

Was previously PRODed by RHaworth, however the primary editor removed the Prod. Looks like we're going with WP:N and WP:BLP for the purpose. Procedural listing, I go in with no opinion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Award winning chef, - 1993 James Beard Award for "Best Chef; Southeast" [14]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "famous New Orleans chef" - before nominating this article, one should read these possible sources. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- the source for "famous New Orlean's chef" is her own restaurant's website, and it's a little unfair to lambast the nominator for not following WP:BEFORE when they've made it clear this is just a procedural nomination. Reyk _YO! 02:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- freely available sources clearly establish the notability of this person. Reyk _YO! 02:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always take a brief moment to click on the Google news search BEFORE you nominate something. The first result is from the New York Times, which did an article about her. [15] Dream Focus 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Always take a brief moment to read the nomination and the subsequent comments before criticising the nominator. Reyk _YO! 04:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^talk 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by User:Bearian in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - Author and main contributor to the page is a WP:SPA. There may be a WP:COI or WP:ADVERT going on with this article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 19:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was prodded under BLPPROD because it was created on July 1, 2010 with no sources, which is a valid prod, however, she does appear to be quite notable subject to gobs of coverage. A reworking and improvement of the article is in order instead of deletion.Though an ARS member, this is to notify you that I did not find this AFD via the evil evil ARS listings, instead I happened to be looking through the 7-day old AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G7. — ξ ^xplicit 01:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit (Mythology)

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

Unreferenced, in-universe original research. Even the article states that it "is rumored to be true". I42 (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm going to put this in a sandbox and you delete this. I'll tell you when you can delete this. Okay? --Schmeater (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to this, and if anything, it would belong in the Conduit (series) article. There's not enough in here to stand on its own. Directly to Schmeater, that's not how AFD - or Wikipedia, for that matter - works. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do a speedy deletion right now, I don't need this page anymore! --Schmeater (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Speedy Delete G7 (author request) per above request by article's primary author. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zafri Khan

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

Can find no RS to support claims of notability, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom No google book hits (which is generally a good indicator). This sort of cruft with "famous" plagues Pakistan articles on wikipedia. I'd fact I'd bet there are at least 200 similar Pakistan bio articles which should be deleted asap. In Pakistan even the local taxi driver is "famous". Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided The article is so full of hype there would be almost nothing left if we deleted all the "famous," "popular," "hilarious" etc. peacockery. However, he does have a significant presence on Google - no RS significant coverage as such, but enough to make me suspect there could be RS if I were not searching in English. Is there anyone who can do a search in Urdu or Punjabi, to find out if he is a notable as the article claims? --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While video clips exist showing the fellow does exist,[16] the hyperbole in the article is unsupportable by any RS. Fails WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Tsui Shek Pang

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

Can find no non-wiki sources, fails WP:ARTIST –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Agreed, can't see anything to indicate notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article unsourced. Cannot find any substantial coverage. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam, spam, green eggs and spam. Courcelles (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medical District (Cleveland)

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

This article is an attempt to help introduce a neologism and has serious original research issues. The author of this article also wrote a piece in which he advocates for deprecating the University Circle name in favor of this new name. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other reliable sources that use this name to refer to the area. - Eureka Lott 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 21:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider creation protection. The group pushing the new name in the article cited above is justifying it, in part, by having created the Wikipedia entry. This goes beyond self-citing to seeding.Novangelis (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Novangelis (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Eurekalott's "wrote a piece" link shows that this article is meant primarily for advertising purposes. This may well be deletable under G11, since it's essentially written to promote this new idea. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link provided shows that the article was created primarily to promote someone's new designation for the neighborhood. It certainly isn't an established name yet, and the article is ultimately either spam or POV-pushing. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University Circle, since this is an alternative name. Dew Kane (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tyson

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

AFD initiated by someone who didn't finish the job. Thin notability at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:AUTHOR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing your judgement on? If I read WP:AUTHOR correctly, one must be "important", not just a creative professional. The Article cites nothing, was edited for the most part by IPs in the author's home town (Halifax, NS, Canada) and serves no useful purpose other than to list 'works' and direct people to the subject's website. MikeyMoose (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has written a ton of books, but I could not find anything written ABOUT those books or about him. Google search finds only his website, book sellers, and (of course) this article. Google Books find his own books but very little written about him (unless he is the drug dealer of the same name; that guy seems to be pretty notable). --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olsi Rama

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

Besides the fact that this guy is Edi Rama's brother, there is no other notability to the subject. The only reason why it can't be speedy deleted is because it has stayed here for a long time. _Sulmues^{Let's talk} 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Can't find reliable sources to justify this article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GoogleScholar does show a few publications, but with fairly low citability, none as first author, certainly not enough to pass WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS gives essentially the same results. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not notable and have never heard of him before, except for being Edi Rama's brother (which I learned just now). Cheers. — Kedadi 02:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. That's the only plausible case I can see for notability; the family ties are clearly insufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Ko

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

Reads like an advertisement, blatant spam, created by WP:SPA. Absolutely no hits on Gnews save for false positives. Unable to verify any of the productions listed here through reliable source. Also vanity as username matches the given real-name in the infobox. And WHY CAN'T ANYONE FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE THE BACKGROUND PROPERLY IN THE INFOBOX?!?!? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources on Google, and the only reference cited does not seem to mention him. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam advertisement. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and author clearly has a WP:COI. SnottyWong ^gossip 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage of subject. Advert created by the subject themself. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge

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

In-universe article about a non-notable fictional character. I42 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following characters from the same game:

I just started editing this. I will add a lot later, I mean there's no point now. But if you will delete just let me get it all on a sandbox so that after Conduit 2 is released, I can put it up again. But I am still against the idea of deletion. I wil post later again why. --Schmeater (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a wiki it's wikipedia. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedia's too have information that can proved to be wrong event the next day. But they only reprint it when they have too. Encyclopedias have pages on every little thing. I don't want wikipedia to become a walkthrough encyclopedia, I just want it to have a vague description over every little thing. --Schmeater (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. See WP:WAF, especially the section about in-universe perspective. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also pertinent: Wikipedia does not cover every little thing I42 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, I just don't know if I put it properly into words. Is it possible to put the section about in-universe perspective that this is rumored because I have seen this on many other pages. And we're debating, I have put all the information into a sandbox page of mine in case this gets deleted. But it shouldn't with Conduit 2 coming out (if I recall a Master Chief page was made at that time as well) another Michael Ford page will erect. So why delete it when it'll just be made over and over again until we cannot delete it anymore. --Schmeater (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back into The Conduit. Article as it stands now appears to be in-universe and doesn't adequately explain its context. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Nothing in these that passes WP:GNG that isn't already in The Conduit. --Teancum (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see we're going for a merger. But not into The Conduit, it's either merging it into Conduit (Series) or keeping it. I'm already tailoring information to that page so, we'll see how it goes. --Schmeater (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) This AfD has been running less than 24 hours and only two editors other than the article creator and AfD nominator have offered an opinion so far, and (b) one of those opinions is to merge, one is to delete. There is no consensus for anmy particular action at this point. I42 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Conduit's universe is neither notable nor expansive. Most of the information within the article is written in-universe, unreferenced and not notable. Marlith (Talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thing is not keep anymore, it's merge. But merge into Conduit (Series). So that means 2 delete and 2 merge. I42, I seriously reccomend merge. --Schmeater (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all, there's no need to preserve edit history since it was all copy-pasta'd anyway. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of this material is written within our guidelines for fiction (WP:WAF); no sources are presented that suggest these are notable topics. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as I could not WP:verify notability. Would not object to someone creating a series article that summarized key plot elements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable, unverifiable, in-universe fancruft. SnottyWong ^converse 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 64.255.164.33 [17] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as not demonstrating notability for a sub-article.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed Bešić

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a pro league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bneidror (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 03:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having not made his debut for Hamburg he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Ellwood

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

I deprodded this bio and added sources, but I doubt she meets our notability guidelines. There's a little bit more local press that I can find about her 2010 award, but I didn't find anything about her other recognitions outside the websites of the organisations granting them.

Basically, she's a local volunteer who has picked up a smattering of press coverage. Fences&Windows 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has won a few local/youth awards (she's only 20), but she is barely-barely notable in her home town of Ottawa, and certainly not notable on any broader scale. Give her time, maybe she will do more and become more notable in her future career - but for now, no. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admirable, but not notable. Vartanza (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hilario Davide, Jr.. Unsourced BLP, but likely search term. —fetch ·comms 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilario Davide

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person unnotable except that he is the father and namesake of Philippine Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. TheCoffee (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hilario Davide Jr. or Delete, but leaning towards the latter. No notability outside of being the father of a former chief justice, although could be a viable search item. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and in the absence of evidence that he is independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Can Wait (Iron Maiden song)

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

Non-notable song; not released as a single; fails WP:NSONGS C628 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable as per C628's reasons; article contains info on different song to title, also not notable. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I fixed an error in the article concerning the title of a different song. That was the result of someone's vandalism or carelessness. This should have no impact on arguments for or against deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to album article. an NN album track with no chart history. Wiki libs (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Somewhere in Time (album). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a fan but will have to say that there is nothing here to redirect because the info in the article now is just geek trivia. It's true that during concerts fans are invited onstage to sing part of this song (I've seen it in person myself) but that is not a tidbit that's worthy of an encyclopedia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite 15... The Final Frontier

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

Non-notable song; not released as a single; fails WP:NSONGS C628 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for exactly the reasons outlined above. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Wiki libs (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band have just announced a video for the song will be released on July 13. This may suggest that it will be a single. In any case, the article can't exist in its currently worded form. I'm gonna touch it up in case it does turn out to be a single and worthy of keeping. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Music video to be released, suggesting notability. Killswitch Engage (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probable future single release, as a music video exists. Even if the album's sub-title lead-track is not released as a single in the future, alike the above comment, this is already a notable track song. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If video is released, I'll withdraw the nomination, since that's generally a sufficient claim of notability. C628 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, it's not totally known what will be released on the 13th, we will have to wait, although the official website does say a video is being released. Killswitch Engage (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band's Twitter feed has recently confirmed it as the release of a song, though given that it's been called "The Final Frontier" repeatedly, one can safely assume we're referring to this track. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 13:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this is due to be closed on the 13th, can the closing admin hold off for a day or two while the mess with the video is sorted out? Thanks, C628 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, may be the second single of the Final album. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's now confirmed that the video released today is for this song, sufficient claim for notability. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Priharjo

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

I cannot find any sources to verify the information in this BLP and notability has not been established. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I can find questionable sources that seem to weakly confirm the basic outlines here, I don't see this meeting the general notability guideline of signficant coverage in realiable, independent sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absense of reliable sources and of any evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manitowoc County Mariners

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

This article doesn't even discuss the league in which this team plays. Google hits are Facebook and similar. There doesn't appear to be any importance on this subject. Mild advert (inclusion of schedule) to boot. — Timneu22 · talk 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi-pro football in this region of Wisconsin is completely unnotable; no newspaper in our area covers it, the only fields they play at are in public parks (the only possible fields where these games could otherwise be played are owned by school districts and never leased out) and I never heard of the "Sheboygan County Rebels" mentioned in this article until this moment. Completely non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some background - Nate is from the Sheboygan County area. Royal broil 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete take your pick: notability and/or reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepYou haven't heard of it yet since the league doesn't start until August and the Mariners are in their first year of playing in it. My guess is that there will be a photojournalist from the Herald Times Reporter at the home games. There was also talk about the team on AM 1240 WOMT when Mr. Alfaro went to promote the team to all of Manitowoc County. The Sheboygan County Rebels are also in their first year of being known by that name. The Oostburg Rebels were opened up the the whole Sheboygan County area. The Rebels started off in the Ironman Football League but left due to unhappiness with the League Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglecat69 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not started = probably no notability. — Timneu22 · talk 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't matter... if they had started and I had heard of it. It's just not even remotely close enough to achieve notability on the scale that we seek here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which Times Herald Reporter? Have we heard of it? OK, I won't have done but how much of a paper is it. Yes, I have - now. Found it. The Manitowoc Times-Herald Reporter - with a max of 25 ghits many of which are not relevant (being what look like pull-in trap sites). And apart from that, please read WP:CRYSTAL. August hasn't arrived yet. Promotion of the team on a local station by the Team President is no indication of notability. It's PR - advertising under a posh name. as is this article. It looks to me like a way of drumming up support and getting the match list out on the cheap. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More background - Junglecat69's means the Manitowoc Times Herald which is a daily newspaper in Manitowoc owned by Gannett - sadly one of the few Gannett newspapers without a Wikipedia article yet. It's a definitely a reliable source published with sister publications Sheboygan Press and The Post Crescent at Gannett's Appleton, Wisconsin printing facility. Royal broil 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Doesn't affect the application of CRYSTAL and other lack of notability. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only semi-pro with no reliable sources to verify that it is notable. I'm willing to reconsider with proof that it meets the general notability guideline. I'm from this side of Wisconsin and I've never seen any media coverage of any team in the league like I do for the Green Bay Bullfrogs. Royal broil 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a question for all of you that shoot down this article. Do you even read it?? I don't know if you can't click your mouse on a link or even read, there are sources on the site that i have used. And that crystal ball thing. take the brewers for example. their whole 2010 schedule is on this site. How can't this one be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglecat69 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Actually there is very little to read, it's mostly tables. But yeah I read it. Looks like a fun team! If I was in town, I'd think about suiting up or at least go to a game or something. Probably a blast. Cool that they do park cleanups too! And... it's not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RoyalBroll or whatever your name is. you cant compare college baseball to semi pro football. that is like comparing freakin apples to bananas. you just cant do it. Mr. Jungle Cat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglecat69 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's the editors point, actually...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may surprise you, Junglecat, but I'm not against this article. Maybe I should drive to Manty and check them out. I haven't seen any proof that they exist so far, which is required by Wikipedia:Notability. Here's the key sentence from that guideline: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Meet that sentence and I'll change my vote. You need at least 3 independent reliable sources like newspapers, television, magazines, etc. I like to keep articles not delete them. Royal broil 14:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second I'll change my position if I see such examples of notability, no problem!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the sole assertion of notability is that the article author believes they might be covered by a small local paper in a few months' time, this should clearly be deleted.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Jews

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

Per the consensus reached at WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders and the historical precedent of the debate WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Catholics, it seems that this list is inappropriate as it violates WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO and WP:SALAT and is practically unmaintainable. While it is adequately sourced, it contains both a) religious Jews and b) ethnic/cultural Jews, and there is no clear definition of what a "Jew" is for inclusion purposes. Claritas § 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete, per the other lists of fictional whoizitis. Beam 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think fictional Jews is a notable subject, so a wiki list is a good place to start. May be better as an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No objection to making this a category, but I note that the majority of the entries are sourced. The "What is a Jew"? debate is entirely a red herring--if an RS says a fictional character is a Jew, they meet inclusion criteria--BLP obviously does not apply. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Category:Fictional Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list can provide organization of its contents (beyond simple alphabetical sorting), can include redlinks for articles not yet created, can include references to elements of articles that are not standalone articles (such as a character in a single novel), and can annotate the reasons for inclusion. So, no, it's not redundant. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there is much pruning necessary, along with the need for some prose to introduce the article, what is here is reliable and verifiable. Per WP:CLN, lists AND categories are designed to co-exist synergisticly, each one helping expand the other and serving as an aid to navigation. Jclemens is dead right about the re herring raised in the nomination, which has no relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every list is a directory, and having a category is no substitute for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid list grouping notable articles/elements of articles by a significant characteristic. The inclusion criteria is simple, valid, and very straightforward—fictional Jewish characters—notwithstanding the alphabet soup of acronyms invoked by the nom. I'd like to see some more organization to the list, such as more splitting by medium and maybe by time period of publication/broadcast, but these are concerns for further editing. The nom's question about the definition of Jew is inherent in the topic (see Who is a Jew?) and not a fatal flaw in the concept of the list (if it was, the Lists of Jews for real people would also have to go). And even if we assume that this is somehow more difficult to determine in fiction than in fact, because this is a list, it's quite capable of being annotated and sourced to explain the basis for each item's inclusion. Given that it's well-sourced, I also don't understand the claim that the list is "unmaintainable," unless it has something to do with completeness, which I don't think anyone will pretend has been achieved, is possible, or is necessary for this to be a valid list. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories do not supersede lists - see WP:CLS. Jews in fiction are highly notable - see numerous books on this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When these articles are nominated, they usually get kept. The nominator seems to be using the deletion of a few of these articles as a reason to delete others. There are no historical precedent in Wikipedia. Keep, because a list is easier to navigate than a category, and allows for additional information to be included. Dream Focus 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is both interesting and informative, and the fact that it does not differentiate between "religious Jews" and "ethnic/cultural Jews" (whatever might be the precise definition of such terms, especially as one is dealing with fictional characters) is totally irrelevant. Davshul (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pthag (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT and precedent shown by nom. This concept is much better handled by the category system, while this list which could never be completed would be an unwieldy and incomplete mess - useless for an encyclopaedia. Notable jews in fiction will have articles with full information, and those can be placed in the category. I'm struggling to see any valid rationales in the keep !votes (and plain votes) above. Verbal chat 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. A category is quite sufficient. Agree with Peregrine Fisher that an article would make sense but I can't see the point of a list. Ben MacDui 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not following how this is in any way a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization." If that was true, then it wouldn't make an appropriate list, article, or category. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above keeps. Per the suggestion that a category is sufficient, if that were wiki policy we would delete massive numbers of lists that we have now. Lists, among other things, allow for the addition of information that cannot be added to cats. They also allow for refs to support the inclusion in the list, which cats do not do. See WP:LISTPURP, which states:
Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together; the principle is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page.
--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:coatrack of WP:original research that has been synthesized together into a compilation of trivia, which is what Wikipedia is not. The sources on this are awful comprised of snippets from self-published online FAQs and excerpts from IMDB. It's just a topic for a list that some editor WP:madeup. As standards on Wikipedia have been raised we deleted similar lists, including Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders. Policy follows best practices. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now here is a well articulated (but whoefully flawed) delete vote so riddled with policy errors as to be scary. Delete because its is a Coatrack (but the coats being obscured are not identified), it is original research (but the facts unattributable to reliable sources are not identified), it is synthesis (but the conclusions unattributable to reliable sources aren't identified.) It is a compilation of trivia linked to a content guideline that says nothing about trivia. It is made up (and nicely done to boot). And best of all, we we've deleted other articles just like it (seeming to say that WP:Otherstuffexists is only valid when those who want to keep content cite other article, doesn't apply to us when we want to delete something, does it.) This is not contest to see who can cite the most policies and guidelines. Even if you understand them (as your arguments show you don't), they need to be applicable to the article being discussed.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty simple. Either there are sources that address "list of fictional Jews" in direct detail, or this is a synthesis of a bunch of indirect coverage. Right now I'm not seeing any direct attribution to a source on this topic, just a bunch of cherrypicking of passing mentions, and a lot of it does not even "pick" from secondary sources. Here's one more guideline for you: WP:CIVILITY. There was a better way to have this conversation, if you really wanted to have it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - No incivility intended. Too bad you took it that way. You IMHO got the policies wrong and did not relate them adequately to the article in question. Your statement: sources that address "list of fictional Jews" in direct detail indicate you do not understand WP:Article titles, WP:Lists and WP:SYN. It is unfortunate that you don't understand them. IMHO, none of the policies/guidelines you cited are relevant to this AfD.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm glad we're having this conversation, because we need to go beyond each of our humble opinions. WP:Notability is an established guideline, and states that you need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to prove that a topic is suitable for inclusion. It defines significant coverage in the same way that it's defined it for three years, which is an eternity on this project. It says that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. That's the kind of original research that's sometimes described as WP:synthesis, where the article creator couldn't find sources that covered a topic in direct detail so they settled for a coatrack of original research by compiling a bunch of tiny factoids... trivia. This article doesn't even do it by grabbing passing mentions from reliable secondary sources. It grabs them from IMBD and a bunch of FAQs. But even if these passing mentions came from reliable secondary sources, that would still fail WP:OR and WP:N in letter and spirit. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So you would say that Col Warden's sources per his keep above are pure bunk. The subject is notable and the list meets WP:list.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Weak Keep Refactoring my !vote. Looks like someone found sources that directly over this topic and might be enough to establish that it's suitable for inclusion, and not just an original idea for a compilation of facts. Giving the list the benefit of the doubt. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list meets all the requirements of WP:list. Individual entries may need consideration, but inclusion criteria is clear, subject is notable and sourcing is adequate.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Kings – Interview

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

Non-notable interview album. This can be briefly mentioned on their discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator but I also wonder if these interview discs are even worth mentioning in the band's history, as they were just quickies and possibly not even authorized. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll the Bones Radio Special

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

Non-notable promo/interview album. This can be briefly mentioned on their discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator but I also wonder if these interview discs are even worth mentioning in the band's history, as they were just quickies and possibly not even authorized. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Interviews – Vol 2

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

Non-notable interview album. This can be briefly mentioned on their discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator but I also wonder if these interview discs are even worth mentioning in the band's history, as they were just quickies and possibly not even authorized. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Hadjkura

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

Deletion via WP:BLPPROD has been contested with a source, but I can find no sources for this actor that give any indication that he might pass the WP:ENT guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to his bio the upcoming BBC role is his most significant work to date, which means he fails WP:ENT currently. decltype (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No career. No coverage. Fails WP:ENT. Fails WP:GNG]. This article is waaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish shin kicking

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

Speedy declined (nominated as "hoax"). Maybe it's not a hoax, but no claims of importance are made, no sources are provided. Is this topic really a valid subject? — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term "Cornish Skin Kicking" is mentioned on page 5 of http://wpcc.dusa.org.au/pdf/0506-Newsletter10.pdf It seems to be a real but non-notable activity. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That one use of the term in some newsletter does not go very far toward showing that it is a "real activity." It was just a reference to someone thinking of beating someone up. Edison (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a sport in Cotswold, but that is not Cornwall. The idea of shin kicking as a sport is not at all a hoax, but I did not find references to show it is or was a common Cornish sport. A BBC article on the sport says that the competitors stuff their trousers with straw, as this stub states, but it is a Cotswold sport. Shin kicking appears to have been a legitimate wrestling move in Devon, but not in Cornwall in 19th century: [18], [19]. Shin kicking was a part of the "Cotswold Olimpick Games" from the early 17th century, with some interruptions (Cromwell's reign, for instance) to the present.[20]. There might be a basis [21] for an article on "Shin kicking" as a sport or form of wrestling, or wrestling move. "Purring" [22] was a British shin-kicking contest in which the men wore heavy clogs. Edison (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Who declined this? There are only five Google hits, four of which are either Wikipedia or message boards. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question. — Timneu22 · talk 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that was perfectly proper. It takes more than one editor to reliably decide whether something like this is a hoax. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify: Shin-kicking clearly exists, and as I put in the decline, it is associated with the Cotswolds (I meant to say it isn't clear that it exists in Cornwall). My point in declining is that it's not a clear-cut hoax; that doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. Acroterion _(talk) 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My research agrees with Edison's. I cannot find reference to a sport of shin kicking in the U.K. outside of the Cotswold Olimpick Games (to which shin kicking has redirected for some years, now), with the exception of a half-sentence comparison to Savate in one source and a passing mention of shin kicking at Cooper's Hill Wake during the 19th century in another. That latter source, ISBN 9780740781209, also gives shin-kicking a full discussion in its own right, so I also agree with Edison that there might be scope for expanding shin kicking, if further sources turn up. But this article, both in title and content, is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find it very hard to believe there's such a festival with no mention anywhere on GNews, never mind a notable one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Declined? Are you kidding? This isn't even as real as crack-smoking unicorns! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the "festival" exists. Per Edison, there does appear to be some potential scope for a stand-alone article on the phenomenon (I wouldn't quite term it a sport). Acroterion _(talk) 19:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Acronym Abuse

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

I declined a speedy request on this, because it didn't strike me as an outright hoax. However, despite the number of Google hits on the topic, I'm not sure it can ever really be an article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more like a dictionary entry and not like an encyclopedic entry. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:INUNIVERSE. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It made me laugh, but I'm compelled to call Speedy Delete A7(group) for this one. We don't have a sense of humor here that we're aware of.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mildly funny as a silly joke, but not an appropriate subject for an article. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP namespace. It is perfect as the beginning of an essay on the overuse of acronyms all over Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 62#Clarifying WP: shortcuts and Wikipedia: page titles and many other related village pump discussions. For example; Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1#A policies and guidelines namespace. There are so many shortcuts and acronyms on Wikipedia that we need a separate policies and guidelines namespace. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe move to meta. Then of course there's always WP:BJAODN... Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do already have Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Fences&Windows 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might be WP:MADEUP. Either way, couldn't find any reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Broomfield

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

While most everything in this article can be verified (albeit through lower-quality sources such as blogs and his own webpages), I don't think this article meets the notability test. His first album was self-released and made no splash, the second hasn't even been independently released, and the only reviews of his writings and blogs are on other blogs. A few comics were published in a short-lived literary review magazine, "Backwards City Review"[23], but I don't think that's enough. ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable sources independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 02:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage Queen Kate

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

Search for reliable third-party sources comes up empty handed. No reviews on Mania.com (formally AnimeOnDVD) or Anime News Network (ANN). Reviews by Hentaineko and Animetric.com are not reliable as they fail the test for self-published sources and AbsoluteAnime.com and ANN's Encyclopedia are not considered reliable as they are user edited. (see WP:ANIME/RS). Depproded by an IP with no given reason with a history of WP:POINTedly deprodding articles. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should have just been prodded and deleted but due to a disruptive IP is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Coliseum (West Georgia)

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

While I love this school and the building is very nice, it's not notable enough nor is there enough material to justify having it's own page, especially when it's already mentioned and cited on the University of West Georgia wiki page. Werecowmoo (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly even eligible for a speedy delete due to 1)notability, 2)failure to assert importance, and 3)very short article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.6.34 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to University of West Georgia#The Coliseum. TerriersFan (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All info listed on this page is already listed on University of West Georgia#The Coliseum. WolfenUWG (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a big indoor arena and deserves an article. A stub for now, but it may be expanded. It is also notable. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ndenison ^talk 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - A subject with some obvious notability per many keeps below. A title that could be improved. And many who disagree. This AfD however provides a window into a more concerning issue. The creator of this article User:Korovamilkbar is no longer contributing to WP. This article was the last contribution. From the day of the 1st contribution (June 2009) to the day of the last (Oct 2009) this editor recieved, as far as I can tell ZERO real encouragement or mentoring on how to become a better contributor. Apart from the boilerplate, sterile welcome we post on talk pages, no one reached out to this editor. All this editor got for the interest they were trying to give WP was four deletion notices. Deletion is an essential mechanism for WP, but so are contributors, because without them there would be nothing to delete.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

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

WP:OR, see Talk:List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America IANVS (talk | cont) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —IANVS (talk | cont) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, sources are available. Needs fixing, not deleting Chzz ► 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that Spain vs. Latin America is not the best choice for comparision. There are probably more differences between Argentine and Mexican Spanish, for exapmple, than between one of them and Spanish from Spain. Furthermore, there may be not a single "difference" between Spanish from Spain and "all Latin American variations" at once. Non-notable comparative article then. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to move the article to a new name and expand it, not to delete it. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 14:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would seem to be an argument for the creation of more articles, rather than the removal of this one. Chzz ► 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess a new article comparing multiple versions of Spanish would be far more adecuate. I insist on the title (and purpose) of this article: there may be 'not a single "difference" between "Latin American Spanish" (as a whole) v. "Spanish from Spain" as a whole. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have informed the article author, and all the users who participated in the previous deletion discussion— Chzz ► 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I think there are inherent difficulties in the title/topic: not only, as the nominator pointed out, are there great differences between Latin-American Spanishes, but even between Spanish Spanishes. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Similar argument as in the previous AFD) Sure there are thousands, just like in English, and there are regional differences within South America, just as there are in the US or the UK. Stick to entries which are well referenced. like coger [24]. Just as important with respect to the Spanish language as with respect to the English language. A portion of this is covered in Spanish profanity, but there are non obscene differences, like a "tortilla" being a small cake in Spain, or a Mexican corn flatbread well known in the U.S.[25]. The article could be expanded to show words with different meanings in Spain, Mexico and Argentina, as the previous reference enumerates them. Requiring that a reference explicitly drawes distinctions in a systematic way between these three countries heads off the reductionist complaint that we would have to tabulate every Spanish speaking country. The fact that reference books have discussed in detail the differences in word meaning between Spaiin and Latin America, or between Spain and between regions of Latin America, proves that the article need not be original research or indiscriminate information. Edison (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although not pure trivia at all, this could be an almost impossible article, comparing 20+ countries and further regionalisms. We might need a rather new approach. Perhaps this Summary of Spanish Variants Dictionaries can be helpful. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Curse Gene93k, the robot that always seems to make an edit conflict for me. As with the last list, completely unsourced. I think that the previous list had more words with vulgar meanings on it than this one does, but the main focus seems to be that there are some words that are okay in Spain but offensive in Argentina. Regarding profanity in Spanish, it's (snicker, snicker) been done. I'm all in favor of making the distinction between "conjugation of the verb 'visitar'" and a "conjugal visit", but things (snicker, snicker) like that have to refer to sources. Mandsford 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like last time. There's a topic worth exploring in a referenced article but this one still isn't it and we've already got Spanish dialects and varieties. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "Copy to Wiktionary" template. Seems like the kind of content that is suited to a Wiktionary appendix . Fences&Windows 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to recommend a merge to Spanish dialects and varieties, because that page mentions that there are vocabulary differences but does not illustrate any. Since there are no sources cited on this page, however, it's not at all clear that these are appropriate illustrations for that page. In fact, many of the items cited are minor differences in senses or slang usage (e.g. pelotas, cachete, fresa) and therefore probably not appropriate for Spanish dialects and varieties. Cnilep (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article but just some data put together by WP:OR. WP should have an article on differences in Spanish between different countries. But that needs to be based on published sources that discuss it, not put together from raw data. Wolfview (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Spanish dialects and varieties. Cnilep (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main problem is that it needs extensive expansion.Obviously every one here can be documented by disctionaries, and should be--dictionaries are secondary sources, not raw data. There are actually books about the topic, to say nothing of dozens (more likely hundreds ) of academic and popular articles. Of the thousands of books devoted to Spanish usage (See worldCat and [4] for lists), many are devoted to particular countries or topics, but most make comparisons. Some are devoted primarily to doing that. (The only one I personally know is Cassell's beyond the dictionary in Spanish; a handbook of everyday usage, which I recommend as entertaining as well as informative--it explains key differences country by country. Wikitionary ought to be fine for individual words, but a general listing seems out of their current scope. Looking at esWk, they seem very careless about including this sort of material or dialectical differences in general. But that they aren't doing their job is not our immediate concern DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it's really not notable enough- and belongs in the Spanish Encyclopedia, not the American Encyclopedia. --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English Wikipedia is absolutely not an "American Encyclopaedia". It is an Encyclopaedia that welcomes any and all notable topics, and the nationality of the topic is utterly irrelevant, per WP:NPOV. Please, read about Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Chzz ► 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not an argument. Several commentators have detailed why a list of words of this nature is not dictionary-like, and neither you nor Tavix has given any suggestion of how this article violates WP:NAD or WP:NOT#DICDEF. ^Bongo_matic 09:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable topic (covered widely in reliable sources). Clearly not dictionary-like in nature (name a dictionary that lists separately words with different meanings in different places?). Precedent exists (see List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American and British words). Language of the words and language of the sources are irrelevant for notability purposes (and many of the sources are in English, per DGG above). There is no foundation for "delete" opinions in policy or guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 22:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bongomatic and DGG. I consider myself slightly on the deletionist side of things, but I still find merit in this topic and believe it should be kept. As Bongo alluded to, it's comparable to the differences in American and British English, which we have several articles on. DGG also mentioned that there were complete books written on this topic, which I don't doubt. A quick Google books search brings up a nice chapter on this. Killiondude (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is going to be kept, it has to be moved to an article along the lines of "List of words having different meaning in Spanish (regional/national variants)" The current title is impracticable, as per above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, in English o en Español for that matter. Tavix | Talk 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment. ^Bongo_matic 09:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments in favor of deletion are either arguments for renaming, fixing and/or expanding the article (which AFD is not for) or consist entirely of WP:VAGUEWAVE (without having read or understood the policies in question - since an article can, if the topic is encyclopedic (like this one is), legitimately be about dictionary-related subjects) or WP:IDONTLIKEIT without further explanation. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the patronisation. this list is total trivia right now, and it always will be, however it is fixed or expanded in the future. I find the claims that whole books have been written about this particular list to be absurd. All the evidence form keepers offered to this effect appears to be arguing for keeping Spanish dialects and varieties, which is not the subject of this Afd. The subject of this Afd is a list of words which have different meanings. a.k.a. a giant bucket of trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You consider lexical differences between variants of one of the most important Indoeuropean languages "a giant bucket of trivia" ? You are kidding, right? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got zero issue calling this list a bucket of trivia, because that's what it is. It's your choice to interpret what I said in these idiotic and hystrionic terms, but I really could give a rat's ass. Pure brainless coffee table garbage is what this 'list' is, and if you want to paint it as the dead sea scrolls that's your lookout. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for you. Your knee-jerk reaction laced with personal attacks says more about you than anything else I could say. Sad. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this any different from List of words having different meanings in British and American English? — Michael J 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good page to transwiki to Wiktionary as well. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potentially giant lists of words should probably be handled by Wiktionary—they aren't encyclopedia articles in the sense that someone will sit and read them through, and per WP:LIST they probably necessitate target articles for most of the included words, many or most of which would be WP:DICDEF. Despite the popularity (in AfD at least) of DICDEF articles, packing Wikipedia with such isn't really making an encyclopedia.
Without considering the need for target articles, this is neither a proper WP:LIST since by design it contains much analysis, nor a proper article since it is currently contains much WP:OR (almost as if the List format were a way to evade WP:V requirements). / edg ☺ ☭ 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This an interesting and informative article. Why didn't you also put the article List of words having different meanings in American and British English up for deletion ? This article is no different. A bit of work is needed but it deserves a chance, even though it might now seem unmanageable and wp:OR. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, thank you, Maashatra11, for adding a link to an online Spanish-English dictionary to the page. Using that dictionary, though, you can see that the information on the page is incorrect. The first item in the list, for example, says that almacén means "warehouse" in Spain but "department store" in Argentina. The dictionary linked to, however, says, "almacén. masculine noun. 1. warehouse (depósito). also: (grandes) almacenes -> department store." It does not say that these meanings are specific to Spain or Argentina. On the other hand, the definition continues: "2. grocery store (de alimentos) (Andes, RP)" Those parentheticals indicate that this sense is used in the Andes and the Rio Plata regions. I won't make corrections now pending the outcome of this discussion, but would suggest that if the page is kept all of its content will need to be checked and probably changed or removed. Note that my !vote to delete is above. This comment is not intended to stack the debate. Cnilep (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In principle, perfectly discriminate, encyclopedic list of the lexical differences between fundamental variants of one of the most widespread Indoeuropean languages. In practice, it has several problems but none that can't be solved by editing, so deletion policy requires us to keep. DGG, Killiondude, Bongomatic shown that there are sources and that the list is sourceable. People telling this is "pure trivia" say more about their respect for linguistics than about the article. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a violation of WP:NOTDIC once removed. Though, this is really more than a stand-alone list in the traditional sense, so it should be judged under notability criteria for articles. If the topic is notable, the title should be changed and it should be a discussion about how Spanish from Spain and elsehwere has diverged, not a list. And even if made into or considered a true stand-alone list, it is not useful and does not satisfy any of the reasons for a a list per WP:LISTPURP. As a true list, it would be a copyright violation (or nearly so) lifting a list somebody else compiled or original research. Novaseminary (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of differences between different dialects of Spanish is enormous, and this list is indiscrminate since it considers Latin America as a bloc. Furthermore, defining words is a function of dictionaries, not encyclopedias, and this (and any similar list) does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT#DIR. Abductive (reasoning) 03:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article still needs work, but the main rationale for deletion was copyright violation, which has now been resolved. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Cinémathèque

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

This article is largely plagiarised from the organisation's website (in particular #Film_Reference_Library etc.) and should, therefore, be deleted as a copyright violation ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Pacific Cinémathèque is a notable part of Vancouver's cultural sector, currently approaching its 40th year. The society offers a range of programmes and services, hosts the West Coast Film Archives, and is involved with the Vancouver International Film Festival and the National Film Board of Canada. This is a new article; the users involved in writing it have already indicated a desire to work to resolve any copyright issues, and I intend to assist where possible. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about whether or not the organisation is notable. I frankly don't care about whether or not the organisation is notable. This is about the fact that this article is plagiarised. Have you done anything to delete the copyrighted material, Ckatz, in the fourteen hours since you declined to speedy-delete this obvious copyvio? No you haven't. Why not, may I enquire? ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag, we don't automatically delete articles for being copyright violations. That's what the CP noticeboard is for; I will run through the article and attempt to clean it up. ceranthor 18:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Dealing with copyright violations clearly states, "If an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch [...] but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted." Now, it is really not my job to clear up others' mess, and I have no interest in the subject, so will not be re-writing it myself. Anyone is, of course, welcome to – just as Ckatz (talk · contribs) was in the ~15 hours since they declined to delete the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 18:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Db-copyvio clearly states:
"This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution."
The article in question does not meet that test, hence it was not speedy-deleted. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you done anything to delete the copyrighted material, Ckatz, in the fourteen hours since you declined to speedy-delete this obvious copyvio? No you haven't. Why not, may I enquire? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is universally agreed that WP:N is not a problem, and given that I excised the last remaining copyvio text from the article, there is no reason why this article has to be deleted. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As AFD has now forced cleanup and notability is pretty much a lock.[26]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KG Financial Software Pvt Ltd

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

Disputed proposed deletion for non-notable company Jll (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no article here. This is advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing in Gnews, also nothing for the shortcut. Dewritech (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business provides software and services such as back office solution and trading systems to clients in the financial services sector. No showing of minimal importance, much less historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Fails WP:CORP; article created by SPA that has since been blocked for having a promotional username. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Théâtre Illuminata character list

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

List of characters, emptied of contents by article author. Another editor expressed doubt that any of the characters met WP:NOTE, and added a PROD notice. That was contested so the same editor added an AfD notice but was unable to complete the process. Astronaut (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary overcategorization. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here that can't already be covered in the main article. Couldn't WP:verify notability of this list of characters, because no independent reliable sources exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:MUSICBIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RezaRj

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

Seems self-written and I can't find any other source(all of source of the page is slef-published) :)Ladsgroup^بحث 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable Ghits besides blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator's concern, based on unreliable sources. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i added some additional sources . i hope the article is better and acceptable now . Additional time is needed for article to be completed.thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapefarsiforlife (talk • contribs)
I can't see any reliable source.It's or self-published blog or unreliable site of Persian underground music:)Ladsgroup^بحث 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree,none of the links can pass WP:RS, --Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape.I think more time is needed.thanks
Comment someone is trying to manipulate the disscution, these 2 "keep" are from same person. administator please check. --Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm agree with — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapefarsiforlife (talk • contribs) . Most of the articles start their wikipedia page quite in bad shape . I personally think the article need some more time to be improved and i can not see any reason for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmood1234 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. References are poor. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has served its purpose — no one has maintained the notion to delete and the article has been greatly improved. — cj | talk 04:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round bottom shoe

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

This article was brought to my attention by its creator, who requested, if I thought it was appropriate, a redirect to the article from a related one which had been repeatedly speedied and subsequently protected. On viewing the article, I found that it had been nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of the protected one. In light of its good faith creation, however, and with a quick comparison to the other article, I disagreed with the assessment and declined the speedy request. I submit the article for further consideration here, given its perhaps tenuous notability, though I offer no opinion as to whether it should be deleted or not. cj | talk 09:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For what it's worth, I as the creator am interested in seeing an article on the generic item stay. No wish to advertise for companies that sell these but simply put out detail about a style of shoe that's becoming increasingly apparent when you go outside and see people walking/exercising. Will change my vote if someone shows me a good reason.
As far as I can see it would satisfy WP:NOTABLE.? Donama (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you started from the snake oil, the advertisements from the shoe manufacturers and the fashion world puff pieces in the newspapers. To the people to whom shoes are science, rather than marketing and fashion, the world is somewhat different. When I saw this article, I imediately reached for a book that I had, ISBN 0953762203, covering this. Bird (the author, who is a podiatrist) calls these things "rocker bottoms". And that is the name that you'll find used in podiatry and biomechanics, for many years now. There are plenty of scientific and medical sources to be found if you search for that (or "rocker bottom shoes"), rather than for hokey brand names. ISBN 9780323041454, for example, has a section on "outsole modifications" on pp. 158 et seq. which explains who it was that primarily advocated "rocker" and "roller" soles for many years, and what actual scientific study reveals (which is actually quite complex). ISBN 9780443068836 pp. 133 et seq. explains that there are numerous different types of "rocker" shoes, from "heel-to-toe rockers" through "toe-only rockers" and "double rockers" to "negative heel rockers", and again shows the actual science belying the one-size-fits-all marketing puffery. You'll find a similar typology in ISBN 9780080451077 pp. 217–218. Go to the actual science and medicine on this, rather than the trend-following newspaper articles and marketing puffery. It's quite a different world, you'll find. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is that a keep or delete proposal? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to rocker bottom shoe - "round bottom shoe" is virtually unknown to Google. I have also re-instated Masai Barefoot Technology as a redirect.

I've started the process of a move as you suggested. Donama (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article is better than most in this area (compare Earth shoe and Dr Scholl). Just needs work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DLX Linux

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

This software product does not contain any references that demonstrate notability. Self-published sources and appearances in database lists do not demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No objection to merging any notable and reliably sourced information to Time for Annihilation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kick in the Teeth

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

OK, so really should have AfD'd this ages ago... anyway, non notable song that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Attempts to redirect are reverted continuously by anon IP without discussion and an apparent inability to understand simple explanations. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recently encountered either an IP or a new username that had used this term at some point on a talk page... they were causing issues otherwise. Sorry I can't immediately come up with who that was, but it seems coincidental. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete or merge with album, Time for Annihilation. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the album article. No evidence the song charted anywhere or won any awards, and I can find no notable coverage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep or merge with album, Time for Annihilation. (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLP1E applies and as a policy trumps GNG based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Faye Hill

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

I'm concerned (not convinced, but think the issue needs discussion) that this article is about a person only connected to a single event. It contains an awful lot of non-notable information (such as the company which employs the boyfriend of this person!) and relies on at least one self-published source. I'm just not sure that the subject is notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The one event is notable, and the media coverage appears relatively significant for inclusion. It's also hard to create an article for the event. Age related accomplishments are regularly included, as in the case of David Dicks, or Jessica Watson, even though they are all known for only one event. (And to those who are going to bring it up, I know, I know, WP:WAX.) I think that the event is notable, and the media coverage is significant enough to warrant, inclusion, however, I don't know if the wording of WP:1E even allows for inclusion, that's why I'm saying weak keep. If it does, then keep. --Fbifriday (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern An IP changed my vote from weak keep to keep in this edit ID. I have changed my vote back to Weak Keep. --Fbifriday (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also must ask whether or not WP:IAR applies here, as certainly there will be some discussion in classrooms about this woman, and whether or not being removed from the encyclopedia would prevent us from maintaining the 'pedia in a way that provides the knowledge that it should. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Delete - Definitely not an Ignore all rules issue.... but I see this being relevant, but on the other hand I wonder if someone like this wants/needs the spotlight of what is largely a human interest issue. Do we give every smart kid that goes to college early an article? Unlikely. What about doctorate level degrees? Maybe, but probably not widely. Really needs a source evaluation and those source evaluations ought to have an eye for the long-term and not the recent, probably a few mentions that will inevitably follow. (how many of those might actually just be re prints?). Shadowjams (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing remarkable about her is that she has qualified as a doctor at an unusually young age. This is not only a case of WP:ONEEVENT, but also one event which, while perhaps of mild interest, is not really significant. It is the sort of detail which would merit a brief passing mention in an article about someone notable for other reasons, but not sufficient to justify a whole article in the absence of other significance or notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I speedy deleted this as I did not think she was notable. The article's creator posted to my talk page pointing out Heenal Raichura exists as an earlier 'youngest doctor' article (it survived an AfD), and when told about 'otherstuffexists' said that that was an argument to keep it. How many 'youngest doctor/lawyer/PhD/etc' articles do we want? And John William Polidori was 19 when he got his degree, even if it was in 1815, which makes this factually incorrect even if the media hasn't checked their facts. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My feelings on this article is that it has gained enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. I myself saw a full page story on this person in the Daily Mail as well as another publication (I believe the Sunday Times). As well as this, my daughters Sociology class have discussed this during their class time to judge whether pepople jumping ahead of others in school is morally or ethically correct. Due to the fact that there has been both wide spread coverage in the media as well as an issue that is prompting discussion I believe that the article should be included and should not be removed. I believe there would also be a genuine use of the OSE WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument as DougWeller has pointed out above that a previous Afd discussion found in a similar topics favour.CrazyMiner (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is usually a deletion argument, which also explains your misunderstanding about how "pepople" [sic] gain school notability is flawed in terms of our Notability policy. This isn't about how many local news stories you can rack up; it's about how the underlying issue reaches critical mass in terms of notability. There's a big distinction between a newspaper archive an an encyclopedia. Moreover, we're talking about a young woman here, who while obviously brilliant, doesn't necessarily deserve to be thrust into the public lime-light. There's zero-indication she's wanted that, and I think it's beyond unfair to turn human interest stories that make it national, for very short time frames, into permanent articles. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand your point of view, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is both a keep as well as a deletion argument as the wiki-explanation suggests. She has obviously approached newspapers etc to gain notability as Universities and the like do not simply release information about people on a whim. Wiki notability articles suggest that regardless of the subject, if an article has achieved significant sources (e.g. a major daily newspaper) then the article should be included. I have also just done a quick search and found that there are numerous independent media sources (news papers etc) that have reported this topic themselves rather than simply reposting the same story. As such, there does seem to be ample media coverage worthy of using the argument of notability gained through ample media coverage.CrazyMiner (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look over the notability page WP:NOTABILITY and I believe that the article should be kept due to the level of notability gained. The notability page states that in order for an article to be entered onto Wikipedia, credible evidence needs to exist, such as reputable media sources (which this topic has) as well as the fact that notability is not temporary, in that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" - quote from the WP:NOTABILITY page. CrazyMiner (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial WP:BLP1E coverage of a real-life Doogie Howser. News-buzz-of-the-day human interest stories are not worth an entry in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should be kept for several reasons. First of all, under WP:NOTABILITY rules, Dr Hill has achieved a large amount of media coverage which WP:NOTABILITY states means that an article should be kept, even if there has been only a single event. Secondly, one-time age related achievements are included all over Wikipedia, for example David Dicks was the youngest person to sail non-stop and solo around the world. Also, I think that removing the article from Wikipedia would potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future. As far as I can see, there are a lot of arguments for why this article should stay, however the only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred around opinion and go against Wikipedia rules such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OSE. MartinManson (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-time age related achievements are included all over Wikipedia—so WP:WAX then? Removing the article from Wikipedia would potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future—so WP:ITSUSEFUL then? The only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred around opinion and go against Wikipedia rules—so WP:ABF then? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in reliable sources, as evidenced by the Daily Mail piece. While I know that AfD doesn't set precedent, we did go through this before with Heenal Raichura, and the outcome there was to keep the article. However, that's secondary; the coverage of Hill lets the article stand on its own merits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above comment was left by an editor who was apparently canvassed for this discussion, or at least votestack-ed by the article creator. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been in my watchlist since two minutes or less from its creation. I would have made it to this discussion at some point today, talk message or no. Given how heavily I'd been involved in editing the page, especially based on line-item count at the page history, the original editor's note to me was reasonable; it's arguable that I should have been notified of the nomination when it was made. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable that I should have been notified of the nomination when it was made. No, it isn't. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No canvassing appears to have happened here that goes against the AfD regulations as the creating editor simply invited significant contributors to give their opinions, as is allowed by Notifying interested people. CrazyMiner (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and sufficient reliable sources (despite my suggestion of OTHESTUFFEXISTS before reading this AfD). — Jeff G. ツ 04:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, the coverage is there, but any notability is temporary; the same problem applies to the other youngest doctor/oldest person/etc entries. Hairhorn (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the sources in the article: six are news coverage based on one event, three don't mention her and the Biography section is totally unsourced. A clear failure of WP:BLP1E and indeed WP:NOTNEWS to my mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Student Testing

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

Article lacks sources MicroX (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified. I could not even confirm that the series existed. A Google search for "National Student Testing" and Disney [27] found only this and one other Wikipedia article, literally nothing else. It makes me wonder about a lot of the other things listed at List of educational films produced by Walt Disney Studios; nominator might want to take a look at some of them, for example The Truly Exceptional. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Show (band)

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

This article was speedily deleted not even 24 hours ago. I didn't see that version, but while I don't think this version (created by the same editor) warrants a speedy, I still don't think it passes WP:BAND. An extensive Google search couldn't pull up any reliable sources, and as for the sources in the article, the only one that isn't a blog goes to SonicBids.com, a site that basically only serves the purpose of helping unsigned bands get exposure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails WP:BAND, and should have just been CSD'd to begin with. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not notable. Eeekster (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we get a speedy delete per WP:SNOW, as the page should have just been tagged for speedy to begin with, and really doesn't have a snowballs chance at surviving the AfD? --Fbifriday (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. Reyk _YO! 10:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt per above and WP:SNOW. SnottyWong ^express 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt fails WP:BAND. Mauler90 _talk 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not speedy - and reserve salt for later, on account of WP:AGF. The author is working on it, but for lack of sources, this band is not expected at this point to make the grade. Hope they do well, and good luck to the band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This band is certainly notable. After visiting their music page, there are a couple songs I like. I have a SoundScan account (I'm own a recording studio in NYC and have to belong to it for my artist's sake. Memberships are $5,000/yearly and I look up anyone I record free of charge). While I did not record The Show, I used my sources to discover their album has 31,339 downloads as of today, and about 1100 spins on American radio. I couldn't look up overseas radio, but they are listed on several stations' playlists in Ireland, England, and Scotland. Because it took months for them to sell that number of albums and receive those plays, nothing charted. It doesn't mean they aren't notable. And I have since read that Rae DeLeo will be producing their next album. No reason not to leave this article up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.44.22 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I can confirm that the American band The Show did tour England Ireland and Scotland, playing venues such as Wheelan's, the o2, the Manchester Academy, and a two night stand in London. I'm looking for more details. I saw their gig in Liverpool at the Mojo and actually trained to London to see another gig by them. I certainly thing they're notable enough for Wiki! I mean, Choco Ice has it's own page for Lord's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.44.22 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the notes. One note is that they can be notable, but they must be notable as per our standards here. Number of charting songs is a start, but see that article for more of what we're looking for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:WAX --Fbifriday (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RISC Group

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

no notability shown for this company. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:corp. prod remove after challenge by ip "There is no reason for this page to be deleted, it provides information on a group that will no doubt become quite popular quite soon." WP:CRYSTAL. last afd closed no consensus due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 05:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. The IP mentioned should review WP:CRYSTAL. Jusdafax 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability or WP:CORP because there are no reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all has been said. Dewritech (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. SnottyWong ^converse 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources to show meets WP:CORP so have to conclude not notable. Codf1977 (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam (per SNOW). Username blocked as spam. Alexf^(talk) 10:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improterapia

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

Non-notable technique with only trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 04:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also appears to be a bit on the promotional side. Eeekster (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, hardly even an article. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classic promotional article, written by User:Improterapia, imparting little information other than that this is a improterapia is a good thing, it can't be explained in the article, but follow the links to how you too can learn more about improterapia and about Erik Rodriguez. Worth looking at the imdb.com link to Rodriguez before this is deleted, it's classic as well. Mandsford 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam / OR Toddst1 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Wrong venue; discussion is now being taken place at RfD. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 1954 - August 27, 1990

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

Page moved, all links updated Topjimmyc (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd speedily delete this, as a request by the creator and sole editor of a page, but Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters and formatting and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes state that the status quo is actually correct, and deletion is not. I certainly still, despite years of supposed technological progress, have no en-dash key on my computer keyboard. Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is for a page move, WP:SPEEDY delete per G6. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional weasels

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

This list fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. There is no encyclopedic topic about Weasels in fiction and the list cites no sources. Furthermore, it serves exactly zero navigational purpose because nothing links to it and it doesn't really link to anything. It is useless clutter and in the interests of maintaining this encyclopedia it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 03:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional animals (other)#Weasels links to it. (It started out as a redirect there, in fact.) So, too, does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional penguins (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there hasn't been significant coverage of the subject matter in reliable third-party sources, which hinders the ability to create a discriminate and sourced list. Due to the lack of sources, the article has been compiled through a synthesis of original research where editors just added any creature they identified as a weasel. Per WP:SALAT, it will be nearly impossible to find reliable sources that tie together weasels from Ice Age 3, Donkey Kong 64, Spanish Mythology, and all the other random subject areas represented here. The more general topic of Weasels in fiction may be notable, but that article would need to be well-sourced and written in prose, and this trivia list wouldn't have any place in there. Them From Space 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, convincing case made as I see it. Jusdafax 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. Dewritech (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list and links to many notable series that feature weasels in them. Some of these weasel characters have their own articles, Weasel (Farthing Wood), however that isn't necessary. This aids those interested in finding weasels in notable works of fiction, which although not as popular as penguins, still have just as valid a reason to exist on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Deleting this useless article will improve WP. SnottyWong ^prattle 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate topic for a list. Clearly defined criterion, easy enough to source. Fix, don't delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:GNG, as the topic is not notable and therefore the list isn't notable. Where are the reliable articles discussing the general topic of weasels in fiction? Tavix | Talk
Keep appropriate list but needs to be well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like weasels... I don't know i'n just voting to keep it. Str8cash (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. Claritas § 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. Pure listcruft, trivial and non-encyclopedic. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. This is a poorly maintained list with no definite scope concerning a topic which is almost certainly not notable, per the emerging consensus at the AFD for Weasels in fiction. Claritas § 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not directory, and not a random list of fictional [noun]s. These lists need sources that reference their list topic, not some purported possibility of notability in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tavix (talk · contribs) – there is no established notability for the topic, rendering the page an indiscriminate collection of information (so WP:NOT). ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant, independent WP:RS establishing the WP:NOTABILITY of "fictional weasels". Should Frank "Weasel" from Yes, Minister be included? Also per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT as argued well above. Verbal chat 12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put! Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established, just an indiscriminate list created and supported by people who think every scrap and cruft of the human experience deserves an article. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keep votes ignore that the list is really one user's invention since there are no sources that WP:verifynotability of weasels in fiction in general. List fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT because it is a synthesis of original research compiled into a single list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I'd support several of these fictional animal lists, this one's very weak, trivial and has no pool of examples to form a backbone, unlike the rabbit, mice and penguin lists, for instance. WP:SALAT basically. Someone another 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost none of the individual weasels and sloats are themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing is wrong with it--SALAT is cited inappropriately and would apply to any list whatsoever by the rationales cited above. Individual list elements need not be notable, either, per WP:NNC. While a quick look might suggest that the delete side has the stronger arguments, they are, in fact, simply mis-citing several guidelines very loudly. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is you who is mis-citing the WP:NNC guideline. It states: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia". Now, since it is all but settled that Weasels in fiction is not notable enough to have its own separate article it follows that a list of them also is not. Furthermore, the final paragraph in WP:SALAT clearly states that Wikipedians may oppose a list on the grounds that its subject is "trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge" and it looks to me that everyone who has cited SALAT here has done so on those grounds. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list can be entirely composed of non-notable entries. No one is arguing that each weasel have its own article, but I am arguing that even if no weasel had its own article, a list of such weasels (documented verifiably in other articles) would serve an encyclopedic purpose, not run afoul of N, and be appropriately kept. SALAT is indeed being misapplied: "fictional weasels" is neither as arcane, trivial, or useless as "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" or "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", the two examples given on that page.Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a logical fallacy. You are comparing a bad article topic with a terrible one and claiming the bad one is OK because "terrible" is worse than "bad". Reyk _YO! 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latus (game)

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

This game was never released. DimaG (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article even says there is little known about the game (as of March 2008? Come on!). And the external links are to Whois and the US Patent Office??? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Easy call, not notable, no decent references. Jusdafax 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreleased and non-notable game. Reyk _YO! 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to understand why this was put in at all. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find mention of it on their official Myst Online forums, and elsewhere. It was never finished, and may not have gotten past the planning stage though. So nothing to have an article about. Dream Focus 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW. Even Dream Focus doesn't think this article should exist, and that's saying a lot (although Dream presumably couldn't bring him/herself to actually type the abhorrent "D" word). SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm uncomfortable with the previous comment: it's unclear if the two of you know each other or are friends, but in any case an unexplained public comment like that crosses into incivility. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that was out of line, SW. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no coverage whatsoever in reliable independent sources. Claritas § 09:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Wilson (reality show contestant)

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

A reality show contestant winner is not independently notable. I'd support a redirect to the show (or the season, although it's unclear if the season itself is notable) but I wanted to give the creator a chance to weigh in. Shadowjams (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before saying this, let me preface that I do understand WP:WAX, but being in multiple reality shows and starring in the Bachelor alone apparently makes Jake Pavelka notable. Actually winning the reality show would seem to be in the same league as being an eliminated contestant and being the bachelor himself.--Jorfer (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting the subsequent show would be more important than the winning, but even with being the target of a reality show, absent coverage that comes from outside of that show, I don't think just being on a reality show, even prominently, is enough. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Dancing with the Stars appearance for Jake Pavelka indicates that simply being the Bachelor seems to makes him at least a minor celebrity. Let me say that The Bachelor is a longer time frame show. It is not like Fear Factor used to be where contestants won that show and were not seen in later episodes. Winning The Bachelor means several weeks of exposure on national television. As far as exposure, the winner of the show has a lesser but still significant amount of exposure than The Bachelor himself. If Wikipedia was paper, I would say not notable enough for an individual article, but since it is not, I feel it meets the threshold. Lorenzo Borghese, the person she was suppose to marry but didn't, has established notability, so it would seem that the association would make Wilson notable enough for inclusion. Actually, most of the bachelor's have their own article if you look at The Bachelor (TV series), because the show targets important individuals.--Jorfer (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Shadowjams, but would consider a redirect to the show's WP page if she is mentioned there. Jusdafax 08:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may pass GNG, but fails WP:ENT. A reality show, as far as I'm concerned is either a 1E, or the beginning of an acting career that isn't sufficient to show enduring notability per our SNGs on the topics. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the entertainer criteria is really intended for reality show contestants. It seems aimed more at career entertainers including the "television personality" part. Even given this, though, considering her simply as one time fiancee of Lorenzo Borghese would seem to fall under WP:ANYBIO and may be sufficient to pass the notability threshold.--Jorfer (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decatising

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

Looks like a neologism. No sources. DimaG (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has good sources now and see Google books for several references to this process in books on textile technology. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decatising (decatizing) a neologism? The most casual look shows plenty of sources in google books and google scholar. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced and viable. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. --DimaG (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Haven't Changed A Bit (board game)

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

Non notable game. DimaG (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable coverage. It doesn't help that the creator created the article in February 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, serious lack of content. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't find any reliable sources, but I request that the nominator please expand his rationale. A rationale that only says, "Non notable," is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions under WP:Not notable. Your talk page shows that you were asked to stop providing weak arguments in April, yet you continue. Please stop, or leave AFD nominations to someone else. Thank you. Vodello (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Vod's comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire fashion

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

As the article stands, it is original research. DimaG (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources, clearly an essay-style bit of OR. Reyk _YO! 03:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it cannot be sourced. JIP | Talk 06:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it now - steak through the heart. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unreferenced, fails verifiability, and is, per nom, original research ~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 11:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and because it is annoying. No sources exist to prove that this is a true fashion movement worth talking about. SnottyWong ^talk 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PLEASE! Take at least one second to click on the Google news link at the top of an AFD before commenting. I'll list the first three results.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES : Dressed to kill - Fashion takes fangtastic...

$2.95 - Washington Times - NewsBank - Nov 13, 1992

Vampire fashion will get you this season if vampires themselves don't since, increasingly, what Hollywood makes, the world takes. The current cult is primed

So, a major news paper talks about vampire fashion, it fangtastic, because Hollywood made people want to dress that way.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: DRACULA FEVER: FILM'S COSTUMES INSPIRE …

$2.95 - St. Louis Post-Dispatch - NewsBank - Nov 26, 1992

To that end, the studio hired Terry Melville to create a vampire fashion movement. Melville teamed up with young designers including Byron Lars, Zang Toi

A studio hired someone to work with notable designers to produce a vampire fashion movement.

Bloodsuckers on the seat of cool | The Australian

The Australian - May 15, 2010

Saint Augustine Academy's take on vampire fashion was to send its models down the runway in chain suspenders, spiked denim, black lippy and stick-on steel

Fashion shows already have models dressed in what it calls vampire fashion.

Sounds rather notable to me. Plenty more where that came from, but I think the first three results prove it. Dream Focus 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Just because there are a few articles mentioning "vampire fashion" wouldn't make it notable. Fashion is extremely referential obviously, and I don't think it's necessary to have an article for every type of possible reference in fashion. Otherwise, we'd have Safari fashion listing every time khakis and safari-style shirts are written up as a trend, etc etc... Military fashion, Nautical fashion, Bohemian fashion, Bondage fashion, Romantic fashion, you name it.... Just because clothing occasionally references typical romantic/vampire-esque influences doesn't mean an article is warranted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, several of those examples sound like they'd make interesting articles. We do have Alternative fashion, Fetish fashion, Gothic fashion, Heavy metal fashion, Hip hop fashion, Lolita fashion, Punk fashion, South American fashion, Street fashion, and Sustainable fashion. — C M B J 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples you give are defensible and have a real history. (May need to AFD Alternative fashion at some point though - what a mess!) But here, how are we going to distinguish "vampire fashion" from "gothic fashion"? This "vampire fashion" is just a term that is thrown around from time to time without any real definition. We have a handful of mentions from publications that aren't exactly known for their cutting-edge fashion coverage. If anything, the use of this phrase indicates that goth influences become more significant in fashion as vampires become important in other cultural works. (Was Interview with a Vampire 1992? And now we've got another round for Twilight c. 2009-2010.) Basically nothing has been offered to distinguish "vampire fashion" from goth-influenced fashion generally. Without a real definition, the article is going to look like: "Joe Blow from the Washington Times mentioned vampire fashion in an article in 1992. Jane Doe mentioned vampire fashion in an article in 2010." etc etc. Changing my !vote to delete. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I see no logical reason why deletion should be preferred over redirection to goth fashion. I'll amend my !vote as well. — C M B J 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect - Fashion is undoubtedly an area of our project where we need additional content. A quick search for reliable sources yielded information from Trend Hunter, the NY Daily News, and the LA Times. — C M B J 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The LA times coverage is just a blog link to Trend Hunter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does link to the Trend Hunter video, but it also provides a little contextual commentary on the subject. They've evidently done past articles on goth fashion, but they regard vampire fashion as something unique. — C M B J 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources that could be found are trivial mentions or opinion pieces. There are a few real designers inspired by vampires but this article covers the fictional history of what "real" vampires have worn throughout "history". Total lack of factual material that has nothing to do with what some of the sources have found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability, fails WP:GNG, seems to be mostly WP:OR. Claritas § 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, trivial mention, WP:OR. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goth fashion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pobol y Cwm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Elfyn

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

fails WP:ENT, one role ever [28]. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One is better than most people ever do. Per the 5 Pillars and IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.25 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR and 5 pillars are not the criteria here. WP:ENT is. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That show has been running for 36 years. The actor has been there since the early 80s. [29] There is some news mention of him, he even quoted in that article. Being on a popular long running show for that long, makes you notable. Dream Focus 10:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 10:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pobol y Cwm. Per WP:ACTOR, an unknown soap opera actor doesn't need his own one-line article. IAR isn't a reason to keep an article. SnottyWong ^squeal 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pobol y Cwm. WP:ENTERTAINER requires significant multiple roles. I would consider one role if this was backed up with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but the best I can find on GNews is articles about the soap that mention him. I could, however, see a case to create an article about his character which mentions the actor who plays him. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Fails WP:ENT completely. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pobol y Cwm. The two reference just mention him and it's only one role, so the subject just doesn't have enough notability and therefore fails WP:ENT for a separate article. — Becksguy (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) ———— Update: Strike and remove my Delete !vote, and change to Merge. Becksguy (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^gossip 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 64.255.164.25 [30] in seeking assistance with its improvement. ---- 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Wikipedia is not a directory like IMDB. We cover actors in an encyclopedic manner rather than quoting anyone who has ever had a role. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one episode? The one event is not even notable. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... not "one episode"... but rather one role in multiple episodes of one series since the 80's. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect stub to Pobol y Cwm... for which the person has his sourcable context.[31] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As well as being one of Welsh TV's best-known faces (hardly, as claimed above, "an unknown soap opera actor"!), Elfyn is notable for being the 10th longest-serving actor still appearing in a United Kingdom soap opera. -- Picapica (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially you're arguing for criteria #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER to be set aside. Why? 10th-longest seems to be a bit of a stretch. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. (No need for me, therefore, to answer the question "Why?"). The guidelines (for that is what they are) included on the page you refer to say "If no criteria can be met..." (not: if one criterion cannot be met). -- Picapica (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much anyway, since barring a miraculous influx of well-reasoned keep opinions, this is going to be merged, but...actually, yes, you are. We have a widely-accepted guideline for this type of situation. This particular article fails all 3, yet you feel it should be kept anyways on the basis of "10th longest-serving actor" being notable. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tarc. WP:ENT is pretty clear on the first criteria; Multiple notable films is required. And the three references just don't cut the mustard for reliable sources and notability in that they just mention him. Sorry, he's not sufficiently notable, even if he's not unknown. Merge and redirect would be fine. — Becksguy (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (redirect is included in merge, BTW) to the series per the above !votes, per [[WP:NNC]. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his show. The only reason a person would ever look him up is to see if he had done anything else. Finding themselves on the show's page would inform them that he has not. Abductive (reasoning) 03:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pobol y Cwm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Hartley

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

fails WP:ENT. appears to have only 1 role. name does not even appear in IMDB. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. If someone does verify this, redirect to Pobol y Cwm. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Chris Neville-Smith as his work in Pobol y Cwm can indeed be verified.[32][33][34] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Skin, Brown Masks

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

A chapter of a book. Move to Wiki books if needed. DimaG (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sounds like a school project. Wolfview (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the author, Kaja Silverman, also has problems.Wolfview (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not prepared to have chapters in books get their own pages in Wikipedia. Not notable. Jusdafax 08:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite apart from the fact that it's a chapter of a book (which doesn't have an article in its own right), this appears to be an essay summarising the chapter without making any claim of notability. --Deskford (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - chapters in books are not appropriate subjects of articles unless they have independent notability (i.e. books of the bible). Claritas § 12:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball All-Star Games in the Los Angeles Area

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

This appears to violate WP:NOTDIR, #6. — Timneu22 · talk 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this violates WP:NOTDIR, then so does Major League Baseball All-Star Games in Pittsburgh. I say if one stays, they both stay . . . if one is deleted, they both should be deleted. --Andyhi18 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's different. Those games were in Pittsburgh. This is WP:LISTCRUFT that loosely correlates some events to others. Why not have "List of All-Star Games played east of the Mississippi" or something? — Timneu22 · talk 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:NOTDIR, as WP:LISTCRUFT. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one and the one about Pittsburgh (which is different, I suppose, but not that different). In both cases, these impart no other information except that we have links to articles about the All-Star games that were hosted in those areas. Short version-- L.A. in '59 and '80, Anaheim in '67, '89 and '10. Mandsford 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These are separate AfD's; you'll have to comment on that AfD separately. They just both happen to be nominated at the same time. There was no coordination for these nominations. — Timneu22 · talk 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be related enough to not violate WP:NOTDIR. The topic is fully related to what it lists and each individual section is related to one another. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like with the Pittsburgh page, I don't see why it's so notable that there have been ASG's in the LA metro area, such that they need to be grouped together more than they already are. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't provide any sources to support the idea that All-Star Games being held in the L.A. area are considered by reliable independent sources to be a distinctive topic which should be distinguished from the rest of our coverage of All-Star Games. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not very useful subset of List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners which could be modified to allow sorting. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was just about to AFD this. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clearly a delete per CRYSTAL but I'm happy to userfy if someone wants it Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2020

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

The content of this article is currently made up of nothing but speculation and conjecture. No countries have yet bid to host this tournament, and we do not even know if it will go ahead. Some of the content is merely based on assumptions that the format from UEFA Euro 2016 will be repeated in 2020. Some countries have said they might bid for the tournament, while others are merely reported to have said that they might consider possibly bidding if the weather is nice on the day. This article should be deleted. – Pee Jay 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, classic WP:CRYSTAL violation. Giant Snowman 01:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — for now, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL #4. No bias to recreation when this is no longer an extrapolation. The sources need to be about 2020, not UEFA Euro 2016. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Userfy - I agree it is still premature, but the article is reasonably well written. It might be a good idea to keep the content somewhere less conspicuous until it is needed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per User:Gosox5555 and User:Sir Sputnik. By far the most of the article is only speculation at this point and nothing has been confirmed, so it violates WP:CRYSTAL. It can be recreated when something really is confirmed about the 2020 tournament. JIP | Talk 06:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: It's obviously a violation of WP:CRYSTAL but why lose all that good work just because it's too early to make it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apart from the fact that this article exists normally on six other Wikipedias and that it exists on English Wikipedia for two years, there is also no reason to delete it. Is UEFA Euro 2020 an uncertain event so that we would call the article about this event a violation of WP:CRYSTAL? No it is not, if we don't have a world war breaking out, the UEFA Euro 2020 will take place and it's nothing less certain now in 2010 then in 2008 when the article was opened or in the meantime when no one complained. Is this article called UEFA Euro 2020 filed bids? No, because it's still 2010 and at this point associations are assessing the possibility of bidding but nothing is finalized yet, however this doesn't mean that the plans are vague and uncertain, presidents of local football federations have spoken, ministers in governments have spoken, sport clubs have spoken about the real plans for stadium expansion etc. So I can't see a single reason why would we erase this perfectly normal article.--Avala (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is crystal balling to assume that Euro 2020 will occur. UEFA have not even started discussing Euro 2020 yet. We've only just learned who will host Euro 2016! Just because an article has existed for two years or exists on other Wikipedias does not mean that it has the right to exist now. – PeeJay 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then this might be a case of WP:POINT since it is absolutely not crystal balling to assume that Euro 2020 will occur as it is a regular event that takes place each four years and as the relevant institutions, football associations of UEFA, are assessing their plans for participation.--Avala (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should not assume that the tournament will occur just because a couple of associations are planning bids to host the tournament. UEFA has not made any announcements regarding Euro 2020 yet, and we should not assume that it will occur until they do. – PeeJay 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The tournament will take place and assuming that it wont is a pure pointy speculation that is on verge of no original research violation. It is actually crystal balling to say that the tournament might not take place as everything suggests that it will take place.--Avala (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are formal bids or clear intention to bid already (I haven't looked at all the links), in which case move to UEFA Euro 2020 Bidding Process, and let this location serve as a redirect to that for a while (as presently the case at FIFA 2018 World Cup) Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete this one then we should delete all the other future event articles such as the 2018 Youth Olympics, 2020 Summer Olympics, etc. Besides UEFA has just chosen the host for 2016 and we will know the potential bidders soon enough. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know any solid information about the 2018 Youth Olympics or the 2020 Summer Olympics? If not, then you're right that those should be deleted too. – Pee Jay 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: Most of this article is clearly conjecture and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL so far the only formal bid presented to UEFA for Euro 2020 is Bulgaria-Romania the rest are pure speculation. Shamrock141 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What would be the point of deleting it, only to have to re-create it again. Unless there is some very good reason to assume that it will not take place as planned, then it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.220.209 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know we'll have to recreate it? How do you even know that this tournament is going to happen? – Pee Jay 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per The C of E, who explains my view rather well. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing really known about this tournament yet, so it makes little sense to have such an article. Arguments like "it has to be recreated in the future" are pointless, since they would justify the creation of articles like 2100 Summer Olympics (if Olympics are held every four years, they're scheduled to happen on that year!). --Angelo (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are countries known to bid or known to look into a bid. Regarding Angelo romano's comment about the 2100 Olympics, no it's not. It's like the 2020 Summer Olympics which is similar to this in that nothing official has been announced but a number of cities (in Olympics case) and countries (in Euro's case) are known to be considering bids. And there is plenty of info available about that, even if nothing "official" has been announced by UEFA. Smartyllama (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good point for AfDs. Also, all I see in this article is just speculation and nothing really definite, but a bunch of "maybe", "might be", and so on. This is obviously against WP:CRYSTAL #3 ("Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate."). --Angelo (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with other stuff exists argument as we are talking about consistency. It is as if someone for whatever reason proposed erasing the article on the upcoming elections in Brazil, it would be a perfectly valid point to mention that there are dozens of articles on upcoming elections.--Avala (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point of this AfD. Most of those upcoming elections will have been officially announced by some sort of governmental body, which is how we know they are going to happen. UEFA Euro 2020 has not been officially announced by UEFA, so we do not yet know that it is scheduled to happen. – Pee Jay 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what does UEFA stand for? It stands for "Union of European Football Associations" so if those Football Associations that form the Union are talking about this then it is going to take place as UEFA is nothing more than a union of those same associations. When will the main meeting of all associations take place in Nyon, that indeed remains to be seen but it is nothing more than a formality where the exact dates will be set.--Avala (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not the associations that make up the Union that decide when the Euros take place, it is the Union itself. If you understood the inner workings of UEFA, you'd know that. – Pee Jay 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather than spending time in AfD, spend it on improving the article and cleaning it from dubious sources. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the sources that are in doubt, but the speculation that the tournament will even take place. We just don't know whether it will or not! – Pee Jay 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason that this tournament will not occur, and now that Euro 2016 venue has been decided, this is the next competition for which hosting is to be decided and there will be interest in the emerging bidding/interest process. Articles for t'ments beyond 2020 should not yet be created. Further to some of the above comments, the article may need revising in terms of the assumptions of who may be bidding. Eldumpo (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to assume that it will occur either, other than the presumption that the four-year cycle will continue beyond 2016. UEFA has not announced the tournament or the opening of the bidding process yet. – Pee Jay 12:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy - There is sourced information here about the event, which is extremely likely to occur and if not the information about countries preparing bids for the event that surprisingly didn't occur and the reasons for the event being called off will still be worthy of an article. That said, most of the sourced information is still speculative, so I can see moving the article from main space for now. But in that case, userfication is a better solution than deletion, per C of E and others. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Of course, in a few years the article would be recreated, but as it is now, there is too much speculation that is akin to original research. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdrawn. All opinions are now to keep. — Timneu22 · talk 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sugar Creek Gang

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

This is a promotional article from a single-purpose account; also created Paul Hutchens. Unfortunately, people fall under A7 but their book series do not. This is an attempt at advertising, and no sources or claims of notability are provided. — Timneu22 · talk 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is difficult to evaluate the notability of books from this period (the 1940s) as the material that would generally have included contemporaneous reviews are not generally available online. I am asking a librarian to take a look at this. ^Bongo_matic 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books are notable-and so is the author, & it doesnt take specialist to see it--WorldCat authorities [35] listing for him shows 114 works in 358 editions in 4 languages and 11,488 library holdings total. The listing for this particular series is here; for the series, I count 41 different basic published titles in this series, some rewritten as a modernized version, as well as 7 in audiobooks, 11 in DVD versions, & 4 translated into German. It appears to be a series imitating the Hardy Boys in a very elementary way with a Christian orientation, aimed at 3rd & 4th graders. The ones that have been rewritten are in up to 500 libraries (very few libraries except specialized childrens' research collections keep books like this when no longer current). The reason we don't use speedy on books is that when looking at a primitively written articles like these, it is impossible to tell rapidly whether there is any possible notability. Therefore, asserting an author has published non-self published books is a sufficient indication or claim to possible notability to eliminate speedy also & need a more extended discussion. As for reviews, for a start, look at the G News Archive search in the header to the AfD. Even GScholar has some. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG. While WorldCat and WorldCat Identities are not as well-known as Google, WorldCat is explicitly mentioned and even linked at WP:NB—a guideline that anyone nominating books for deletion should review before doing so. ^Bongo_matic 06:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Worldcat is a crutch, and one DGG relies on ~~frequently~~. It's a little bit like google listings argument. Are we to support every book that has listings in more than 1000 libraries? 10,000? Is that the game? I think there could be notability, but widespread library holdings isn't it, and I'm dismayed that DGG relies on it so much, and this is a good place to make this argument. We should rely on sourcing indicative to the books or author, not saber metrics for wiki. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous subject-specific guidelines that use proxies for coverage where those proxies give rise to an inference that coverage exists or existed. In this case, where indexed or searchable contemporaneous sources are very unlikely to be available, library holdings would seem to be an extremely useful and reliable proxy—doubly so because the holdings (which are updated) are of books that would have been discarded in the normal course of events. ^Bongo_matic 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that and understand the underlying reasoning for that argument, but I disagree fundamentally, and I think this is an excellent example to demonstrate that point. Popularity doesn't equal notability, otherwise every cat-falling-off-the-table video would meet those requirements. We have specific book criteria for exactly this reason. Independent indexing provides some objectivity, and then logic provides the metric about whether or not that indexing is sufficient... but the key piece is that the indexing process normalizes and provides a level playing field, so it allows the whole AfD debate to be objective. It's an important precedent for that reason. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well your opinion is welcome at WP:NB. However, the guideline has a specific section on non-contemporary_books that states:

The notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the [main] criteria . . . intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.

So, the guideline specifically embraces circulation and republication for old books, even though (as you correctly point out) popularity isn't generally a demonstration of notability. ^Bongo_matic 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've striken my !vote above because of the sourcing provided below. My point is simply that reference to the number of libraries the book is in is a little like references to the number of google hits, and while circulation is relevant under the book criteria, library circulation is an imprecise proxy for that. I don't like the reliance on worldcat alone (although it's certainly welcome as part of a broader context). Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neither article asserts notability. They both just say "this guy exists" or "these books exist". So? Are they significant? If they are, then update the article - I'm no subject matter expert here. — Timneu22 · talk 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Delete or merge with article on author Paul Hutchens.SteveStrummer (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to appeal to guideline or precedent? As the instructions say, "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". ^Bongo_matic 15:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is threadbare, and has no given sources of notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions do not evaluate the quality of the article or the sources cited within the article, but the notability of the topic. The evidence available—including that presented here (especially if you haven't done your own WP:BEFORE) needs to be considered. ^Bongo_matic 16:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think article quality and sources are always factors in AfD discussions. Regarding content, articles may not be empty, nor may they be simple plot summaries or gratuitous repetitions of information found in other articles: as it stands, it's not even ready to be made into a list article. I won't vote to keep unless some useful content is added, but based on the good faith efforts made to reference this article, I'm rescinding my previous vote to delete. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my favourite sort of AFD - when a poor/promotional article gets massaged into something that may be a keeper :) In terms of your point about article length - this is a reasonable point but it isn't entirely appropriate as AFD criteria. If the subject is notable it can be tagged for expansion - and that should be our focus (notability). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Speedy Keep - per Wikipedia:NBOOK ~~and~~, DGG's AfD post here and recent citations to the article. His links demonstrate that NBOOK's Criteria #1 (sources independent of the books and that they serve a general audience exist) and #5 (the author is "historically significant" and "that any of his or her written works may be considered notable") are met or exceeded. ~~Should any references to~~These books are being used in classroom instruction and appear on recommended reading lists, Criteria #4 ~~would be~~ is met with recent citations to the article. In addition, the 11 DVD set ~~may~~ meets Criteria #3 if as they are depicted in a movie ~~or cartoon setting but someone would need to verify that with a citation~~ as per recent citations to the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't meet the speedy keep criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleaned things up a little and added a reference. The further additions by Morenooso easily establish notability. As a note it appears that some of those !voting delete are basing it on article quality/length which may not be valid criteria :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Just now I added a newspaper source that says the books sold over 3 million copies and were turned into a series of movies. It seems extremely likely to me that there would have been significant coverage of the books in the 1940s and 50s when they were selling. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two references from books which have good things to say about this series. Additionally, Google Book search shows numerous positive reviews from reliable sources, but which are only visible in snippet view, such as American Lutheran, 1948, How to parent your tweenager, Lets make a memory (1994), American Lutheran, 1939 (Swedish Lutherans, US), The Lutheran Witness, 1940 (German Lutherans, US), Growing up born again, 1987, How to raise a reader, 1999, Lutheraneren, 1951 (Norwegian Lutheran church, US). The Book search index shows more of the text from each of these than the linked snippet view. The Amazon.com site says the series (volumes 1-6) ranks #78 in "Books>Children's>Religions>Christianity>Christian." Edison (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayu Mayu

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

Not to be confused with Ayu-Mayu Theater, which is a spinoff of Rumbling Hearts, I could find no reliable third-party sources for this manga. Fails the WP:NOTE and WP:BK inclusion guidelines and the author doesn't appear to pass the WP:AUTHOR inclusion guideline and has no article. Deprodded on the claim that it exists and is available freely via illegal scanlations. —Farix (t | c) 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "illegal scanlation" is entirely that users opinion. My review of the website cited as reference in support of the series' notability appears to be genuine and valid. They provide contact information, strict terms of use regarding copyright of submissions, a process by which material found to be in violation can be removed, and declare all works to be the property of their originators. Scanlation does not necessarily indicate illegal copyright violation. Further more copyright violation would not preclude notability, merely require the link to be removed from the page. As a broad generalization, a work which is noteworthy enough that someone would want to steal it is likely noteworthy enough for a wiki entry. WRFEC (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The website clearly is not distributing the work with the author's permission, so it is a copyright violation and a violation of WP:COPYLINK to use as a reference for existence. —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I had a good chance to look at the site in question, it is clearly a renamed Onemanga.com, which is notorious for its copyright violations and has been targeted by the Japanese Digital Comic Association for pending legal action.[36] FYI, Onemanga.com is already on the WP:BLACKLIST. —Farix (t | c) 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My reading of TheFarix' rationale was that your contest of the proposed deletion was on entirely spurious grounds that bear no relation to our policies and guidelines. Whilst that hasn't proven, from the above tangent, to be what TheFarix was in fact saying, it is nonetheless true that your rationale has no basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I suggest you familiarize yourself with, especially notability, which is not your subjective estimation of what is "noteworthy". You've not made any argument for keeping that holds water. If you want to make an argument that a closing administrator will give some credence to, then you should start citing reliable sources that document this subject in depth, independently of it. Nothing less will do. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty clear by the forum posts at Onemanga.com that 100manga.com is a spin-off site get around Google Adsense's recent policy to pull all adsense ads form websites containing mature material. Onemanga.com and 100manga.com It also clearly hosts material in violation of the mangaka's copyrights and several of the mange hosted has already been licensed for publication to different publishers, such as VIZ Media, Tokyopop, Del Rey Manga, and Dark Horse Comics. Examples include Air Gear, Black Jack, Earl Cain, and Claymore. I seriously that all of these publishers would give this website permission to host content they are trying to sale in the North American market. And if they did, it would be widely announced at anime and manga websites like as Anime News Network. —Farix (t | c) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails per notability, I can not even see a redirect here as it also fails WP:AUTHOR. The entire reference is ANN's encyclopedia which is user edited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree lets delete it. Its not important to us and of course that means its not important to anyone else. And surely its references are questionable, afterall who trusts those "user edited" encyclopedias? And oh the cost! At the current rate of about $10 per gigabyte the continued storage of this 11676byte article will cost the wikimedia foundation upwards of 0.01 cents this year! WRFEC (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand this article may be important to those who like the manga it currently does not qualify to be on wikipedia, maybe when the references are in place it will be. It is best to go with reliable references rather than questionable ones so people do trust wiki as a reliable source for info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To join in on the discussion, I regrettably pitch myself in with those in favor of deletion. Reading over the notability guidelines, I grind my teeth and admit that this article is not very notable. By the sheer volume of manga authored in Japan, really, this series is not a particularly significant contribution to its genre and art form. While I realize we can't find third-party references, I'm a bit curious as to why the (yes, illegal) scanlations are considered dubious. They seem to be the most reliable reference I can find (after typing in "Ayu Mayu -theater -scans -raw" into Google). I take it that we can't use them because of their legality? Danny Sepley (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, per WP:SOURCES. They also fail WP:ELNEVER #1, so placing them in an 'external links' section is verboten as well. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied the article and its entire history plus picture over to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Ayu_Mayu along with others currently at AFD. If you disagree with the suggested guidelines, why not go to the guideline pages and discuss changing them to something that actually makes sense? Deleting articles that no one would find unless they were looking for them, and which hurt nothing by remaining, is just plain stupid, no matter what your excuse. Its not a hoax, spam, vandalism, or whatnot, so no reason not to let it be. Dream Focus 04:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as it completely fails both WP:N and WP:BK in that it has no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources (or even insignificant coverage). Having an ANN entry alone does not make a series notable, as ANN's Encylopedia section is not a reliable source and is user edited. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Double Zero

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

I'm not sure if this is a hoax, but this google search doesn't give me any hope that this is a notable film. — Timneu22 · talk 00:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Great problems are encountered when hoping for English sources using an English title translation for a foreign film that never had an English release. Now while per naming conventons, this article should likely be named Spia di Sauve di Agente segreto, a more correct translation to English would be The Suave Secret Agent or The Suave Secret Agent Spy, or even The Suave Spy. However, and even with these alernates, no sources are in the offing, and I suspect, specially after looking for it under all diferent versions, it may be a hoax.[37][38][39][40]

Delete per above. No sources, no explanation offered by article's only contributor; seems to be their m.o., which only heightens suspicion that this is made up. JNW (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —fetch ·comms 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limera1n

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

Unreleased jailbreak software... this is a promotion of a non-notable OS. No sources, just something a dude is working on in his spare time. This doesn't appear to be worthy of inclusion as an encyclopedic topic. — Timneu22 · talk 00:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN software. Nakon 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violation of Verifiability rule, General notability guideline and WP:SOAPBOX. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above delete !votes. Not even close in my book. Jusdafax 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreleased app: WP:CRYSTAL. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious delete for an unreleased app. This looks like the work of a new and ambitious wikipedia author who stills not sure how things work. Don't bite him though - people like him are needed.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the info. I am fairly new and still figuring out how things work around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Access Denied (talk • contribs) 05:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is a lot of coverage of this (Google finds loads of results), but a lot of it is from unreliable sources (which is often the case for things related to pirated software). With that said a few sources could be considered reliable (they're blogs, but fairly well known/reliable ones), such as [41] [42] [43]. The article needs a lot of work, and sources should be added, but I think it could be considered notable. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Not a chance in hell. It explicitly violates GNG. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides, there is WP:NOT: Wikipedia writes facts, not "hypes", as your source state it. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I consider Softpedia to be a reliable source, and it was significant cover (full article). I realize that it is somewhat borderline, and the other two are probably not reliable sources, which is why it is a weak keep, and not just a keep. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, you should study WP:N more carefully: Full article or long article doesn't necessarily means notability. A Softpedia article that designates its own subject as a "hype" is not significant coverage. Now, some sources, on the other hand, grant notability with a single word! For instance, if a person has received a Noble Prize, or if a software has received SourceForge Award, only the appearance of their names in winners list is significant coverage and grants them notability. Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To quote WP:N: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail." An article about it addresses it directly and as I read it "in detail" is a reference to the length of the mention - so yes, the fact that it is a full article matters because it means that the source is addressing the subject in detail, as required by WP:N. Also, what's wrong with the article saying that it's a "hype"? [44] [45] define the iPhone a hype, does that mean we should delete our article on the iPhone? "Hype" or not, an article is significant coverage - EdoDodo ^talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid it seems to me that you have read the WP:N the way wanted it to meant and have only seen whatever you liked to see in it. It says "in details" not "at length". Besides, you are ignoring "Notability is not temporary" completely. Finally, you are ignoring the fact WP:GNG compliance is not the only problem of this article.
        However, regardless of all mentioned above, we still need not fling polices at each other and engage in a conversation that consists of putting magnifying glass on words and phrases. Generally speaking, I do not think this so-called “article” merits entering an encyclopedia whose aim is to create and maintain valuable contents for years to come. I consider our conversation to be over.
        Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now; restore when released. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable solution, since there will probably be a lot more coverage of it once it is released. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Daughty

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

Non-notable writer. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs content and sources to be an article. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Armenians

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

Per the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders, this is an unencylopaedic cross-categorization and hence fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, and arguably also WP:SALAT. Claritas § 20:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO and per consensus at the other AfD that these sorts of articles are not appropriate. Reyk _YO! 03:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, like most all List of fictional people from Nation X style articles, is an arbitrary cross-categorization which fails WP:SALAT since the topic is too wide to be able to write a discriminate list without resorting to original research. WP:IINFO and W:NOTDIR also come into play. Them From Space 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just to be clear here, WP:WAX doesn't apply because it's not simply a case of noting the (non)existence of another article, but noting that this one suffers from exactly the same problems and thus that all the same arguments are applicable. In a sense it's really a late co-nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but have no objection to a category. Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists: Category:Fictional Armenian people. Claritas § 09:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Arbitrary cross-categorization that fails WP:SALAT and can only be written by synthesizing original research. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place to publish anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is well written and has enough sources. WölffReik (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why on Earth was this relisted instead of closed as delete? The arguments for deletion far exceed those for keeping by quantity and quality. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to know. Consensus is pretty clear. Reyk _YO! 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Levshina

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at the highest level for her sport which is World Figure Skating Championships. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not competed in major senior-level competition. -Drdisque (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Ross

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

Apart from a single article on the Scotsman covering this mans death [46], there seems to be very little justification for an article. This author lacks notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the obituary, I'd say "notability" depends upon subject matter. Endrick Shellycoat 07:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obit in major newspaper explains his notability. Borock (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have something of a POV/promotional slant that needs to be fixed. However, the subject appears to be notable. A filtered GoogleNews search[47] shows a fair amount of specific coverage of him in the newsmedia before his death, e.g. [48][49][50],[51], and so on. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, apart from the obit in The Scotsman mentioned by the nominator, there were also obituaries in The Times[52] and in Herald Scotland[53]. I have added refs to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And also an obit in The Independent [54]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly is not going to be support for its deletion, may as well close this AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obits in multiple major dailies shows notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garner

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

Non-notable figure; full of external links; created by an account with the same name as his mission (what a surprise). Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is spammy due to the COI edits, but here, for example, is an article on Garner from the Sydney Morning Herald: [55]. I found what looks like a decent amount of coverage of both Garner and the Wesley Mission in the Herald and well as other Australian media outlets like ABC News [56] and the AAP [57]. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May possibly be notable, but the article as it is written so breaches WP:NPOV and WP:COI to be unsalvageable. It is blatant and unrepentent self-promotion by some one involved in the Wesley Mission. Better to delete this ~~article~~ advertisement and let someone else start again from scratch if they wish. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry but not an IT expert. This is not an attempt at self promotion. In fact just the opposite. The email address is because I asked a member of my team to help me by putting in a piece of information. We shall not make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 June 2010 — WorthingtonJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I'm finding your comments confusing: who are "we" and what "team" are we talking about? If you are affiliated with the subject of this article, it's not really appropriate for you to be participating in this deletion discussion and you should avoid editing the article. Please see Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Mattinbgn. Wesley Mission is clearly notable, but it's not clear that Keith Garner is. The article is also a WP:BLP lacking 3rd party references, and has several style problems. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"dont delete" subject spoke at a conference i attended and is constantly in the media , requiring independant research links outside organisational bio's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyandbeck (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (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 keep. we appear to have sources, well no-one challenged them anyway Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Movement for a Just World

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

Not notable. Nat Miller (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NGO founded by the president of a country is certainly notable. The problem is probably a lack of sources in English. More information could be added with translation since it must have been covered in Malayasian newspapers. Better to keep as a stub for now rather than delete. Borock (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Malaysia does not have a president. The current Yang di-Pertuan Agong (head of state) is Mizan Zainal Abidin. The current Prime Minister (head of government) is Najib Tun Razak. --Nat Miller (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The article was talking about the president of the group, not the country. Then I would say delete for now until sources are found and (probably) translated. Borock (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability. --Quelle Jessen (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant and frequent coverage in reliable sources over a long time in both Malaysian and international media.[58] Here are the non-payperview articles for enjoyment.[59] --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very poorly written, has no references, and not notable. --Werewolf Bar Mitzvah (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LibStar (don't say that very often!). Alzarian16 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

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

Does not meet notability or wp:web. The site's coverage in reliable sources is limited to brief quotes from reviewers.

The article deciphers between "professional" and "amateur" reviews, but there's no sign that there's editorial oversight with the professional reviews. It simply seems like self-published content Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think its notable, just checked it at Alexa --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't there an essay that discusses how not to respond to AFD? I can't find it.--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - None of the links and references are informational: as it stands this is mere advertising. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa ratings ≠ notability. No secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Weak keep didn't look close enough, a couple sources are fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem - there are a few secondary sources in the article and over 1000 Wikipedia articles linking to the page. Anylayman (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Since it is listed on Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT. I apologize for not seeing that earlier. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fernandez

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

Non-notable per WP:ENTERTAINER; zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; ~~sole reference given does not mention subject~~; apparent WP:COI or WP:Autobiography. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see evidence this person meets WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE or even WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article aren't independent and reliable, and I can't find significant coverage via Google searching. I concede that there might be foreign language sources I'm missing, so if someone finds any sources, I might reconsider. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recovery (Eminem album) (non-admin closure) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Back Down (Eminem song)

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

This is a charted song from a main album. It has no independent coverage and is poorly written. Per WP:NSONGS it is not notable for an independent article Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I had put this article, then another editor bitched at me until i restored it so I gave him a chance to make it good and I guess that didn't happen. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:NSONGS Candyo32 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Nothing to see here, except that it made it onto a few charts, not too impressively. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Immortals

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin and Kell Role-Playing Game

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

A Google Books search and a Google News archive search comes up with no hits for this role-playing game. Darkshire.net does not appear to be a reliable source while ComStar Media and Kevinandkell.com are primary sources, leaving Geeknative.com as the only potentially reliable secondary source addressing this game. This one review does not demonstrate in itself the game's notability and no others appear to exist, therefore the game fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Neelix (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as PROD decliner, I take no particular opinion on the notability here, just referred it here for a full discussion because there appear to have been multiple sources asserted. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick O'Connell

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep non-guideline cited inappropriately as a deletion rationale. Major fictional character appears throughout a fictional franchise in multiple media. Google News shows plenty of real-world coverage of Fraser's portrayal of this character. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:WAF, which is what I cited, is a guideline and it is cited appropriately. The top of that page states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." The notability requirements for fictional characters are stated as the following: "There are notability prerequisites to be met by all subjects to warrant articles specifically about them. As mentioned earlier, the rule of thumb is that if the topic is sufficiently notable, secondary sources should be available and should ideally be included on article creation." Neelix (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fictional character. No secondary sources provided. Details of character belong in the film articles only, until citations can be provided. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources that go into any detail here. Not enough to WP:verifynotability. Enough coverage in the plot of the films. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moonlite BunnyRanch#Publicity stunts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Dylan

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

This individual is known for a single publicity stunt and the article is a case of WP:BLP1E. Previous discussion can be found here. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Certainly could be a BLP1E problem, but A) given the breadth of coverage I'd say not and B) I'm unclear if this _is_ a BLP given the use of the pseudonym. That said, I don't see a whole lot of encyclopedic content here. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep though I'd support changing the article to refer to the event rather than the person, since the whole thing was in part a publicity stunt by Bunny Ranch. The amount of coverage and the discussions it initiated in different media regarding the value of virginity and morality of prostitution (which are both covered in the article in reasonable quality prose and good sourcing) are, IMO, aspects that justify the existence of this article. --Waldir ^talk 15:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Moonlite BunnyRanch#Publicity stunts. This is a publicity stunt and a single event. Coverage of the event is already a section in the bunny ranch article and any additonal infromationt hat is relevant can be added to the section there. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Whpg. STAT -Verse 08:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP issues are minimized because the name is a pseudonym. Am ok with merge also for now. I suspect the perpetrator is trying to sell a book or something since the whole thing was likely not legit, but got huge press (of course!) (For the ladies, Merle Montgomery is ready for ya[60]) Waldir's suggestion is also good, a la Yale student abortion art controversy which is where Aliza Shvarts ended up, a very similar type of news drama as this one. -- maybe List of notable virginity auctions would be a good only-on-wikipedia title, because this is not the only case of a virginity auction.--Milowent (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree very much with Milowent (thanks for the link to the other article, btw). Maybe a better title could be Value of virginity, which could be merged with the correspondent section of Virginity to form a new article. The example you provide of a man doing the same would also be relevant to include, as a contrast displaying the opposite perception (devaluation) of male virginity (both from the lack of offers and from the lack of similar serious attempts). --Waldir ^talk 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must disclose because I realize people may not be able to tell, but the male article is actually a joke. sorry :-) But there really are other cases of females offering to do this.--Milowent (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol! I did think that "burn up a nasty old lady" bit was a kind of over the top, but the rest indeed looked believable enough. I guess I've been seeing too much of mankind's weirdness lately :) --Waldir ^talk 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I took an initial stab at reorganizing and splitting up the other cases which were already mentioned and could be expanded. I also updated the article with the May 2010 revelation that she never went through with it. Of course.--Milowent (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above suggestions, for their reasons. Etrigan (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo (Missing In Action)

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS and wp:gng --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSIC says no such thing; misrepresenting the contents of a guideline is disruptive, whether this subject proves notable or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Am I missing something here? On wp:music: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources"

Given that the article is unsourced, what's wrong with the nom? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're missing something. "Unreleased" and "Self-released" are entirely different concepts. Nominator has a history of misstating the terms of WP:MUSIC with regard to demos. If the material has bee released, regardless of who released it, the presumption doesn't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I suppose I instinctively take "released" to mean something more than "released on the band's Myspace page and on homemade CDs for free, without being mixed nor mastered" --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Vote Comment: Whether this is a demo, self-released, not-really-released, or whatever, that requires some good faith investigation which the nominator probably didn't do, for about the 500th time. With all this talk about guidelines, certain people around here keep forgetting a certain guideline known as WP:BEFORE. I might actually vote against this particular album article, if the AfD nomination was legitimate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I did a variety of google news searches trying to find anything about this "release" via myspace and homemade cds, and found nothing in reliable sources. Just a mention in a non-notable blog. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, and your points are well taken. But the problem with this whole process is that you did the research that the nominator was supposed to do. If you were the nominator and your initial argument included the points from your comments here, and if it was more than the automatic seven words we got from the actual nominator, I would probably vote to delete. But procedurally, I don't think this nomination deserves to receive votes. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Demo's are not notable, no sources given. -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 05:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recovery (Eminem album). Shimeru 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Love (Eminem song)

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

This is a charted song from the album not a single. Per WP:NSONGS as it has no independent coverage and there is not enough detail to produce a detailed quality page it is not notable for an idependent article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the lister inadvertently started a second AfD on the same subject, which I am deleted under WP:CSD#G6. The rationale was similar, but slightly different. I am including it here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, error was down to twinkle duplicating the nom. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Restore when its noteable. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No confirmation of it being a single. Even if it were, there is not enough available information on the article for it to withstand on its own. Candyo32 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is reliable enough, keep. Otherwise, redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) per WP:NSONGS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weak article: the song's notability is only inherited from the album. Merge with Recovery (Eminem album). SteveStrummer (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a confirmation that it will be a single and really nothing other than its charts establish notability. Str8cash (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, even if article is deleted a redirect in its place would be appropriate. I don't see a compelling reason to delete the page history if the end result is the same. Swarm^Talk 07:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a single IJA (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MDX file

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

This article fails to meet Wikipedia General Notability guildeline demand and hence does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. According to article itself, MDX file is non-documented format. If it is non-documented, then what is it doing in Wikipedia? What happened to significant coverage, not to mention reliable secondary sources? Fleet Command (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this format. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 02:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources or significant coverage. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For proprietary file formats, it's common that no public documentation is available; this happens in other industries as well. This does not mean the file format is rarely used, it just means it's not an open let alone free file format. - Simeon (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. And no one here said that. The reason for which we have nominated this article for deletion is entirely different. Fleet Command (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitrina Podilata

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

While this article mentions passingly about discography work, there is no designated discography section on this band article. I guess the band is signed to a record company called MBI, and I check the disambiguation page for this acronym, and none of the pages appear to be about record labels. Before I came across this page, there were details about how two of their songs were prophetic about Greek current events, which is balderdash that shouldn't be on wikipedia (that info has since been removed, though). Oh, and there are no sources. Basically, there is a lack of assertion of notability. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The previous nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitrina podilata (different capitalisation) was closed as no consensus. That was nearly four years ago and still the article issues have not been resolved, so I suspect they aren't going to be. No assertion of notability, no evidence of notability. --Deskford (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has some Google hits but the article is unsourced and doesnt meet WP:Music. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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